United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

November 2010 

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Hi-Grouse Project 

Goosenest Ranger District, Klamath National Forest 

Siskiyou County, California 

Sections 23, 25–28, 32–36, T44N, R2E; Sections 1–4, 9–13, T43N, R2E; Section 31, T44N, 

R3E; Sections 6, 7, and 18, T43N, R3E (Mount Diablo Meridian) 

Left: View of large lodgepole pine 

stand heavily affected by bark 

beetle in the project area 

Right: Lodgepole pine stand viewed 

from Tennant Road #77 

Left: White fir stands viewed from 

Road 44N61 

Publication Number: 

R5-MB-206
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or 

part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply 

to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 

(voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA 

is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hi-Grouse Project

Goosenest Ranger District, Klamath National Forest, Siskiyou County, California

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Patricia Grantham, Forest Supervisor 

1312 Fairlane Road

Yreka, California 96097 

For Information Contact: Wendy Coats, Environmental Coordinator

1312 Fairlane Road

Yreka, California 96097

530-841-4470

Abstract: The Goosenest Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest proposes to treat ponderosa pine

and mixed conifer stands to improve long-term forest health and reduce fuels within the Goosenest 

Adaptive Management Area. 

The Forest Service initially developed four alternatives, including: the no action (alternative 1), the 

proposed action (alternative 2) from public scoping, and two additional alternatives created in response to 

significant issues that were raised during public scoping. Alternative 2 was later dropped from detailed 

study after further analysis showed this alternative would not comply with the Forest Plan (see section 2.4

for the discussion of alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study).

Alternative 4, the modified proposed action and preferred alternative, proposes to improve long-term 

stand health and reduce fuels on 3,847 acres by thinning 2,429 acres of ponderosa pine/white fir stands, 

thinning 970 acres of lodgepole pine stands, thinning 99 acres of plantations, planting 644 acres of tree 

seedlings in gaps within thinned areas, and creating fuel management zones on approximately 300 acres 

along forest highways and roads. Alternative 4 fuels treatments include machine piling of fuels, as 

needed, outside of landing areas. During consultation with USDI Fish and Wildlife, two road segments 

(44N80A and 44N62A) within northern spotted owl critical habitat were identified as a concern. These 

two road segments were previously physically closed (barricaded) from use. Alternative 4 proposes to 

further reduce impacts to late-successional and other species habitat by removing (decommissioning) 

44N80A and 44N62A from the Forest system.

Alternative 3 is similar to alternative 4, except alternative 3 proposes treatment on 3,568 acres, leaving a 

higher basal area post-thinning. When compared to alternative 4, alternative 3 treats 673 acres of the 984-

acre lodgepole stand in the western portion of the planning area. Alternative 3 does not include planting,

machine piling outside of landing areas, or changes to the Forest system roads. See chapter 2 and 

appendix A (maps A-5 and A-6) for detailed discussions of alternatives.

Alternative 4 was identified as the preferred alternative in the draft environmental impact statement

(DEIS). Public and other agency comments on the DEIS are addressed in the Hi-Grouse Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in appendix B.

Final Environmental Impact Statement

S-1

Summary

The Klamath National Forest proposes the Hi-Grouse Project to reduce fuel hazards and manage 

vegetation to restore forest health on about 3,850 acres located in Northern California in the southeast 

portion of the Goosenest Ranger District, Siskiyou County, California. This final environmental impact 

statement (FEIS) considers the environmental effects of thinning and burning on National Forest System 

land (see appendix A for the vicinity map A-1, management area map A-2, and modified proposed action 

map A-6). 

This action is needed to address differences between the existing conditions and the desired conditions

described in the Forest Plan (page 4-131) (USDA Forest Service 1995a) and for the Goosenest Adaptive 

Management Area (pages 6-8 to 6-9) (USDA Forest Service 1996). See FEIS section 1.3 for management 

direction and existing condition descriptions and corresponding map A-3 in appendix A.

Within the project area, white fir stands are overstocked and susceptible to mortality from annosus root

rot; mixed conifer stands are overstocked with dense white fir that are inhibiting the growth and survival 

of high elevation ponderosa pine; a large lodgepole stand has increasing mortality from mountain pine 

beetle and disease; and fuels loadings are high with dense ground and ladder fuels (section 1.3 of FEIS).

The proposed project is designed to improve and maintain sustainable habitat for species associated with 

late-successional forests, promote restoration of historic forest composition and structure, and promote 

restoration of fuels-related historic fire regime (sections 1.5 and 2.2.3 of FEIS). 

A variety of efforts was made to involve the public (section 1.7 of FEIS). Native American representatives

were contacted with a letter (July 24, 2007) that described the project and requested comments. Scoping

letters were sent to representatives from two federally recognized tribes, the Pit River Tribe and the 

Klamath Tribe, resulting in a field trip on September 7, 2007 with members of both tribes. Additional 

Tribal Consultation meetings were held on January 23, 2009, with the Pit River Tribes at the Pit River 

Tribal Council Room in Burney, California; and on January 28, 2009, with the Klamath Tribes at the 

Goosenest Ranger District Office in Macdoel, California. Tribes expressed concerns regarding the need 

for vegetation management, access, and cultural plants; these were considered in the development of 

action alternatives. 

The District consulted with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and conferred with the California Department 

of Fish and Game regarding other species within the project area. District personnel met with a 

representative from the Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center for field visits early in the project 

development stage on July 5, 2006; and later on August 9, 2007, to discuss site specific concerns for the 

Hi-Grouse Project Area. Forest personnel met with representatives from the American Forest Resource 

Council, Sierra Pacific Industries, Siskiyou County, and the California Forestry Association on August 26, 

2008, to discuss forest monitoring and field review the Hi-Grouse Project Area. 

The project was listed in the Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions in July 2008. Scoping letters were 

mailed on December 11, 2008, to individuals, organizations, and other government agencies that had

indicated interest in similar district projects. A notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact 

statement for the project was published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2008(73 FR 77595). 

The notice of availability (NOA) was published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2010 (75 FR 30022),

that began the 45-day comment period of the Hi-Grouse Project DEIS. Seven comments on the DEIS 

were received. The comments, responses, and the full letters are provided in appendix B of the FEIS. 
Hi-Grouse Project

S-2

Issues 

Two issues concerning the proposed activities were identified as significant for this project; this led the 

agency to develop two additional alternatives (section 1.8 of FEIS).

Significant Issue #1

Indicators: Acres treated in nesting, roosting, and/or foraging habitats across the project area and 

basal area maintained within individual stands.

: There is a concern that the proposed activities could remove the best remaining 

wildlife habitat for species associated with late-successional habitat within the project area, specifically 

removing and or altering habitat for northern spotted owl and northern goshawk (e.g., degrade or 

downgrade habitat).

Alternative 3 responds to this significant issue through use of less intensive thinning treatments 

throughout the project area to maintain higher tree densities (basal area) and canopy closure. 

Alternative 4 responds to this significant issue through use of less intensive thinning treatments 

within northern spotted owl and northern goshawk nesting and roosting areas to maintain higher basal 

area and canopy closure. Thinning treatments outside nesting and roosting areas would further reduce 

basal area and canopy closure to improve overall long-term stand health.

Significant Issue #2

Indicators: Acres treated by treatment type.

: There is a disagreement about whether or not a sufficient amount of the lodgepole 

stand is treated to protect values at risk.

Alternative 4 responds to this significant issue by treating the entire lodgepole stand to improve stand 

health and reduce fuel loadings.

Alternatives

The original proposed action from scoping (alternative 2) included ponderosa pine and mixed conifer

restoration and re-establishment treatments which were later determined to remove northern goshawk

(NGH) foraging habitat to levels below Forest Plan standard and guideline 8-20. The original proposed 

action was eliminated from detailed study. 

Alternative 4 incorporated many of the same thinning-from-below treatments as the original proposed 

action; however, the alternative did not include the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer restoration and reestablishment. During consultation with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, two road segments (44N80A

and 44N62A) within northern spotted owl (NSO) critical habitat were identified as a concern. These two 

road segments were previously physically closed (barricaded) from use. Alternative 4 proposes to further 

reduce impacts to late-successional and other species habitat by removing (decommissioning) 44N80A 

and 44N62A from the Forest system. 

Alternative 4 (modified proposed action) was developed to response to both issues 1 and 2 through lighter 

thinning treatments within NSO and NGH nesting and roosting areas, and treatment of the entire diseased 

and dying lodgepole pine stand in the western portion of the project area (section 2.2.3 of FEIS). This 

alternative would authorize approximately 3,850 acres of vegetation treatments across the 7,450-acre 

project area. Variable density thinning (commercial and non-commercial) is proposed for approximately 

2,429 acres of white fir, ponderosa pine/mixed conifer, and red fir stands. These treatments include 

removing clumps of trees creating small openings to improve understory vegetation. Alternative 4 

expanded treatments to improve forest health in lodgepole pine by proposing treatments on the entire 

stand of diseased and dying lodgepole pine trees. The lodgepole pine prescription will thin the overstory 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

S-3

lodgepole pine by removing trees infected with dwarf mistletoe and/or beetles. The existing understory 

will be thinned to promote the healthy trees. Due to the use of whole-tree yarding, machine piling outside 

of landing areas will be uncommon and will only be done in units with heavy accumulations of fuels

(either natural or past treatment-generated) where hand piling would be cost prohibitive. Where possible, 

machine piling outside landing units will be from existing skid or off-trail access and will be limited to 

one pass. Fuel abatement includes pile burning and underburning on about 1,540 acres. Additionally, fuel 

management zones will be created along 13 miles (totaling approximately 480 acres) along Forest Roads 

15 and 77. All applicable project design features will be implemented to mitigate adverse environmental 

impacts from this alternative to forest resources, address project objectives, and comply with the Forest 

Plan (section 2.2.5 of FEIS). 

Alternative 3 was developed in response to significant issue #1 (section 1.8) through use of light thinning

treatments throughout the project area to maintain higher tree densities (basal area) and canopy closure, 

and limits creating openings to areas with greater proportion of ponderosa pine to enhance NGH foraging 

habitat (section 2.2.2 of FEIS). This alternative would authorize approximately 3,568 acres of vegetation 

treatments. It differs from the alternative 4 by the following actions: use of a lighter level of thinningfrom-below throughout the project area and limiting the creation of small openings to only areas with a 

greater proportion of ponderosa pine; approximately 335 fewer acres of thinning-from-below;

approximately 300 fewer acres of lodgepole pine thinning and fuels reduction; no machine piling would 

occur outside landing areas; 0.7 miles of temporary road will be used, and no roads will be removed from 

the Forest system.

Under alternative 1 (no action) no actions would be implemented and the purpose and need of this project 

would not be met. 

The modified proposed action map is located in appendix A, map 6. Larger scale, detailed maps are 

available on request.

Table S-1 compares all the alternatives and lists the fuels treatments associated with each silvicultural 

treatment.

The project is expected to be active over about the next 7 to 10 years, or from the time the decision is 

made to full implementation. See section 2.2.4 and appendix C for descriptions of treatments. 
Hi-Grouse Project

S-4

Table S-1 Comparison of alternatives

Silviculture Treatments1

Fuels Treatments

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Thinning-from-Below (Acres)

Overall Fuels Abatement2

Mowing (Acres)

(Acres)

Underburning (Acres)

Post-Treatment Evaluation of Planting (Acres)

0 2,094

2,094

254

789

0

2,429

2,429

346

1,495

644

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuels Reduction (Acres)

Overall Fuels Abatement2

Mowing (Acres)

(Acres)

0 673

673

428

970

970

728

Plantation Thinning With Overall Fuels Abatement2 (Acres) 0 99 99

Machine Piling Outside of Landing Sites (yes/no) na no yes

Underburning Only (Acres) 0 426 42

Fuel Management Zones3

(Acres Outside Other Treatments)

(Miles/Approximate Acres) 0 13/480 

(300)

13/480

(300)

Total Project Area Acres Proposed For Treatment (Acres) 0 3, 568 3, 847

Transportation Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Construction of Temporary Roads (Miles) 0 0.7 1.3

Temporary Use of Non-System Roads (Miles) 0 1.6 1.9

Haul Use of Existing System Roads (Miles) Maintenance as 

Needed

0 39.2 41.2

Haul Use of Existing Non-System Roads (Miles) Maintenance 

as Needed

0 4.8 5.0

Road Closure of 44N80a and 44N62a (Miles) 0 0 1.5

1

Major Conclusions

Some treatments overlap; e.g., thinning followed with fuels abatement and underburning, FMZs overlap with other treatments.

This project is intended to reduce the potential for damaging wildfire and maintain and restore older forest 

habitat. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are addressed for each resource area potentially affected 

by the project. Resource analysis resulted in the following conclusions (see chapter 3 of FEIS).

Alternative 1 (no action) alternative would lead to increased accumulation of ground fuels which could 

lead to increased high-intensity wildfires in the future.

The action alternatives address the purpose and need for this project and incorporate Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines to meet or move toward meeting the desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan and 

meet related laws and regulations.

Thinning in the action alternatives will reduce tree densities, decreasing stand susceptibility to bark beetle 

infestations. Tree and stand growth would be enhanced while improving long-term understory plant 

diversity (section 3.2.1 of FEIS).Thinning treatments, followed by fuels treatments (mowing, pile and 

underburning) will decrease the hazardous fuels within the project area. The potential for crown fire 

would decrease across about 40 percent of the project area under alternative 3, and decrease across about 

50 percent of the project area under alternative 4. The potential for less damaging surface fire would be 

increased. The fuel management zones would create defensible space for firefighters, and reduce the 

potential for fire to burn into the late successional stands (section 3.2.2 of FEIS).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

S-5

Variability in thinning treatments and project design features, such as no treatment clumps, will continue 

to provide for species cover needs while improving foraging opportunities for many species. The project 

is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed species or Region 5 sensitive species and complies 

with Forest Plan management direction. Management indicator species that prefer late-successional 

habitat would benefit the most from alternative 4, followed by alternative 3, then alternative 1 (section 

3.2.3 of FEIS).

Alternatives 3 and 4 would cause short-term, low-intensity adverse effects to scenery in foreground views 

during project activities. Scenic character attribute changes would improve scenic stability under the 

action alternatives over the long term (section 3.4.3 of FEIS).

Under alternatives 3 and 4 temporary roads would be closed after use. Access to the project area for 

Forest visitors would be maintained on the open road system.. Alternative 4 includes closure of the 

approximate 1.5 miles of spur roads, 44N80A and 44N62A, and would not affect the overall access to the 

project area for Forest visitors (section 3.4.4 of FEIS).

Effects Related to the Significant Issues and Project Purpose and Need

Following is a brief summary of the effects as related to the significant issues and purpose and needs 

identified for the Hi-Grouse Project (section 2.6 of FEIS). Tables S-2 and S-3 summarize effects related to 

significant issue #1 and the purpose and need to improve and maintain habitat for species associated with 

late-successional forests. 

Significant Issue #1

Indicators: Acres treated in nesting, roosting, and/or foraging habitats across the project area and 

basal area maintained within individual stands.

: There is a concern that the proposed activities could remove the best remaining 

wildlife habitat for species associated with late-successional habitat within the project area, specifically 

removing and or altering habitat for northern spotted owl and northern goshawk (e.g., degrade or 

downgrade habitat).

Alternative 3 responds to this significant issue through use of less intensive thinning treatments 

throughout the project area that would maintain higher tree densities (basal area) and canopy closure. 

Alternative 4 responds to this significant issue through use of less intensive thinning treatments 

within northern spotted owl and northern goshawk nesting and roosting areas to maintain higher basal 

area and canopy closure. Thinning treatments outside nesting and roosting areas would further reduce 

basal area and canopy closure to improve overall long-term stand health.

Alternatives 3 and 4 avoid treatment in the higher quality NSO and NGH nesting and roosting habitat.

Some low quality NSO nesting and roosting habitat would be treated with a light thinning that would 

essentially maintain the existing canopy cover and 180 square feet of basal area per acre. Also, some NSO

nesting and roosting habitat in red fir would have hand thinning of understory trees followed by 

underburning.

In alternative 3 light thinning would maintain, but degrade, some NSO foraging habitat. In alternative 4 

thinning in NSO foraging habitat would cause degradation or downgrading of NSO foraging habitat in 

white fir/ponderosa pine units with more intensive thinning treatments. These thinning treatments may 

reduce canopy cover slightly below 40 percent in the short term, but would also improve some aspects of 

foraging by allowing owls to maneuver better through stands that are currently very dense.
Hi-Grouse Project

S-6

The determination for NSO under both alternatives 3 and 4 is: may affect, but not likely to adversely 

affect NSO; and may affect, and not likely to adversely affect NSO Critical Habitat.

Table S-2 displays the amounts of habitat by alternative for the NSO Activity Center KL-3201, the 0.5-

mile core area, and the 1.3-mile home range area. See section 3.2.3 of FEIS for analysis discussion of 

NSO.

Table S-2. Effects of alternatives on NSO habitat within KL-3201 Activity Center

Habitat

Existing Acres 

Habitat

Acres Habitat 

Degraded

Acres of Habitat 

Downgraded

Acres of Habitat 

Removed

Post Treatment 

Acres Habitat

0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Nesting/

Roosting

297 223 0 0 0 0 0 0 297 223

Foraging 166 2,005 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 2,005

Dispersal 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Alternative 3

Nesting/

Roosting

297 223 2 74 0 0 0.5 0.5 297* 223*

Foraging 166 2,005 46 556 0 0 0.5 6 166* 1,999

Dispersal 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Alternative 4 (Modified Proposed Action)

Nesting/

Roosting

297 223 2 74 0 0 0.5 0.5 296.5 222.5

Foraging 166 2,005 46 416 0 0 0 129 166 1,876

Dispersal 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

* 0.5 acres of habitat removed from landing, rounding does not show change.

There are five NGH territories that may be affected by project activities. Table S-3 displays the amounts 

of habitat by alternative for the five NGH territories that overlap the project area. See section 3.2.3.4 of 

FEIS for full analysis discussion of NGH.

Alternative 3 would maintain the existing amount of nesting and foraging habitat available to NGH across 

the project area in the short term and would comply with Forest Plan S&G 8-20. Habitat quality in the 

treated stands would be reduced in the short term. Treatments proposed would reduce the incidence of 

insect and disease mortality, reduce crown fire potential by 40 percent, prevent rapid future fuel build-up 

for approximately 20 years, and allow the reintroduction of fire within the treated areas. Over the long 

term, many of the untreated densely spaced stands that are currently infected with root disease and pine 

and fir engraver beetles would be expected to decline to the point that they would no longer provide 

habitat for NGH.

Habitat quality of nesting and foraging habitat for NGH would be reduced in four of the five territories 

and across the project area in the short term and would comply with Forest Plan S&G 8-20. 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 would allow for management

reintroduction of fire within the treated areas. By reducing the risk of a stand-replacement fire within the 

project area and within NGH territories, thinning, fuel treatment zones, and underburning treatments 

proposed under alternative 4 should benefit NGH over the long term.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

S-7

The determination for both alternatives 3 and 4 is: may impact individual goshawks but would not 

likely result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability. 

Table S-3. Summary of changes to goshawk foraging habitat by territory and alternative

Territory 

(Alternative)

Primary Nest Zone (PNZ) Foraging Area (FA)

Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat Nesting/Foraging Non-Habitat

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Rainbow

Alt 1 Existing 90 18 222 44 192 38 714 47 794 53

Alt 3 Post-treatment 90 18 222 44 192 38 714 47 795 53

Alt 4 Post-treatment 92 18 220 44 192 38 714 47 795 53

Red Cap

Alt 1 Existing 193 38 184 36 127 25 612 40 896 60

Alt 3 Post-treatment 193 38 184 36 127 25 612 40 896 60

Alt 4 Post-treatment 193 38 184 36 127 25 612 40 896 60

Davis

Alt 1 Existing 256 51 238 47 10 2 1,215 81 293 19

Alt 3 Post-treatment 256 51 238 47 10 2 1,215 81 344 23

Alt 4 Post-treatment 264 52 230 46 10 2 1,026 68 482 32

Hi Ridge

Alt 1 Existing 324 64 114 23 65 13 1,265 84 242 16

Alt 3 Post-treatment 324 64 114 23 65 13 1,265 84 243 16

Alt 4 Post-treatment 324 64 114 23 65 13 1,231 82 277 18

West Grouse

Alt 1 Existing 322 64 63 13 117 23 1,191 79 317 21

Alt 3 Post-treatment 322 64 63 13 117 23 1,191 79 317 21

Alt 4 Post-treatment 312 62 63 13 127 25 1,143 76 365 24

Significant Issue #2

Indicators: Acres treated by treatment type.

: There is disagreement about whether or not a sufficient amount of the lodgepole 

stand is treated to protect values at risk.

Alternative 4 responds to this significant issue by treating the entire lodgepole stand to improve stand 

health and reduce fuel loadings.

Alternative 3 would treat approximately two-thirds (673 acres) of the of the beetle-killed lodgepole pine

area on the west side of the Hi-Grouse Project Area. Alternative 4 would treat essentially all of the beetlekilled lodgepole pine area (984 acres). Treatments are designed to reduce fuel loadings from the mortality 

and promote a stand composition of healthy small trees that would be more resilient to the mountain pine 

beetle in the future.

Table S-4 summarizes the alternative effects related to purpose and needs of forest composition and 

structure, and fuels-related historic fire regime needs.
Hi-Grouse Project

S-8

Table S-4. Summary of alternative effects related to forest composition and structure and fuels-related 

historic fire regime

Purpose and Need Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Promote restoration of historic forest composition and structure

Decrease stand density over most of the 

project area

No change 3,568 acres 3,847 acres

Increase proportion of ponderosa pine, sugar 

pine, and white pine on suitable sites to mimic 

historical stand conditions

No change No planting Plant up to 644 

acres PP/MC where 

needed

Release understory in lodgepole pine stands 

to increase stand diversity and remove dead 

and dying trees to reduce current and future 

fuels

No change 673 acres 970 acres

Increase stand diversity to enhance overall 

vegetative diversity

No change Increases through 

thinning and 

lodgepole thinning

Increases through 

thinning, lodgepole 

thinning, planting 

pine, and small 

openings within 

thinning treatments

Maintain aesthetic values No change Yes Yes

Identify appropriate monitoring No change Yes Yes

Promote restoration of fuels-related historic fire regime

Mimic natural processes through 

management actions to promote healthy 

ecological conditions and replicate the role of 

natural disturbances

No change Thinning and use of 

prescribed burning

Thinning with 

openings, interplanting PP/MC, and 

use of prescribed 

burning

Treat heavy fuel loadings to reduce the threat 

of stand-replacing wildfire, protect old forest 

habitat components in the project area, and

provide for firefighter safety

No change 3,568 acres, 

including 13 miles 

FMZ

3,847 acres,

including 13 miles

FMZ

The FEIS is not a decision document; it discloses the environmental consequences of implementing 

action alternatives or no action at this time. Based upon the effect of the alternatives, the responsible 

official will decide on the following main points: 

• Whether or not to implement the treatments as described.

• Whether or not to implement the treatment of activity fuels (created through vegetation management 

or natural fuels).

• Whether or not to construct temporary road spurs to implement the above actions.

In addition to deciding whether or not the above activities occur, the responsible official will also choose 

the degree to which (if at all) activities are implemented. The final decision will be based on the 

information in this document and the supplementary information contained in the project record, 

consideration of public comments, how well the selected alternative meets the purpose and need for the 

project, and whether the selected alternative complies with agency policy, applicable State and federal 

laws, and Forest Plan direction (section 3.9 of FEIS). 

Alternative 4, the modified proposed action, has been identified as the preferred alternative for the HiGrouse Project.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

S-9

Summary of Changes from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Based on comments received on the DEIS from the public and other agencies (see appendix B) 

clarification, additional information, or corrections were made for the FEIS. Changes made to the FEIS 

include the following:

• Updates to section 1.7 and appendix B to incorporate notice of availability and comments on the 

DEIS.

• Clarification of noxious weed monitoring in section 2.3 to incorporate the Klamath National Forest 

efforts in implementing the objectives from the Northern Province Strategy for monitoring areas for 

noxious weeds. 

• Adding updated road density information into section 3.2.3.8 to incorporate the decision from the 

Klamath National Forest Motorized Travel Management, signed August 13, 2010.

• Correction of the no action effects information disclosed at 3.2.5.2 for noxious weed cumulative 

effects.

• Additional information from the Air Quality Report added to section 3.4.6 to clarify emission sources.

• Adding section 4.1.4 with list of agencies, organizations, and individuals sent the DEIS documents.

• Adding appendix E with a narrative listing of projects considered for cumulative effects. 

• Correction of minor typos and citations.

Final Environmental Impact Statement

i

Table of Contents

Summary .......................................................................................................................................................1

Abbreviations and Acronyms........................................................................................................................v

Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action ...............................................................................................1

1.1 Document Structure.........................................................................................................................1

1.2 Background .....................................................................................................................................1

1.3 Management Direction....................................................................................................................2

1.3.1 White Fir/Ponderosa Pine Community....................................................................................3

1.3.2 Mixed Conifer .........................................................................................................................4

1.3.3 Lodgepole Pine........................................................................................................................5

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action ..........................................................................................................5

1.5 Proposed Action as Scoped .............................................................................................................6

1.6 Decision Framework .......................................................................................................................7

1.7 Public Involvement..........................................................................................................................7

1.8 Issues...............................................................................................................................................8

Chapter 2 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................11

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................11

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail .................................................................................................11

2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)......................................................................................................11

2.2.2 Alternative 3..........................................................................................................................11

2.2.3 Alternative 4 (Modified Proposed Action)............................................................................12

2.2.4 Treatment Descriptions .........................................................................................................14

2.2.5 Project Design Features.........................................................................................................17

2.3 Monitoring.....................................................................................................................................24

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ......................................................25

2.4.1 Proposed Action from Scoping .............................................................................................25

2.4.2 Avoid Root Disease Areas ....................................................................................................26

2.4.3 No Temporary Roads ............................................................................................................26

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives...........................................................................................................27

2.6 Effects Related to the Significant Issues and Project Purpose and Need ......................................28

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.....................................................33

3.1 Analyzing Environmental Consequences......................................................................................33

3.1.1 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects...............................................................................33

3.2 Biological Environment ................................................................................................................35

3.2.1 Forest Vegetation ..................................................................................................................35

3.2.2 Fuels......................................................................................................................................44

3.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife ................................................................................................................55

3.2.4 Fish and Aquatic Habitat.......................................................................................................86

3.2.5 Botany ...................................................................................................................................86
Hi-Grouse Project

ii

3.3 Physical Environment................................................................................................................... 89

3.3.1 Soil Resource........................................................................................................................ 89

3.3.2 Hydrologic Resource............................................................................................................ 92

3.3.3 Geologic Resource................................................................................................................ 96

3.4 Social Environment ...................................................................................................................... 98

3.4.1 Social-Economic .................................................................................................................. 99

3.4.2 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................ 102

3.4.3 Scenery ............................................................................................................................... 104

3.4.4 Recreation........................................................................................................................... 115

3.4.5 Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................. 116

3.4.6 Air Quality.......................................................................................................................... 117

3.5 Climate Change .......................................................................................................................... 121

3.6 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ............................................................................ 121

3.7 Unavoidable Adverse Effects..................................................................................................... 122

3.8 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources......................................................... 122

3.9 Other Required Disclosures........................................................................................................ 122

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination............................................................................................ 125

4.1 Preparers, Contributors, and Distribution................................................................................... 125

4.1.1 ID Team Members.............................................................................................................. 125

4.1.2 Forest Reviewers................................................................................................................ 126

4.1.3 Consultation........................................................................................................................ 126

4.1.4 Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Sent Notice of the Availability of the DEIS 

Documents................................................................................................................................... 126

References................................................................................................................................................ 129

Index......................................................................................................................................................... 137

List of Tables

Table S-1 Comparison of alternatives.......................................................................................................... 4

Table S-2. Effects of alternatives on NSO habitat within KL-3201 Activity Center................................... 6

Table S-3. Summary of changes to goshawk foraging habitat by territory and alternative ......................... 7

Table S-4. Summary of alternative effects related to forest composition and structure and fuels-related 

historic fire regime ............................................................................................................................... 8

Table 1.3-1. Management areas.................................................................................................................... 3

Table 1.5-1. Scoping proposed treatments................................................................................................... 7

Table 2.2-1. Treatment acreage under alternative 3 ................................................................................... 12

Table 2.2-2. Treatment acreage under alternative 4 ................................................................................... 14

Table 2.2-3. Project design features for alternatives 3 and 4...................................................................... 18

Table 2.5-1. Summary of alternatives ........................................................................................................ 27

Table 2.6-1. Effects of alternatives on NSO habitat within KL-3201 Activity Center .............................. 29

Table 2.6-2. Summary of changes to goshawk foraging habitat by territory and alternative..................... 30
Final Environmental Impact Statement

iii

Table 2.6-3. Summary of alternative effects related to the purpose and needs of forest composition and 

structure and fuels-related historic fire regime....................................................................................31

Table 3.2-1. Current and projected basal area for alternative 3 treatments.................................................41

Table 3.2-2. Current and projected canopy cover for alternative 3 treatments ...........................................41

Table 3.2-3. Current and projected basal area for alternative 4 treatments.................................................43

Table 3.2-4. Current and projected canopy cover for alternative 4 treatments ...........................................43

Table 3.2-5. Current distribution of fire behavior fuel models in the Hi-Grouse Planning Area................47

Table 3.2-6. Current fire behavior characteristics in the major fuel models...............................................48

Table 3.2-7. Crown fire activity and burn probability within NSO nesting/roosting and northern goshawk 

nesting habitat......................................................................................................................................49

Table 3.2-8. Alternative 3 fire behavior characteristics in the major fuel models ......................................50

Table 3.2-9. Alternative 3 crown fire activity and burn probability within NSO nesting/roosting and 

northern goshawk nesting habitat........................................................................................................51

Table 3.2-10. Alternative 4 fire behavior characteristics in the major fuel models ....................................52

Table 3.2-11. Alternative 4 crown fire activity and burn probability within NSO nesting/roosting and 

northern goshawk nesting habitat........................................................................................................53

Table 3.2-12. Crown fire activity and burn probability within NSO nesting/roosting and northern goshawk 

nesting habitat for all alternatives........................................................................................................54

Table 3.2-13. Summary of species considered and their determination or findings of effects ...................58

Table 3.2-14. Acres/percent of available late-successional/old growth habitat (LSOG) in the 5th-field 

watershed.............................................................................................................................................61

Table 3.2-15. Suitable habitat that exists within the core of Activity Center KL-3201 ..............................61

Table 3.2-16. Existing habitat within the KL-3201 home range (excluding the core area) ........................61

Table 3.2-17. Total combined suitable habitat that exists within the 1.3 mile (3,398 acre) home range of 

KL-3201 ..............................................................................................................................................62

Table 3.2-18. Existing NSO habitat in Critical Habitat Subunit 67 within the Hi-Grouse Project Area ....62

Table 3.2-19. Existed amount of goshawk habitat by territory ...................................................................72

Table 3.2-20. Species associations and MIS that may be affected by project activities .............................78

Table 3.2-21. Habitat strata within the Hi-Grouse Project Area .................................................................78

Table 3.2-22. Cover and forage for the fawning areas and the project area portions of fawning areas......84

Table 3.4-1. Alternatives 3 and 4 approximate volumes, and harvest costs by logging system ...............101

Table 3.4-2. Alternatives 3 and 4—Present net value summary ...............................................................101

Table 3.4-3. Alternatives 3 and 4—Jobs, income, and payment to county ...............................................102

Table 3.4-4. Visual quality objectives and perceived alternation..............................................................106

Table 3.4-5. Comparison of effects for scenic integrity/Forest Plan VQO and scenic stability................114

List of Figures

Figure 3.2-1. Burn probability by alternative..............................................................................................54

Figure 3.4-1. Departure from historic vegetation conditions within the project area (FRCC 2006).........111

Figure 3.4-2. Departure from historic wildfire return interval within the project area (FRCC 2006).......112
Hi-Grouse Project

iv

Appendices

Appendix A: Maps

Appendix B: Public Involvement

Appendix C: Detailed Prescriptions

Appendix D: Hi-Grouse Best Management Practices

Appendix E: Actions Considered for Cumulative Effects
Final Environmental Impact Statement

v

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Ac acres

AMA adaptive management area

AQMD air quality management district

BA biological assessment

BE biological evaluation

BMP best management practices

CA California

CANSAC California and Nevada Smoke and Air Consortium

CARB California Air Resource Board

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

ch/hr chains per hour 

CO2 carbon dioxide

CWD coarse wood debris

CWE cumulative watershed effects

dbh diameter breast height

DEIS draft environmental impact statement

EIS environmental impact statement

ERC energy release component

FACTS Forest Service Activity Tracking System

FEIS final environmental impact statement

FFE Fire Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator model

FMZ fuel management zone

FOFEM First Order Fire Effects Model

FSVeg Forest Service vegetation database

ft feet

FVS Forest Vegetation Simulator model

GHGs green house gases

GIS geographic information system

GS# Grass-shrub fire model input (1 or 2)

GTR general technical report

HUC hydrologic unit code

ICEMP Interior Columbia Basin Project

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

KNF Klamath National Forest

LRMP land and resource management plan (Forest Plan)

LSR late-successional reserve

MA management area

mi miles

MLH Medicine Lake Highlands

MOU memorandum of understanding

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFS National Forest System

NGH northern goshawk
Hi-Grouse Project

vi

NMFA National Forest Management Act

NMHC non-methane hydrocarbons

NNIS nonnative invasive species

NOI notice of intent

NOx nitrogen oxides

NSO northern spotted owl

NSO-F northern spotted owl foraging habitat

NSO-NR northern spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat

OHV off-highway vehicle

OR Oregon

PILT payment in lieu of taxes

PM# particulate matter less than 2.5 microns or less than 10 microns

ppm parts per million

PSW Pacific Southwest

R5 Region 5 of the Forest Service (California)

ROS recreation opportunity spectrum

S&G standards and guidelines

SCAPCD Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District

SQAS soil quality analysis standards

TL timber litter fuel model

TOC threshold of concern

TU# timber understory fuel model input (1-8)

UMZ upper management zone

USC United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of Interior

USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service

VOCs volatile organic carbons

VQO visual quality objectives
Final Environmental Impact Statement

1

Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action

1.1 Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws 

and regulations. This FEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts 

that would result from the alternatives. The document is organized as described below. 

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action. The chapter includes information on the project

background, the purpose of and need for the project, and the Agency’s general proposal for 

achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the 

public of the proposal and how the public responded. 

Chapter 2. Alternatives. This chapter provides a more detailed description of the Agency’s 

modified proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These 

alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. 

This discussion also includes project design features applicable to alternatives. This chapter also 

provides a comparison of environmental consequences associated with each alternative. 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. This chapter describes 

the current condition of the project (affected environment) and environmental effects of 

implementing the action alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. 

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination. This chapter provides a list of preparers and 

agencies consulted during the development of the FEIS. 

References. This section lists the documents cited in the preparation of this FEIS. 

Index. The index provides page numbers for selected items of interest.

Appendices. The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses 

presented in the FEIS.

Supporting documentation, including resource reports are incorporated by reference, and located

in the project available at the Goosenest Ranger District office in Macdoel, California. Most 

specialist reports are located on the Klamath website for your convenience at: 

www.fs.usda.gov/klamath (this link will take you to at the Forest webpage. From menu on the 

left side of the webpage, click on “Land & Resources Management”; then click on “Projects”; 

scroll down webpage to Hi-Grouse.)

1.2 Background

The Klamath National Forest (the Forest or KNF) initially proposed to treat approximately 5,085

acres in Siskiyou County in northern California. The proposed action has since been modified to 

treat approximately 3,850 acres. Please see a Chapter 2 for a more detailed of the proposed 

action (section 2.4.1) and modified proposed action (section 2.2.3). The Hi-Grouse Project Area 

covers approximately 7,450 acres and is located in the southeast portion of the Goosenest Ranger 

District, approximately 15 miles southeast of Macdoel, California. The Four Corners 

snowmobile trailhead is located just north of the project area. The legal description for the 
Hi-Grouse Project

2

project area is all or portions of: Township (T) 44 North (N), Range (R) 2 East (E), sections 23, 

25–28, 32–36; T43N, R2E, sections 1–4, 9–13; T44N, R3E, section 31; T43N, R3E, sections 6, 

7, and 18; Mount Diablo Meridian, Siskiyou County, California (see map A-1, appendix A). 

Note: All acreage and mileage figures in this document are approximate.

Over the past 100 years, railroads, livestock grazing, fire suppression, and logging have 

influenced forest conditions throughout northeastern California, including the project area

(USDA Forest Service 1996). Changes from historic forest species composition, stand density, 

and disturbance regimes are common throughout the Goosenest Ranger District as documented 

in the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area Ecosystem Analysis (Ritchie 2005). The project 

area also falls within the Medicine Lake Highlands Plan area, which addresses visual and 

cultural concerns (USDA Forest Service 2007a).

Early logging removed mostly large pines, and left white fir. The removal of pine seed sources, 

combined with livestock grazing and post-logging fires, created ideal conditions for germination 

of true firs, which then became established and grew during the relatively wet early half of the 

20th

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) analysis, a vegetation model used to compare historic and 

current fire conditions, shows almost all of the project area has missed several fire cycles, a 

severe departure from the historic fire return intervals (USDA Forest Service 2006a). There are 

now more trees, more fuels on the ground, and more continuity between surface fuels and forest 

canopy. Mortality is more common in some tree species, which adds to fuel loading. Forests 

were once self-sustaining, having more extensive and frequent lower intensity understory fire, 

and a healthier forest composition and structure (Ritchie 2005). FRCC will be discussed in 

further detail in chapter 3, Fuels, section 3.2.1.

century. Selective logging within true fir types leads to the introduction and spread of 

Heterobasidion annosum root disease (abbreviated as “annosus”), which is now a major factor 

negatively impacting stand health. Insect and disease-related mortality is occurring in true fir and 

ponderosa pine stands. Mature lodgepole pine stands are experiencing heavy stand-replacing 

mortality due to the mountain pine beetle and natural mortality due to age. The high beetle 

populations are now infesting ponderosa pine within the white fir-pine type. 

1.3 Management Direction

National Forest management is guided by various laws, regulations, and policies that provide the 

framework for all levels of planning. These include (but are not limited to): Klamath National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) of 1995, as amended (includes 

standards and guidelines from the Northwest Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 1995a); 

Goosenest Adaptive Management Area (AMA) (USDA Forest Service 1996); section 7(a)(1) of 

the Endangered Species Act; Clean Water Act; and Clean Air Act.

The Forest Plan provides guidance for managing national forest system lands. Guidance from the 

Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (April 13, 1994) is 

incorporated in the Forest Plan. The actions proposed in this project are designed to be consistent 

with the Forest Plan, including all plan amendments currently in effect.

The Forest Plan provides two types of management direction, Forest-wide direction and 

management area (MA) direction. Forest-wide direction, which applies to all MAs, is located on 

pages 4-3–4-66. (Note: All page references in this document refer to the version of the Forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

3

Plan that includes all amendments as of August 15, 2007; this version can be found at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/klamath/projects/forestmanagement/forestplan/index.shtml.)

Table 1.3-1 lists the MAs and acres found within the project boundary and relevant goals by MA

as described in the Forest Plan. There are no riparian reserves present in the project area (see 

map A-2, appendix A). The entire project area lies within the Goosenest AMA. MAs included 

within the project area include general forest, partial retention visual quality objective, special 

habitat late-successional reserve (LSR), and special interest areas. 

Table 1.3-1. Management areas

Management Area 

(Acres)

Pages 

in 

Forest 

Plan Goals Pertinent to This Proposal

General Forest–17

(4,653 acres)

4-177–

4-180

Provide a programmed, non-declining flow of timber products, 

sustainable through time. Maintain conifer stocking levels and 

high-growth rates commensurate with the capability of the site 

to produce fiber. Intensively manage young regenerated stands 

to maximize growth potential. Maintain stand health, as well as 

resilience to wildland fire, insects, disease, and other damage.

Partial Retention Visual 

Quality–15

(2,574 acres)

4-126–

4-127

Provide attractive, forested landscapes where management 

activities remain visually subordinate to the character of the 

landscape. Manage for a sustained yield of wood products in 

areas capable for timber production. Maintain stand health, as 

well as resilience to wildland fire, insect, disease, and other 

damage.

Special Habitat LateSuccessional Reserve–5

(152 acres)

4-84–

4-89

Protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and oldgrowth forest ecosystems which serve as habitat for latesuccessional and old-growth species including the NSO.

Special Interest Area–7;

Little Glass Mountain

(71 acres)

4-97–

4-100

Manage for ecological processes and the unique features for 

which the area was designated. The obsidian flow is the 

significance in the Little Glass Mountain area.

Goosenest Adaptive 

Management Area

(7,450 acres)

Development of ecosystem management approaches, including 

use of prescribed burning and other silvicultural techniques, for 

management of pine forests, including objectives related to 

forest health, production and maintenance of late-successional 

forest and riparian habitat, and commercial timber production 

(NWFP Standard & Guideline D-14). 

1.3.1 White Fir/Ponderosa Pine Community

Desired Condition: Pine-dominated stands that would withstand endemic levels of insects and 

disease and would be resilient after wildfire. White fir would be a small component of the stands 

and would generally be found in moist pockets on north-facing slopes (USDA Forest Service 

1995a, pages 4-133, 4-134; 1996, page 6-8, numbers 19 through 22).

Existing Condition: White fir has grown-in densely in stands once dominated by ponderosa 

pine (see map A-3, appendix A). Stands now dominated by white fir are too dense to support 

healthy ponderosa pine. Much of the ponderosa pines have been killed by active bark beetle 

infestations, and the remaining pine is highly susceptible to insect attack. The S-type of annosus

root disease infested several of the stands, putting them at risk for further mortality from this 
Hi-Grouse Project

4

disease. Snags along travelways may create hazardous conditions and as dead trees fall they 

create heavy fuel loadings.

Need for Change: To provide for long-term forest health and long-lived species, white fir needs 

to be significantly reduced. Areas with extensive pine mortality may need to be planted with pine 

to achieve the desired condition. Fuel treatments, including whole-tree yarding, biomass 

removal, lopping and scattering, piling and burning, underburning, and creating fuel 

management zones (FMZs), are methods to reduce heavy fuel loadings. These methods are 

described in chapter 2. 

1.3.2 Mixed Conifer

Desired Condition: Although not dominant, ponderosa pine would be a significant and 

sustainable component. These stands would have a diverse assortment of diameter and age 

classes, high structural diversity, and old growth characteristics. Northern spotted owl (NSO) and

northern goshawk (NGH) would have ample habitat. Small openings would provide for 

understory vegetation. These stands would be able to withstand endemic levels of insects and 

disease. The threat of stand-replacing wildfires would be reduced and localized fuel conditions 

improved due to surrounding fuels treatments (USDA Forest Service 1995a, pages 4-133, 4-134; 

1996, pages 6-8 to 6-9, numbers 20, 22, 25 and 27). 

Existing Condition: Many of these stands are overstocked, with white fir competition having a 

negative impact on the growth and survival of high elevation ponderosa pine. Many stands are 

growing in such dense conditions that individual tree diameter growth has been slowed and 

stands are less able to withstand endemic levels of insects and disease. Trees are unable to 

develop large primary limbs and full crowns. These conditions have resulted in a loss of 

important habitat features for NSO and NGH. Fuel loadings are extremely high and more ground 

and ladder fuels are present where there is mortality within the white fir. These conditions have 

resulted in an increased fire hazard (see map A-3, appendix A).

Need for Change: Overall stand density needs to be reduced to sustainable levels to improve 

tree survival and growth and to decrease susceptibility to endemic levels of insect and disease. 

Existing white fir/pine stand condition
Final Environmental Impact Statement

5

Future NSO and NGH nesting and foraging habitat needs to be developed in younger stands. 

Small openings are needed in dense stands to promote understory vegetation. Culturing around 

trees is needed to create future habitat features such as large primary limbs and full crowns. To 

improve the survival and growth of existing ponderosa pine, white fir needs to be removed in 

and around pockets of ponderosa pine. Fuel treatments are needed to reduce heavy fuel loadings 

and associated fire hazard. These methods are described in detail in chapter 2.

1.3.3 Lodgepole Pine

Desired Condition: Young, resilient, and overall healthy trees are desired in lodgepole stands. 

Forest species diversity would be present within existing lodgepole stands, including white fir, 

ponderosa pine, and aspen trees. When 

wildfires occur, conditions would reduce risk 

to firefighters and increase the chance of 

containment (USDA Forest Service 1995a, 

pages 4-133, 4-134; 1996, pages 6-8 to 6-9, 

numbers 21, 22 and 26).

Existing Condition: Lodgepole-dominated 

stands are dense and growth has stagnated. 

Mortality is increasing within these mature 

stands from disease and beetle attacks. The 

stands have reached their natural life span 

and are prone to continued morality and 

stand structure deterioration. These stands 

have heavy fuels near areas with valuable 

wildlife habitat. Mixed among some of the 

lodgepole are individual trees and pockets of 

ponderosa pine, white fir, and aspen (see 

map A-3, appendix A).

Need for Change: Dead and dying trees 

need to be removed to decrease fire hazard.

Biomass entries may be necessary to reduce 

the residual densities. To promote the 

expansion of aspen in existing aspen stands, 

adjacent competing conifers need to be 

removed. Fuel treatments, including wholetree yarding, biomass removal, lopping and 

scattering, piling and burning, underburning, and creating FMZs, are methods to reduce heavy 

fuel loadings. These methods are described in chapter 2. 

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action

The interdisciplinary team compared the desired conditions described in the Forest Plan with the 

existing condition in the project area and identified several resource conditions that indicated 

needs for change in the project area. There are three main categories to the purpose and need for 

this project, each with several components; these are:

Existing lodgepole pine stand condition
Hi-Grouse Project

6

Improve and maintain habitat for species associated with late-successional forests.

• Maintain sustainable owl habitat elements in the Goosenest AMA and the LSR MAs by 

promoting resiliency to fire, insect, and disease on the landscape, and by culturing young 

trees to increase growth and crowns for future suitable habitat.

Promote restoration of historic forest composition and structure

• Decrease stand density over most of the project area to reduce disease and insects to endemic 

levels, and provide for resilient stocking levels of desired species.

• Increase the proportion of ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and white pine on suitable sites to 

mimic historical stand conditions. 

• Release understory in lodgepole pine stands to increase stand diversity and remove dead and 

soon-to-be dead trees to reduce current and future fuel accumulations.

• Increase stand diversity to enhance overall vegetative diversity. 

• Maintain aesthetic values, especially along sensitive routes and areas seen from high places.

• Identify appropriate monitoring (learning) objectives related to project activities in line with 

the Goosenest AMA.

Promote restoration of fuels-related historic fire regime

• Mimic natural processes through management actions to promote healthy ecological 

conditions and replicate the role of natural disturbances.

• Treat heavy fuel loadings to reduce the threat of stand-replacing wildfire, protect older forest 

habitat components in the project area, and provide for firefighter safety. 

1.5 Proposed Action as Scoped

The Goosenest Ranger District of the KNF initially proposed to restore ponderosa pine and 

mixed conifers, thin, and use fuel reduction techniques on approximately 5,085 acres within the 

Goosenest AMA. The project was designed to address the purpose and need components and 

move towards the desired conditions while meeting plan standards and guidelines. This project 

involves altering stand density, structure, and species composition, and the abatement of fuels

generated from proposed activities as well as treatment of pre-existing fuel accumulations. The 

following paragraph notes the treatment activities included in the initial proposed action. Many 

fuels treatments overlap within any given silvicultural treatment. For example, thinning may be 

followed by both fuels abatement and underburning; and FMZs may overlap other treatments. 

The initial proposal scoped is summarized in table 1.5-1. Silvicultural treatments included 

thinning-from-below, ponderosa pine/mixed conifer restoration and re-establishment, and 

lodgepole pine thinning. The overall fuels abatement prescriptions included whole-tree yarding, 

biomass removal, lopping and scattering, piling and burning, underburning, and mowing. Less 

than 1 mile of new temporary road was proposed with the remaining access provided by existing 

roads. No new system roads were proposed. Monitoring to ensure proper project implementation 

was also planned (see map A-4, appendix A).

After scoping, it was discovered the proposed action as noted in the scoping document would not 

meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the NGH. The proposed action was modified as 

discussed in chapter 2 (see sections 2.2.3 and 2.4).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

7

Table 1.5-1. Scoping proposed treatments

Silviculture Treatments

Fuels Treatments 

1

Acres/Miles

Thinning-from-Below (acres)

Overall Fuels Abatement2

Mowing (acres)

(acres)

Underburning (acres)

Post-treatment Evaluation of Planting (acres)

2,682

2,497

309

1,742

757

Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer Restoration and Re-establishment (acres)

Overall Fuels Abatement2

Mowing (acres)

(acres)

Underburning (acres)

Post-treatment Evaluation of Planting (acres)

1,375

1,375

107

939

1,188

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuels Reduction (acres)

Overall Fuels Abatement2

Mowing (acres)

(acres)

683

683

428

Plantation Thinning (acres)

Overall Fuels Abatement

99 2 99

Machine Piling (Outside Landing Areas) (Yes/No) Yes

Underburning Only (acres) 42

Fuel Management Zones3 Miles (area acres) 13(480)

Total Project Area Acres Proposed for Treatment 5,085

Transportation

Construction of Temporary Roads (miles) 0.75

Temporary Use of Non-system Roads (miles) 3.0 1 Some treatments overlap; e.g., thinning followed with fuels abatement and underburning, FMZs overlap with other 

treatments. 2 Overall fuels abatement includes whole-tree yarding, pile and burning, lop and scatter, and biomass removal treatment 

options. 3

1.6 Decision Framework

Mileage is approximate; proposed FMZs would be along Forest System Roads 15, 77, 44N84, 44N77, 44N75, and 

44N75D.

The responsible official for this project is Patricia A. Grantham, Forest Supervisor for the 

Klamath National Forest. This EIS is not a decision document; it discloses the environmental 

consequences of implementing action alternatives or no action at this time. 

Within the record of decision, the responsible official will determine whether to implement the 

modified proposed action, an alternative to the modified proposed action, or choose no action 

(Alternative 1) at this time. The final decision will be based on the information in this document 

and the supplementary information contained in the project record, consideration of public 

comments, how well the selected alternative meets the purpose and need for the project, and 

whether the selected alternative complies with agency policy, applicable state and federal laws, 

and Forest Plan direction.

1.7 Public Involvement

Public participation helps the Forest Service identify concerns with possible effects and 

alternatives to its proposals. Opportunities to provide comments regarding this proposed project 

were made available through the process outlined below.
Hi-Grouse Project

8

• On July 5, 2006, during the very early development phase for the project, a representative 

from the Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center visited the site with Goosenest Ranger District 

employees.

• On July 24, 2007, letters were sent to representatives from two federally recognized tribes, 

the Pit River Tribe and the Klamath Tribe, resulting in a field trip on September 7 with 

members of both tribes. Additional Tribal Consultation meetings were held on January 23, 

2009, with the Pit River Tribes at the Pit River Tribal Council Room in Burney, California; 

and on January 28, 2009, with the Klamath Tribes at the Goosenest Ranger District Office in 

Macdoel, California. Tribes expressed concerns regarding the need for vegetation 

management, access, and cultural plants; these were considered in the development of action 

alternatives.

• On August 9, 2007, a representative from the Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center visited the 

site with Goosenest Ranger District employees. 

• The District consulted with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and conferred with the 

California Department of Fish and Game regarding other species within the project area.

• On August 26, 2008, forest personnel met with representatives from the American Forest 

Resource Council, Sierra Pacific Industries, Siskiyou County, and the California Forestry 

Association to discuss forest monitoring and field review the Hi-Grouse Project Area. 

• On December 11, 2008, scoping letters were sent to approximately 34 individuals, 

organizations, and other government agencies that have indicated interest in similar district 

projects. The complete mailing list can be found in the project record. The Goosenest Ranger 

District received six responses from the scoping letter. Responses were received from: K. 

Haines, R. Svilich, B. Sachau (responded also as “J. Public”), G. Sexton, R. Hoover, and T. 

Williams. The comments as well as responses were provided in the draft environmental

impact statement (DEIS). The full letters are available in the project file.

• The notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in 

the Federal Register on December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77595). The NOI asked for public 

comment on the proposal within 30 days of the notice. 

• As part of the public notification process, this project has been included on the forest 

schedule of proposed actions for the KNF beginning July 1, 2008, and continuing to the 

present.

• The notice of availability (NOA) was published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2010 (75 

FR 30022). The NOA began the 45-day comment period of the Hi-Grouse Project DEIS.

Also on May 28, 2010, a legal notice was published in the Siskiyou Daily News, the 

newspaper of record, announcing the opportunity to comment for the Hi-Grouse Project 

DEIS.

The Goosenest Ranger District received seven comments on the DEIS. Responses were received

from: B. Sachau (J. Public), G. Sexton, R. Svilich, U.S. Department of the Interior, P. Clary, R. 

Hoover, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The comments, responses, and the full 

letters are provided in appendix B.

1.8 Issues

Issues were developed based upon public scoping on the proposed action for this project. Issues 

are points of discussion, dispute, or debate about the environmental effects of the proposed 

action. Issues were separated into two groups: significant and non-significant. Significant issues 

were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Nonsignificant issues were identified as those: (1) outside the scope of the proposed action; (2) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

9

already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; (3) irrelevant to 

the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. 

Some comments pertained to disclosing effects; impacts to various resources are analyzed and 

disclosed in this document. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations 

explain this delineation in section 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the 

issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review 

(section 1506.3)...”. The full list of comments received and issues raised was provided in 

appendix B of the DEIS, table B-2, which also noted the non-significant issues raised and 

reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant.

The following two significant issues were identified for this project.

Significant Issue #1

Indicators: Acres treated in nesting, roosting, and/or foraging habitats across the project area 

and basal area maintained within individual stands.

: There is a concern that the proposed activities could remove the best 

remaining wildlife habitat for species associated with late-successional habitat within the project 

area, specifically removing and or altering habitat for northern spotted owl and northern 

goshawk (e.g., degrade or downgrade habitat).

Alternative 3 responds to this significant issue through use of less intensive thinning

treatments throughout the project area to maintain higher tree densities (basal area) and 

canopy closure. 

Alternative 4 responds to this significant issue through use of less intensive thinning

treatments within northern spotted owl and northern goshawk nesting and roosting areas to 

maintain higher basal area and canopy closure. Thinning treatments outside nesting and 

roosting areas would further reduce basal area and canopy closure to improve overall longterm stand health.

Significant Issue #2

Indicators: Acres treated by treatment type.

: There is a disagreement about whether or not a sufficient amount of the 

lodgepole stand is treated to protect values at risk.

Alternative 4 responds to this significant issue by treating the entire lodgepole stand to 

improve stand health and reduce fuel loadings. 
Hi-Grouse Project

10
Final Environmental Impact Statement

11

Chapter 2 Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Hi-Grouse Project. It 

includes a description and map of each alternative considered and presents the alternatives in 

comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a 

clear basis for choice by the decision maker and the public. 

The amount of a particular activity (e.g., acres, miles) and the location depicted on the treatment 

maps for any alternative is approximate based on inventory and survey estimates. Actual figures 

may change slightly during preparation of a prescribed burn or stand treatment based on such 

things as: avoidance of site-specific areas that are too small to be depicted on the scale of maps 

used for display, small inclusions of inoperable terrain, or non-uniform stand structure. 

Chapter 2 concludes with a comparison of the alternatives based upon proposed activities, issues, 

and objectives. This chapter, along with the chapter 3, “Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences,” provides the basis for the responsible official and the public to 

compare alternatives.

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Following public scoping of the proposed action, two additional action alternatives were 

developed, resulting in four alternatives. These alternatives included the no action (alternative 1), 

the proposed action (alternative 2), and two additional alternatives created in response to 

significant issues. Alternative 2 (proposed action) was later dropped from further detailed study

after it was determined this alternative would not comply with Forest Plan northern goshawk

(NGH) standard and guideline (S&G) 8-20 (see section 2.4 for the discussion of alternatives

considered but eliminated from detailed study). Alternatives 3 and 4 include project design 

features to mitigate impacts to forest resources (please see section 2.2.4 for more detail).

Detailed maps of the action alternatives, including stands and roadsides identified for treatment, 

and logging systems information are in appendix A. A detailed breakdown of silviculture

prescriptions and stand tables are provided in appendix C.

2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

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

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

accomplish project goals. The purpose and need would not be met.

The no action alternative is required (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1502.14(d)) and 

serves as a baseline for comparison of the effects for all action alternatives.

2.2.2 Alternative 3

Alternative 3 was developed in response to significant issue #1 (section 1.8) through use of light

thinning treatments throughout the project area to maintain higher tree densities (basal area) and 

canopy closure and limit created openings to areas with greater proportion of ponderosa pine to 

enhance NGH foraging habitat. Alternative 3 will treat approximately 3,568 acres. Thinningfrom-below is proposed on 2,094 acres; in particular, thinning within late-successional habitats is 
Hi-Grouse Project

12

proposed on 180 acres (units 37, 41). This alternative maintains areas of untreated mid/latesuccessional habitat for wildlife. Small openings will only be created in stands with a greater 

proportion of pine to enhance NGH foraging habitat. There will be no machine piling outside of 

landing areas with this alternative. Use of underburn only (without silviculture treatment) is 

proposed on 426 acres. 

Approximately 2.3 miles of temporary road will be needed to access thinning units, of which 

approximately 1.6 miles would be on non-system roads from previous harvest entries.

Table 2.2-1 summarizes alternative 3. See section 2.2.4 below for a brief description of the 

treatments, and appendix C for detailed prescription descriptions. Alternative 3 includes project 

design features and a monitoring plan, as described in section 2.2.5.

Table 2.2-1. Treatment acreage under alternative 3

Silviculture Treatments

Fuels Treatments

1

Acres/Miles

Thinning-from-Below (acres)

Overall Fuels Abatement2

Mowing (acres)

(acres)

Underburning (acres)

2,094

2,094

254

789

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuels Reduction (acres)

Overall Fuels Abatement2

Mowing (acres)

(acres)

673

673

428

Plantation Thinning (acres)

Overall Fuels Abatement2

99

(acres) 99

Machine Piling (Outside Landing Areas) (Yes/No) No

Underburning Only (acres) 426

Fuel Management Zones3

Acres Outside Other Treatments (acres)

(FMZ) [Miles (area acres)] 13(480)

300

Total Project Area Acres Proposed for Treatment (acres) 3,568

Transportation

Construction of Temporary Roads (miles) 0.7

Temporary Use of Non-system Roads (miles) 1.6 1 Some treatments overlap; e.g., thinning followed with fuels abatement and underburning, FMZs overlap with other 

treatments. 2 Overall fuels abatement includes whole-tree yarding, pile and burning, lop and scatter, and biomass removal treatment 

options. 3

2.2.3 Alternative 4 (Modified Proposed Action)

Mileage is approximate; proposed FMZs would be along Forest System Roads 15, 77, 44N84, 44N77, 44N75, and 

44N75D.

Alternative 4 is the modified proposed action. Proposed treatments were modified to meet Forest 

Plan S&G 8-20 and in response to significant issues #1 and #2 (section 1.8). Lighter thinning

treatments are proposed within NSO and NGH nesting and roosting areas. Alternative 4 

expanded treatments to improve forest health in lodgepole pine by proposing treatments on the 

entire stand of diseased and dying lodgepole pine trees. Treating the entire stand will remove 

dead and dying overstory trees infected with mistletoe to reduce potential inoculation of existing 

advanced regeneration in the stand. This alternative would treat approximately 3,847 acres. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

13

When compared with alternative 3, alternative 4 treats areas outside of NSO and NGH nesting 

and roosting areas with more intensive thinning treatments, and treats the entire diseased and 

dying lodgepole pine stand in the western portion of the planning area.

Natural fuel loadings may be treated with machine piling outside landing areas only if absolutely 

needed because of extreme fuel loading (see map A-6, appendix A). Machine methods will 

involve piling of small trees, treatment slash, and natural fuels accumulations using a trackmounted, excavator-type of machine with a boom-mounted grapple arm; or a small machine 

(example, all-surface vehicle) with a brush-type (toothed) blade. Due to the use of whole-tree 

yarding, machine piling outside of landing areas will be uncommon and only in units with heavy 

accumulations of fuels (either natural or past treatment-generated) where hand piling would be 

cost prohibitive. Where possible, machine piling outside landing units will be from existing skid 

or off-trail access and will be limited to one pass.

Approximately 3.2 miles of temporary roads will be needed to access thinning units, of which 

approximately 1.9 miles are non-system roads from previous harvest entries. Approximately 1.3 

miles of new temporary road will be located and constructed to design standards that minimize 

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

During consultation with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service two road segments (44N80A and 

44N62A) within northern spotted owl (NSO) critical habitat were identified as a concern. These 

two road segments were previously physically closed (barricaded) from use. These two National 

Forest System (NFS) road segments (approximately 1.5 miles) will be fully closed and removed

from the NFS roads database.

Compared to alternative 3, approximately 325 more acres of thinning is proposed. The majority 

of thinning in alternative 4 would leave less basal area and include small openings to reduce 

canopy closure and basal area within stands more than under alternative 3. Thinning within latesuccessional habitats and/or NSO critical habitat incorporates a diameter limit and no trees over

20 inches diameter breast height (dbh) would be removed; these lighter thinning treatments are 

the same under both alternatives 3 and 4. The rest of the silviculture treatments are the same as 

alternative 3. 

Table 2.2-2 summarizes alternative 4. See section 2.2.4 below for a brief description of the 

treatments, and appendix C for detailed prescription descriptions. Alternative 4 includes project 

design features and a monitoring plan, as described in section 2.2.5.
Hi-Grouse Project

14

Table 2.2-2. Treatment acreage under alternative 4

Silviculture Treatments

Fuels Treatments 

1

Acres/Miles

Thinning-from-Below (acres)

Overall Fuels Abatement2

Mowing (acres)

(acres)

Underburning (acres)

Post-treatment Evaluation of Planting (acres)

2,429

2,429

346

1,495

644

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuels Reduction (acres)

Overall Fuels Abatement2

Mowing (acres)

(acres)

970 

970

728

Plantation Thinning (acres)

Overall Fuels Abatement2

99

(acres) 99

Machine Piling (Outside Landing Areas) (Yes/No) Yes

Underburning Only (acres) 42

Fuel Management Zones3

Acres Outside Other Treatments (acres)

Miles (area acres) 13 (480)

300

Total Project Area Acres Proposed for Treatment (acres) 3,847

Transportation

Construction of Temporary Roads (miles) 1.3

Temporary Use of Non-system Roads (miles) 1.9

Road Closure of 44N80A and 44N62A (miles) 1.5 1 Some treatments overlap, e.g., thinning followed with fuels abatement and underburning, FMZs overlap with other 

treatments). 2 Overall fuels abatement includes whole-tree yarding, pile and burning, lop and scatter, and biomass removal treatment 

options. 3

2.2.4 Treatment Descriptions 

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

Harvest treatments will be implemented first, followed by the fuels treatments. Some fuels 

treatments will happen simultaneously with harvest (e.g., whole-tree yarding, lop and scatter

limbs while cutting, and biomass treatments). The estimated duration of the harvest activities is 

approximately 7 years. It is likely that some pile burning and underburning could begin a few 

years after the last thinning units are completed (i.e., 9 or 10 years after project start).

2.2.4.1 Thinning-from-Below

Thinning-from-below will remove trees that are smaller and shorter than the dominant and codominant trees that form the upper canopy. Thinning treatments are proposed on a total of 2,094

acres under alternative 3 and 2,429 acres under alternative 4. Stand density is reduced to allow 

trees with the best crown development and size to have the needed space. This additional 

growing space will increase tree growth so trees are less susceptible to fire, insects, and disease. 

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

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

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

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

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

will be left un-thinned to maintain stand diversity.

Under alternative 3, no trees over 20 inches dbh will be cut. Following thinning treatments, an 

average of 130 square feet of basal area in ponderosa pine with 40 percent canopy closure, and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

15

an average 180 square feet of basal area in white fir-ponderosa pine stands with 60 percent 

canopy closure will be left. See appendix C for detailed prescription descriptions.

Under alternative 4, thinning will be heavier in some areas to move the species composition 

towards ponderosa pine and create structural patchiness. Small openings, 0.25 to 1 acre in size 

that cover as much as 10 percent of a treated stand, will be created and left unplanted to increase 

forest structural and species diversity. Areas of heavier thinning around root disease centers will

be evaluated post-treatment for under-planting with a site-specific and appropriate mix of 

ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and white pine (if available).

Under alternatives 3 and 4, in healthier white fir dominated foraging habitat for NSO and NGH, 

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

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

10 percent will be left in small openings and 10 percent of the stands will remain untreated.

There will be fuel abatement treatments on all areas with planned thinning. Fuel abatement 

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

removal options. Additional fuels treatments include mechanical mowing and underburning in 

stands that have larger amounts of fire-resistant species. 

Cut conifer stumps will be treated with borax to prevent colonization and spread of the conifer 

root disease Heterobasidion annosum.

Thinning Within Late-Successional Habitats. Treatments within 180 acres (units 37 and 41) of 

late-successional habitat were designed to maintain the current characteristics of latesuccessional habitat in the project area. Residual density of approximately 180 square feet of 

basal area and approximately 60 percent canopy cover will be retained. Understory trees will be 

thinned to a variable spacing of 15 to 25 feet. No trees over 20 inches diameter breast height 

(dbh) will be cut. No openings will be created and 10 to 15 percent of the unit area will be left 

un-thinned. 

Prescriptions proposed in NSO and NGH nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat will vary in the 

treatment of the understory when compared with other treatment areas. In NGH habitat, the 

above prescription will apply, except that thinning in the understory will focus mainly on leaving 

good replacement trees for the overstory trees in the event of tree mortality. Portions of latesuccessional stands are currently dominated by small trees (5 to 12 inches dbh) that will be 

thinned to a spacing of 15 to 40 feet between trees. 

2.2.4.2 Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuels Reduction

Lodgepole pine thinning and fuels reduction is proposed on 673 acres under alternative 3 and 

970 acres under alternative 4 of the large lodgepole pine stand located along Forest Road 15. The 

prescription will thin the overstory lodgepole pine by removing trees infected with dwarf 

mistletoe and/or beetles. The existing understory will be thinned to promote the healthy trees.

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

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

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

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

and mowing. 
Hi-Grouse Project 

16 

2.2.4.3 Plantation Thinning 

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

accomplished on 99 acres by mechanical or hand methods to promote tree growth, future fire 

resistance, and a mixed species composition. Since ponderosa pine is generally the most underrepresented species in these plantations due to natural seeding of lodgepole and true firs, it will 

be favored to remain over other species during thinning activities. 

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

burning, lop and scatter, and biomass treatments. 

2.2.4.4 Fuel Management Zones 

Fuel management zones (FMZs) will be created 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 extend 150 feet either side of the road. Along FMZ Road 77, due to critical 

habitat designation and nesting/roosting NSO habitat, only trees less than 8 inches dbh will be 

removed and variably spaced except where openings exist. This will leave some areas clumpy 

for dispersal and habitat needs; some areas can be more open. Trees less than 10 inches dbh will 

be removed/spaced along the other FMZ roads in the project area. Some FMZs overlap stands 

with proposed silviculture treatments. 

2.2.4.5 Fuel Abatement Activities 

Overall fuel abatement activities are proposed on approximately 3,570 acres under alternative 3 

and 3,840 acres under alternative 4 within the project area. Activities proposed include wholetree yarding, biomass removal, piling and burning, and lopping and scattering. 

Whole-tree yarding ~ To reduce fuels levels resulting from operations, whole trees will be 

moved to the landing for treatment (sold as products or burned). 

Biomass removal ~ Trees (generally less than 12 to 10 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. 

Piling and burning ~ Machine piling will be limited to landing areas for processing of 

material such as biomass under alternative 3, and may be used on up to 25 percent of 

prescribed areas, as needed, under alternative 4. Piles will only be burned under favorable 

weather conditions. 

Lopping and scattering ~ Lopping and scattering will reduce treatment-generated slash 

from the thinning of plantations. The objective is to reduce height and continuity of fuels and 

promote faster decomposition. Due to whole tree removal, this method may not be needed. 

An exception may be areas that are either inaccessible or unsafe for mechanized equipment. 

Mowing ~ Shrubs, seedlings, and saplings will be mowed to change the fuel arrangement. 

Lodgepole stands that are now dominated by small trees will also be mowed. 

Underburning ~ Prescribed fire will be used in varying intensities either as a stand-alone 

treatment, or following mechanical pre-treatment, such as thinning, piling ladder fuels, or 

mowing. Pre-treatment will ensure that the residual stand is protected. Prescribed fire will be 

used under controlled situations and favorable weather conditions. The objectives of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

17 

underburning are to reduce natural fuel loads, surface and ladder fuels, and past activity 

slash, while increasing herbaceous species and encouraging pine regeneration. Due to 

feasibility considerations, prescribed underburning treatments will not take place all at once, 

but incrementally throughout the life of the project. Detailed burn plans are prepared for all 

prescribed fire activities. 

2.2.4.6 Road Maintenance and Temporary Roads 

Road Maintenance. Road maintenance actions are in accordance with the Forest Plan. These 

actions are not analyzed with this FEIS, but are included for informational purposes only. The 

Hi-Grouse Project Area is accessed by a network of approximately 50 miles of county and 

national forest system (NFS) roads. No new permanent roads will be constructed or added to the 

system. Primary NFS roads that serve the project area are: 15, 77, 44N80, 44N62, and 44N54. 

Existing NFS roads within the project area received periodic clearing, blading, and drainage 

structure maintenance in the 2007 and 2008 seasons, bringing them up to a condition suitable for 

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

determine if additional light maintenance is needed. These roads will not require any 

reconstruction prior to use. Maintenance is defined as work needed to bring the road back into its 

original condition; could include brushing, culvert replacement, grading, and rocking. Reopening 

of roads applies to the unclassified roads. Road reopening activities include barrier removal, 

brushing, grading, and temporary culvert installation. All aggregate rock and water source 

requirements for this project can be met from existing sources on national forest lands. No new 

sources will be developed. 

Temporary Roads. Under alternatives 3 and 4, approximately 2.3 miles or 3.2 miles, 

respectively, of temporary roads will be needed to access thinning units. Most of the temporary 

roads (1.6 miles under alternative 3 or 3.2 miles under alternative 4) are existing non-system (not 

on the Forest road system) jeep roads or spurs, which were created during previous harvest 

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

Under alternatives 3 and 4, approximately 0.7 mile or 1.3 miles, respectively, of new temporary 

road will be located and constructed to design standards that minimize ground disturbance, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.5 Project Design Features 

The following project design features were developed to mitigate adverse environmental impacts 

of the proposed actions to forest resources. These project design features were developed to 

address overall project objectives and ensure Forest Plan compliance. Table 2.2-3 displays the 

design features developed for this project, along with the applicable units and/or alternatives. 
Hi-Grouse Project

18

Table 2.2-3. Project design features for alternatives 3 and 4

Design 

Feature Description 

Applicable 

Unit/Alternative

AIR-1 A wetting agent (water or other dust-reduction material) will be applied as 

needed to decrease or eliminate dust generated from timber hauling on dirt 

roads to provide for air quality and public safety. If water is unavailable, other 

means of dust abatement may be necessary. This may include, but is not limited 

to, rocking, applying cinders, or hauling during winter months on snow-covered 

roads. Temporally closing public access to interior roads during short-term 

hauling activities may occur, but main haul routes should stay open to the 

public.

Where needed, all 

alternatives

AIR-2 Prescribed burning will be conducted in accordance with an approved burn plan 

and an approved smoke management plan. Pre-treatment methods will be used 

to minimize smoke emissions and/or reduce fuel loadings, such as biomass 

removal, and public firewood utilization opportunities. Burning when piles are 

dry increases the combustion efficiency and therefore reduces the emissions 

from the burn. The burn prescription shall specify an acceptable range of fuel 

moisture contents for the burn to proceed. These plans will address mitigations 

and requirements to minimize impacts of smoke. A smoke permit will be issued 

by the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District.

All burn units/all 

alternatives

ARCH-1 All proposed activities, facilities, improvements, and disturbances shall avoid 

archaeological and historic sites. Avoidance means that no activities associated 

with the project that may affect an archaeological or historic site shall take place 

within the site’s boundaries, including any defined buffer zones. Examples of 

such activities include, but are not limited to, felling, skidding, mowing, and 

burning.

All units/alternatives

ARCH-2 All cultural resource sites within the area of potential effect shall be clearly 

delineated prior to implementing any associated activities that have the potential 

to affect cultural resource sties. This includes, but is not limited to, flagging site 

boundaries.

All units/alternatives

ARCH-3 When any changes in proposed activities are necessary to avoid cultural 

resource sites (e.g., project modifications), these changes shall be completed 

prior to issuance of the decision.

All units/alternatives

ARCH-4 The sites within the project area will not be affected by road use as long as the 

roads are used “as-is”. Should through-site road maintenance become 

necessary, the following provisions will apply per the First Amended Regional 

Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation Regarding the Process For Compliance With Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act for Undertakings on the National 

Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region:

 Routine road maintenance (e.g., blading and brushing) and resurfacing is 

allowed where work is confined to previously maintained surfaces (other 

than native surfaces), ditches, culverts, and other clearly disturbed contexts.

 Where road surfaces are native, blades must be lifted or placement of nonarchaeological material (e.g., padding or filter cloth) must be placed over the 

archaeological deposit to prevent surface and subsurface impacts.

 Ground-disturbing road-decommissioning activities are not allowed within the 

boundaries of archaeological sites.

All units/alternatives

BOT-1 Currently, TES plants are not known from areas proposed for treatments. If any 

are located prior to or during implementation they will be flagged for avoidance. 

Appropriate buffers to maintain light regime, or to protect plants from local soil 

movement or heating during prescribed fire will be maintained.

All alternatives 

where identified 

during 

implementation; 

there are no known 

sites

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

be identified and protected by the 50-foot, mechanical-equipment-exclusionbuffer, but may require wider buffers that will be designated by the district cave 

coordinator or biologist.

All units/alternatives

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

implementation, or sale area map, and confidentiality will be maintained in a 

manner similar to that used for archaeological sites.

All units/alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Statement

19

Design 

Feature Description 

Applicable 

Unit/Alternative

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

entrance buffers and fault zones, unless otherwise specified by the district cave 

coordinator or biologist for certain caves. Ignition of fuels within entrance buffers 

and fault zones is not appropriate, unless such action is needed to prevent 

unacceptable damage to vegetation and organic materials within or immediately 

adjacent to a cave entrance. Burning of packrat middens or other accumulations 

of flammable material within caves or entrance buffers will be avoided. Fire will 

be excluded from the entrance buffers for caves discovered with sensitive bat

habitat. 

All units/alternatives

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

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

flagging the exclusion zones around cave entrances, or designating and 

flagging the equipment road locations after the trees are marked. Crossings of 

fault zones will be allowed, but will be designated or approved in the field by the 

district cave coordinator or designated representative. Crossings will be where 

the fault trace is not exposed on the surface.

All units/alternatives

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

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

easily recognizable, they will not be flagged on the ground unless required by 

unique circumstances. There will be no tree removal from the outcrop and talus 

areas. Equipment operators will typically avoid the talus and outcrops found in 

fault zones.

All units/alternatives

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

or other similarly effective measures taken to prevent disturbances there. Subtle 

cave entrances that are difficult to spot on the ground, such as those which are 

flush with the soil surface, will have the buffers flagged.

All units/alternatives

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

protected by a minimum 50-foot no-disturbance-buffer around the entrance.

Some caves may require wider buffers and if so, will be designated by the 

district cave coordinator or biologist. 

All units/alternatives

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

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

disclosure to the public by the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988).

All units/alternatives

NNIS-1 Ensure equipment coming to and from the project is weed free. All units/alternatives

NNIS-2 Do not park vehicles or stage equipment in areas with known weed populations, 

including parking in infested areas outside of the project area.

All units/alternatives

NNIS-3 Wherever seed, straw mulch, or gravel are used to restore or maintain areas 

within the project area, certified weed-free seeds, straw, mulches, and/or gravel 

should be specified in any contract.

All units/alternatives

REC-1 During winter operations, use alternative hauling routes away from the NFS 15 

and 77 roads or leave an unplowed lane about 8 feet wide so that groomed 

snowmobile access to Medicine Lake is maintained.

Forest Roads 15 

and 77, all 

alternatives

REC-2 Protect dispersed campsites within the project area to maintain the integrity of 

these sites. Do not use or dispersed campsites for landings, burn piles, or 

contractor campsites or parking areas.

All units/alternatives

REC-3 Remove all identified live or dead hazard trees within or in close proximity to 

dispersed campsites and along high-use recreation access roads.

All units/alternatives

REC-4 Physical improvements, such as a water pond in the northern section of the 

project area, would be protected from damage from project treatments.

All units/alternatives

RDS-1 Provide safety signing or temporary road closures in active project areas to 

provide for public safety.

Temporary roads/all 

alternatives

RDS-2 To make road closures more effective, no trees other than hazard trees will be 

removed within 50 feet of the entry for a non-system road, where it intersects a 

system road. Exceptions may be possible based upon site-specific concerns

and equipment needs.

Temporary roads/all 

alternatives

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

operations. When multiple entries are necessary for project completion, roads 

used by contractors will be closed in between each entry. Road closure will 

Temporary roads/all 

alternatives
Hi-Grouse Project

20

Design 

Feature Description 

Applicable 

Unit/Alternative

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.

SAF-1 Hazardous trees or snags may be cut, if necessary, for safety. All units/alternatives

SAF-2 Signs will be placed on roads to identify areas as active sale or prescribed burn 

areas.

Where needed, all 

alternatives

SAF-3 If necessary, dust abatement will be done (see also AIR-1). Where needed, all 

alternatives

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

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

retained.

All units/alternatives

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

and retain elements of biodiversity such as snags, logs, and predominant trees 

in a clumped distribution. The amount will vary by prescription from up to 10 or 

15 percent, with higher amounts being left in the heavier treatments where 

suitable habitat is available. Due to the nature of the FMZs, no-treatment clumps 

will be minimized and designed to meet specific elements of adjacent habitat. 

Emphasis will be placed on leaving clumps that provide the most diversity within 

the unit, as well as habitat elements for other species.

All units/alternatives

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

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

access, but this will require approval of the Forest Service contract 

administrator. Predominant trees have the following characteristics: generally 

taller and older than the general canopy, more deeply furrowed bark with plate 

formation (especially ponderosa pine), large limbs, and often patchy crowns with 

flat tops. In ponderosa pine the bark is orange to yellow and composed of many 

puzzle-like pieces in older trees. As trees age the bark plates become much 

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

vertical and depth of fissures can be equal to the width of the plates. Diameter is 

often poorly correlated with age, but most trees with these characteristics are 24

inches dbh and larger.

All units/alternatives

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

VEG-6 Lava flows will be excluded from units to the extent possible during layout. No 

trees will be marked for cutting on inclusions of lava flow outcrops within units, 

unless deemed a safety hazard by the contract administrator.

All units/alternatives

VEG-7 Machine piling of hazardous fuels outside of landing areas will be used in 

alternative 4 where reductions of heavy fuel loadings in excess of down log 

objectives are necessary for effective fire suppression and/or underburning. This 

will apply in units with heavy accumulations of either natural or past treatmentgenerated fuels where hand piling will be cost prohibitive. It is anticipated that 

machine piling may be needed on up to 25 percent of the area of units where it 

is prescribed. Units will be evaluated post-thinning to determine the need for this 

treatment. Piles will be burned under appropriate meteorological conditions for 

smoke dispersal.

Alternative 4

VEG-8 Whole-tree yarding will be the primary method for minimizing thinning-generated 

slash. Trees will be limbed and topped at landings for disposal by chipping or 

burning methods. Piles will be burned under appropriate weather conditions for 

smoke dispersal.

All units/alternatives

VEG-10 Prescribed burning treatments would be implemented to provide a mosaic1 of All units/alternatives

understory vegetation, except where treatments are immediately adjacent to 

private property. Forty percent of underburn treatment areas will remain 

untreated to provide wildlife habitat.

VIS-1 Within 300 feet from roadways, skid patterns, slash, soil exposure, and stumps 

should be visually minor or unnoticed (6” maximum height of stumps, possible 

Units within 300 feet

from roadways in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

21

Design 

Feature Description 

Applicable 

Unit/Alternative

follow-up stump or soil disturbance concealment with hand raking of dirt and 

duff as needed).

the partial retention 

foreground visual 

quality objectives 

(VQO)/all 

alternatives

VIS-2 Road closures along the 15/77 Roads should appear natural and not attract 

attention, preferably through native boulders and logs and landforms, rather 

than dirt piles, trenches, signs, or gates.

VIS-3 To the extent possible, the following approximate proportions of the view will 

remain after treatments: thinned canopy 90 to 95 percent, un-thinned canopy 5 

to 10 percent, untreated brush/seedling/saplings 15 to 25 percent, hand-piled 

slash removal 75 percent, tractor-piled 15 percent, mowed areas 35 percent 

maximum, underburn areas 35 to 60 percent.

VIS-4 To the extent possible FMZs should be undulating, consisting of thinned canopy 

retaining irregular spacing along the roads immediate foreground not to exceed 

100 feet, then sweeping away from the road to retain stretches of un-thinned

canopy along the road to create a diverse and natural-appearing forest edge.

Where possible, FMZs treatments may have feathered edges to blend the 

treatment of the canopy into the surrounding vegetation.

VIS-5 Foreground clearings (in natural appearing configurations with less than 2 acres 

visible to viewpoints) should not be used frequently, but can be used in specific 

circumstances to treat insect or disease infestations, or to open views to scenic 

attributes such as rock formations, large ponderosa pine or larch components, 

or views to distant mountain peaks.

VIS-6 Screen temporary roads and landings from the sensitive offset observer position 

until complete visual recovery is attained. This may be offset due to FMZs or 

other treatment needs. 

Units within the 

partial retention 

VQO in middle to 

background/all 

alternatives VIS-7 To prevent public use of closed roads, screen landings from sensitive level 1 

roads. Retain existing road screening vegetation as viewed from sensitive offsite 

observer positions.

VIS-8 During any one entry, limit the amount of ground surface viewed to 10 percent

or less of the area as viewed from selected offsite observer positions.

VIS-9 Limit naturally shaped openings to be a maximum of 5 to 10 acres in size with 

blended edges. The openings should not exceed 20 percent of the area. The 

openings should not be located in such a manner that creates unnatural 

appearing patterns as a whole.

VIS-10 Retain species of diverse fall color, such as any deciduous tree species. Units within the 

modification VQO/all 

alternatives (units 

within the 

modification VQO 

are viewed from 

middleground to 

background 

distances)

VIS-11 Use existing skid roads and landing to the extent possible. To the extent 

possible, new temporary roads and landings will be located out of view of 

sensitive travel routes, or shall be promptly rehabilitated. New temporary roads 

and landings may be evident, but must remain subordinate to the shape and 

pattern of harvest units.

VIS-12 Currently the visual absorption capability is expected to be moderate allowing 

for naturally shaped openings to be a maximum of 10 to 15 acres in size with 

blended edges. The openings should not exceed 40 percent of the area. The 

openings should be located in such a manner to create natural appearing 

patterns as a whole.

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, and 41 

in FMZ along Road 

77

WL-2 NSO surveys to protocol will be conducted during the life of the project. Should 

NSO be detected within the project area or within 1.3 miles of a treatment unit 

outside the project area, the district biologist will contact USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

Purpose: To ensure detection and protection of any NSOs utilizing habitat 

affected by the project.

All units/alternatives 

WL-3 A seasonal restriction between February 1 and September 15 will apply to all Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 12A, 
Hi-Grouse Project

22

Design 

Feature Description 

Applicable 

Unit/Alternative

activities within 0.25 miles of un-surveyed suitable NSO habitat.

Purpose: To ensure protection of any NSOs utilizing previously un-surveyed 

habitat. (This measure is in place since not all habitat areas were previously 

surveyed to protocol.)

13, 37, and 53A

WL-4 Maintain habitat specific for goshawk consistent with the KNF LRMP, page 4-29. 

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

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 

10, 11, 12a, 12b, 13, 

17, 18, 19, 21a, 21b, 

22, 23, 24, 25b, 28, 

29, 30, 32, 35b, 37, 

41, 44, 45a, 46, 48, 

52, 53a, 53b, 55, 58, 

59; (that occur 

within goshawk

territories, primary 

nest zone, and 

foraging areas);

all alternatives

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

primary nest zone (0.5-mile radius), unless surveys confirm goshawks are not 

nesting or within the area (KNF LRMP, page 4-29).

Purpose: To eliminate disturbance to goshawks during the nesting season.

Units 9, 10, 12a, 13, 

17, 19, 23, 24, 25b, 

29, 30, 45a, 53b, 55, 

58, 59 (within 0.5 

miles of an active 

goshawk nest); all 

alternatives

WL-6 Restrict loud and/or continuous noise within 0.25 mile of active goshawk nest 

sites between March 1 and August 31 (KNF LRMP, page 4-29).

Purpose: To eliminate disturbance to nesting goshawks.

All units (including 

FMZ) within 0.25 

miles of an active 

goshawk nest; all 

alternatives

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

treatment activities, work will be halted and the wildlife biologist notified 

immediately to determine steps to resolve the situation. 

Purpose: To maintain goshawk habitat and eliminate disturbance to goshawks 

during the nesting season.

All units/alternatives

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

debris of at least 20 inches in diameter (minimum greater than12 inches dbh) 

and about 40 cubic feet in volume in decay classes 3, 4, and 5. Snags felled for 

safety reasons will be retained onsite to provide coarse woody debris, 

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

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

well as denning habitat for various wildlife species.

All units/alternatives

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

(preferably in clumps) greater than or equal to 20 inches dbh in a variety of 

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

overstory trees are greater than 20 inches dbh, retain the largest size classes 

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

Purpose: To provide adequate habitat for snag-dependent wildlife species.

All units/alternatives 

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

large down woody debris are retained on the landscape over time. Protect, to 

the greatest extent possible, snags and large down woody debris from 

destruction during treatments (i.e., yarding, machine piling, and 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/all 

alternatives

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

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

Purpose: To provide foraging opportunities for ungulates and other wildlife 

species.

Roads 44N80A and

44N62A in 

alternative 4

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

untreated.

All units/all 

alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Statement

23

Design 

Feature Description 

Applicable 

Unit/Alternative

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

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

reasons will be left onsite for use by wildlife.

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

wildlife species.

All units/all 

alternatives

WS-1 Best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented during all project 

activities (see appendix D for applicable BMPs). 

All units/alternatives

WS-2 If needed, water drafting sites for dust abatement on roads will occur at 

designated sites for that purpose. Portable pumps used for drafting will 

incorporate a mesh screened intake not to exceed 3/16 inch diameter and be 

placed on an oil-absorbing mat. During water drafting operations, stream flows 

will not be reduced by more than 10 percent at any time. All equipment 

operating on the project will be maintained in good repair and free of abnormal 

leakage of lubricants.

All units/alternatives

WS-3 Erosion control measures will be employed on the access and/or main road to 

prevent water leakage from causing stream sedimentation as needed.

All units/alternatives

WS-4 Reuse existing skid trails and landings whenever practical. Dedicate no more 

than 15 percent of a harvest unit to primary tractor skid trails and landings by 

good yarding layout and administration.

All units/alternatives

WS-5 Skidding should cease on skid trails when more than 10 percent of a skid trial 

contains ruts deeper than 6 inches due to saturated soils.

All units/alternatives

WS-6 Main skid trails in randomly selected units will be monitored post-project for 

compaction to determine the potential need for subsoiling.

All alternatives

WS-7 Waterbar skid trails per Sale Administration Handbook guidelines and as 

needed.

All units/alternatives

WS-8 Spread fine slash on that portion of skid trails that might exceed 35 percent

slope as needed.

All units/alternatives

WS-9 Ground-based logging equipment is generally restricted to slopes greater than 

35 percent.

All units/alternatives

WS-10 Retain existing coarse woody debris whenever possible, providing the amount 

of logs to meet fuel management objectives.

All units/alternatives

WS-11 Meet the prescribed soil cover for each harvest unit as measured before the fall 

rainy season (late October/early November). Post-treatment total soil cover 

should range from 70 to 80 percent for machine disturbed areas and 60 to 80

percent for underburned areas depending on slope steepness.

All units/alternatives

WS-12 Areas where existing soil cover is less than recommended levels, use the 

existing amount of cover as the guideline.

All units/alternatives

WS-13 Machine piling will use a brush rake that will generally be lifted a few inches 

above the soil surface to minimize soil disturbance, protect duff mat, and 

prevent piling soil into the slash piles. Organic materials less than 3 inches in 

diameter will be left on the soil surface.

Landing areas 

alternative 3; 

prescribed

units/alternative 4 

(see appendix C for 

stand listing)

WS-14 Machine piling will be done when the soil is dry down to 12 inches. Landing areas 

alternative 3; 

prescribed

units/alternative 4 

(see appendix C for 

stand listing)

WS-15 Machine mowing of brush is limited to slopes generally greater than 35 percent. All units/alternatives

WS-16 At least 50 percent cover, as fine organic matter (less than 3-inch material) will 

be retained in all units.

All units/alternatives

WS-17 Roads used for this project will be graded to outslope where feasible. All units/alternatives
Hi-Grouse Project

24

Design 

Feature Description 

Applicable 

Unit/Alternative

WS-18 Roads will be cleared and graded as necessary, using minimum disturbance 

methods and minimum clearing widths, to allow log truck and equipment 

access. 

All units/alternatives

1

2.3 Monitoring

Mosaic is defined as the intermingling of plant communities and their successional stages in such a manner to give the 

impression of an interwoven design (National Wildfire Coordinating Group 2005). This could be achieved with a variety of 

burn intensities or lighting/burning patterns.

The monitoring described below is applicable to all action alternatives.

Upon completion of project activities, monitoring may be conducted to assess the positive or 

negative effects of fuels treatments. Monitoring would be completed by the Forest and/or 

interested stakeholders (multi-party monitoring) and would be subject to available funding and 

the ability of stakeholders to contribute funds or in-kind services. The immediate (1–3 years 

post-project) and long-term effects on landscape attributes may be monitored using a fire effects 

monitoring and inventory system (e.g., FIREMON). Monitoring may be used to (1) document 

basic information during different phases of the project, (2) establish changes in attributes and 

trends through time, (3) analyze short- and long-term fire effects, and (4) determine if project 

objectives related to fuels were met. Monitoring would be conducted according to the KNF Fuels 

and Fire Effects Monitoring Guide (USDA Forest Service 2007b). Project data would be 

collected and input into the monitoring database at intervals established by the project 

monitoring plan. 

Forest Plan monitoring efforts, including monitoring of BMPs, will continue throughout the 

Forest as funded.

For noxious weeds, the Northern Province Strategy for Monitoring (i.e., inventorying) areas for 

weeds will be followed. The KNF includes the following two objectives: (1) Prioritize areas of 

the various Northern Province Forests for inventory, helping to fill-in existing data gaps of the 

various counties; and (2) coordinate inventories with other ongoing inventories, i.e.; botanical 

surveys, stand exams, range, wildlife, wilderness, and others. 

The KNF implements these objectives in the following ways:

1. Annually, usually in mid-August, after all weed treatment is completed, areas of the 

Forest that have had activities and/or large disturbances, and have not been traveled by 

the weed crew in the last couple of years, are prioritized for inventory. These inventories 

are documented on a hard copy atlas of quarter quadrangle maps. This survey 

information will eventually be entered into the NRIS database. All weed sites found in 

these inventories are entered into the NRIS database. Other areas that may be high 

priority for inventory are places where weeds are just starting to show up, or where there 

are only a few populations of particularly invasive species. The primary focus is to keep 

areas that are currently free of weeds, or that only have a few populations uninfested.

2. Forest personnel in disciplines other than botany and/or weeds are provided with 

booklets containing photos of the top 18 noxious weeds to be on the look-out for on the 

Forest. Many of the field-going personnel are familiar with noxious weeds and are 

committed to assisting the Forest in meeting objectives of limiting noxious weed 

infestations. KNF (or contracted) personnel in range, wildlife, fire prevention, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

25

recreation, wilderness patrol, and timber have alerted the weed manager to locations of 

previously unknown noxious weeds that were then prioritized for treatment. Monitoring 

will continue to be conducted by multiple parties.

Randomly selected tractor units may be monitored to ensure soil disturbance is within 

established guidelines.

Walk-through monitoring of project implementation will be done by the district silviculturist, 

wildlife biologist, fuels officer, and/or presale forester to assess compliance with design features 

(implementation monitoring). Visits to the project by district, Forest, regional, or provincial 

teams may occur as part of regular Forest Plan monitoring. 

Effectiveness of these types of treatments (effectiveness monitoring) in restoring ponderosa pine

forests in the Goosenest AMA is part of ongoing research (Ritchie 2005).

Reforestation monitoring will consist of first-year survival surveys, third-year exams, and fifthyear exams. Results of this monitoring could trigger use of protection measures and/or additional 

planting, and manual release.

NSO surveys will be done to protocol annually throughout the life of the project. NGH surveys 

will be conducted annually throughout the life of the project.

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that 

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the 

proposed action (as scoped) included issues with the proposed action and suggestions for other 

alternatives. Some of the alternatives suggested were outside the scope of this project, 

duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, would result in the project not meeting the 

purposed and need, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary 

environmental harm. Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but dismissed from 

detailed study as described below. 

2.4.1 Proposed Action from Scoping

In accordance with the Goosenest AMA and the Forest Plan, the proposed action was developed 

to address existing forest health needs, including long-term restoration goals such as longer-lived 

conifers within the project area. The proposed action for this project was released to the 

interested parties for public scoping on December 11, 2008, as described in section 1.5, 

“Proposed Action as Scoped,” of this document. Following public scoping, there were changes to 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service-designated NSO critical habitat within the project area. As a 

result, the proposed action was adjusted to address new NSO critical habitat concerns.

In December 2009, following field-verified updates to the NGH habitat data and further analysis, 

the ID team determined that the adjusted proposed action would not meet Forest Plan S&G 8-20.

This S&G is intended to provide management direction for NGH within the Klamath and 

California Cascade Provinces, primarily as it relates to habitat needs such as canopy closure. 

Between December 2009 and January 2010, the ID team discussed options available to address 

S&G 8-20. 
Hi-Grouse Project

26

In order to meet S&G 8-20, it was determined that the proposed action (alternative 2) would 

require either a site-specific Forest Plan amendment or substantial modifications. Substantial 

changes to the proposed action would have resulted in the proposed action being very similar to 

the other action alternatives, not substantially adding to the range of alternatives. The district ID 

team recommended against a site-specific plan amendment, since both S&G 8-20 and the 

purpose and need of the project could adequately be met with alternatives 3 and 4. With this in 

mind, the district ID team recommended that the proposed action be dropped from further study.

On January 4, 2010, District Ranger Laura Allen reviewed the information from the ID team and 

recommended the proposed action (alternative 2) be dropped from further study, because it 

would not comply with NGH S&G 8-20. Forest Supervisor Patricia Grantham concurred with 

the recommendation and decided to drop the proposed action (alternative 2) from detailed study.

The original proposed action, as displayed in table 1.5-1 and map A-4, included ponderosa pine

and mixed conifer restoration and re-establishment treatments on approximately 1,375 acres. 

These treatments would remove goshawk foraging habitat to levels below Forest Plan S&G 8-20. 

The original proposed action also included additional areas of thinning-from-below treatments 

that were not included in alternatives 3 and 4 during development of these alternatives to 

respond to the significant issue #1 for late-successional habitat. Alternatives 3 and 4 dropped 

some stands from treatment consideration that currently provided high quality nesting and 

roosting habitat in the project area. Alternative 3 incorporated a lighter thinning treatment with 

limited created openings throughout the entire project area and did not include ponderosa pine 

and mixed conifer restoration and re-establishment. Alternative 4 incorporated a lighter thinning 

treatment with limited created openings within NSO nesting and roosting habitat. In alternative 

4, thinning from below for areas outside NSO nesting and roosting habitat would be the same as 

the original proposed action. Alternative 4 did not include the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

restoration and re-establishment to reduce impacts to species associated with mature latesuccessional forest habitats. During consultation with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, two road 

segments (44N80A and 44N62A) within NSO critical habitat were identified as a concern. These 

two road segments were previously physically closed (barricaded) from use. Alternative 4 

proposes to further reduce impacts to late-successional species by closing and removing roads 

44N80A and 44N62A from the Forest system. Roads proposed for closure will be ripped and 

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

Alternative 4 expanded treatments to improve forest health in lodgepole pine by proposing 

treatments on the entire stand of diseased and dying lodgepole pine trees. Treating the entire 

stand would remove dead and dying overstory trees infected with mistletoe to reduce potential 

inoculation of existing advanced regeneration in the stand. After review of the alternatives, 

alternative 4 was identified as the modified proposed action.

2.4.2 Avoid Root Disease Areas

An alternative was considered that avoided all known areas of root disease. As noted in the 

existing condition, much of the white fir has annosus and stands are experiencing mortality. This 

alternative was dismissed from detailed analysis because it did not address the purpose and need 

to provide for resilient stocking levels of desired species.

2.4.3 No Temporary Roads

An alternative was considered that eliminated the use of all temporary roads, including existing 

non-system roads (pre-existing spur roads). This alternative would greatly reduce access to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

27

stands in need of treatment, greatly reducing treatment of stands for forest health. To achieve the 

same level of stand treatment without the use of non-system roads, new roads would need to be 

constructed. New road construction has not been considered, since impacts to resources would 

be greater than the use of pre-existing roads. As noted in the proposed action, non-system roads 

would only be used temporarily and then closed, not contributing to “road maintenance

overhead.” This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis since it would not address the 

purpose and need of the project.

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in 

table 2.5-1 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be 

distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. 

Table 2.5-1. Summary of alternatives

Silviculture Treatments1

Fuels Treatments

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Thinning-from-Below (acres)

Overall Fuels Abatement2

Mowing (acres)

(acres)

Underburning (acres)

Post-Treatment Evaluation of Planting (acres)

0 2,094

2,094

254

789

0

2,429

2,429

346

1,495

644

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuels Reduction (acres)

Overall Fuels Abatement2

Mowing (acres)

(acres)

0 673

673

428

970

970

728

Plantation Thinning With Overall Fuels Abatement2 0

(acres)

99 99

Machine Piling Outside of Landing Sites (Yes/No) na na Yes

Underburning Only (acres) 0 426 42

Fuel Management Zones3

(Acres Outside Other Treatments)

(miles/approximate acres) 0 13/480 

(300)

13/480

(300)

Total Project Area Acres Proposed For Treatment 

(Acres)

0 3, 568 3, 847

Transportation Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Construction of Temporary Roads (miles) 0 0.7 1.3

Temporary Use of Non-System Roads (miles) 0 1.6 1.9

Haul Use of Existing System Roads (miles) 

Maintenance as Needed

0 39.2 41.2

Haul Use of Existing Non-System Roads (miles) 

Maintenance as Needed

0 4.8 5.0

Road Closure of 44N80A and 44N62A (miles) 0 0 1.5

1 Some treatments overlap, e.g., thinning followed with fuels abatement and underburning, FMZs overlap with other 

treatments. 2 Overall fuels abatement includes whole-tree yarding, pile and burning, lop and scatter, and biomass removal treatment 

options. 

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

28

2.6 Effects Related to the Significant Issues and Project 

Purpose and Need

This presents a brief summary of the effects as related to the significant issues and purpose and 

needs identified for the Hi-Grouse Project (see chapter 3 for specific effects discussions).

Tables 2.6-1 and 2.6-2 summarize the alternative effects to NSO and NGH habitat. This 

addresses the significant issue #1 and the purpose and need to improve and maintain habitat for 

species associated with late-successional forests. 

Significant Issue #1

Indicators: Acres treated in nesting, roosting, and/or foraging habitats across the project area 

and basal area maintained within individual stands.

: There is a concern that the proposed activities could remove the best 

remaining wildlife habitat for species associated with late-successional habitat within the project 

area, specifically removing and or altering habitat for northern spotted owl and northern 

goshawk (e.g., degrade or downgrade habitat).

Alternatives 3 and 4 avoid treatment in the higher quality NSO and NGH nesting and roosting 

habitat. Some low quality NSO nesting and roosting habitat would be treated with a light 

thinning that would essentially maintain the existing canopy cover and 180 square feet of basal 

area per acre. Also, some NSO nesting and roosting habitat in red fir would have hand thinning 

of understory trees followed by underburning. 

In alternative 3 light thinning would maintain, but degrade, some NSO foraging habitat. In 

alternative 4 thinning in NSO foraging habitat would cause degradation or downgrading of NSO 

foraging habitat in white fir/ponderosa pine units with more intensive thinning treatments. These 

thinning treatments may reduce canopy cover slightly below 40 percent in the short term, but 

would also improve some aspects of foraging by allowing owls to maneuver better through 

stands that are currently very dense.

Table 2.6-1 displays the amounts of habitat by alternative for NSO Activity Center KL-3201, the 

0.5-mile core area, and the 1.3-mile home range analysis area. See section 3.2.3.2 for analysis 

discussion of NSO. The determination for both alternatives 3 and 4 is: may affect, but is not 

likely to adversely affect NSO critical habitat; may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect NSO. 

There are five NGH territories that may be affected by project activities. Table 2.6-2 displays the 

amounts of habitat by alternative for the five NGH territories that overlap the project area. See 

section 3.2.3.4 of FEIS for full analysis discussion of NGH.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

29

Table 2.6-1. Effects of alternatives on NSO habitat within KL-3201 Activity Center

Habitat

Existing Acres 

Habitat

Acres Habitat 

Degraded

Acres of Habitat 

Downgraded

Acres of Habitat 

Removed

Post Treatment 

Acres Habitat

0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Nesting/

Roosting

297 223 0 0 0 0 0 0 297 223

Foraging 166 2,005 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 2,005

Dispersal 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Alternative 3

Nesting/

Roosting

297 223 2 74 0 0 0.5 0.5 297* 223*

Foraging 166 2,005 46 556 0 0 0.5 6 166* 1,999

Dispersal 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Alternative 4 (Modified Proposed Action)

Nesting/

Roosting

297 223 2 74 0 0 0.5 0.5 297* 223*

Foraging 166 2,005 46 416 0 0 0 129 166 1,876

Dispersal 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

* 0.5 acres of habitat removed from landing, rounding does not show change.

Alternative 3 would maintain the existing amount of nesting and foraging habitat available to 

NGH across the project area in the short term and would comply with Forest Plan S&G 8-20. 

Habitat quality in the treated stands would be reduced in the short term. Treatments proposed 

would reduce the incidence of insect and disease mortality, reduce crown fire potential by 40 

percent, prevent rapid future fuel build-up for approximately 20 years, and allow the 

reintroduction of fire within the treated areas. Over the long term, many of the untreated densely 

spaced stands that are currently infected with root disease and pine and fir engraver beetles 

would be expected to decline to the point that they would no longer provide habitat for NGH.

Habitat quality of nesting and foraging habitat for NGH would be reduced in four of the five 

territories and across the project area in the short term and would comply with Forest Plan S&G 

8-20. 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 would allow for management reintroduction of fire within the treated areas. By reducing the 

risk of a stand-replacement fire within the project area and within NGH territories, thinning, fuel 

treatment zones, and underburning treatments proposed with alternative 4 should benefit NGH 

over the long term.

The determination for both alternatives 3 and 4 is: may impact individual goshawks but would 

not likely result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability.
Hi-Grouse Project

30

Table 2.6-2. Summary of changes to goshawk foraging habitat by territory and alternative

Territory 

(Alternative)

Primary Nest Zone (PNZ) Foraging Area (FA)

Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat Nesting/Foraging Non-Habitat

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Rainbow

Alt 1 Existing 90 18 222 44 192 38 714 47 795 53

Alt 3 Post-treatment 90 18 222 44 192 38 714 47 795 53

Alt 4 Post-treatment 92 18 220 44 192 38 714 47 795 53

Red Cap

Alt 1 Existing 193 38 184 36 127 25 612 40 896 60

Alt 3 Post-treatment 193 38 184 36 127 25 612 40 896 60

Alt 4 Post-treatment 193 38 184 36 127 25 612 40 896 60

Davis

Alt 1 Existing 256 51 238 47 10 2 1,215 81 293 19

Alt 3 Post-treatment 256 51 238 47 10 2 1,215 81 344 23

Alt 4 Post-treatment 264 52 230 46 10 2 1,026 68 482 32

Hi Ridge

Alt 1 Existing 324 64 114 23 65 13 1,265 84 242 16

Alt 3 Post-treatment 324 64 114 23 65 13 1,265 84 243 16

Alt 4 Post-treatment 324 64 114 23 65 13 1,231 82 277 18

West Grouse

Alt 1 Existing 322 64 63 13 117 23 1,191 79 317 21

Alt 3 Post-treatment 322 64 63 13 117 23 1,191 79 317 21

Alt 4 Post-treatment 312 62 63 13 127 25 1,143 76 365 24
Final Environmental Impact Statement

31

Significant Issue #2

Indicators: Acres treated by treatment type.

: There is a disagreement about whether or not a sufficient amount of the 

lodgepole stand is treated to protect values at risk.

Alternative 3 would treat approximately two-thirds (673 acres) of the of the beetle-killed 

lodgepole pine area on the west side of the Hi-Grouse Project Area. Alternative 4 would treat 

essentially all of the beetle-killed lodgepole pine area (984 acres). Treatments are designed to 

reduce fuel loadings from the mortality and promote a stand composition of healthy small trees 

that would be more resilient to the mountain pine beetle in the future.

Effects Relative to the Purpose and Need

Table 2.6-3 summarizes the alternative effects related to forest composition and structure and 

fuels-related historic fire regime needs.

Table 2.6-3. Summary of alternative effects related to the purpose and needs of forest composition 

and structure and fuels-related historic fire regime

Purpose and Need Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Promote restoration of historic forest composition and structure

Decrease stand density over most of the 

project area

No change 3,568 acres 3,847 acres

Increase proportion of ponderosa pine, sugar 

pine, and white pine on suitable sites to mimic 

historical stand conditions

No change No planting Plant up to 644 

acres PP/MC where 

needed

Release understory in lodgepole pine stands 

to increase stand diversity and remove dead 

and dying trees to reduce current and future 

fuels

No change 673 acres 970 acres

Increase stand diversity to enhance overall 

vegetative diversity

No change Increases through 

thinning and 

lodgepole thinning

Increases through 

thinning, lodgepole 

thinning, planting 

pine, and small 

openings within 

thinning treatments

Maintain aesthetic values No change Yes Yes

Identify appropriate monitoring No change Yes Yes

Promote restoration of fuels-related historic fire regime

Mimic natural processes through 

management actions to promote healthy 

ecological conditions and replicate the role of 

natural disturbances

No change Thinning and use of 

prescribed burning

Thinning with 

openings, interplanting PP/MC, and 

use of prescribed 

burning

Treat heavy fuel loadings to reduce the threat 

of stand-replacing wildfire, protect old forest 

habitat components in the project area, and

provide for firefighter safety

No change 3,568 acres, 

including 13 miles 

FMZ

3,847 acres,

including 13 miles

FMZ
Hi-Grouse Project

32
Final Environmental Impact Statement

33

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

This section summarizes the biological, physical, and socioeconomic environments of the 

affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of 

the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives 

presented in the chart above. 

This chapter is organized by resource area. Following each resource description is a summary of 

the potential effects (environmental consequences) to the resource associated with the 

implementation of each alternative. Significant or potentially significant effects, including direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects are disclosed. Unless otherwise stated, the effects between 

alternatives are the same. Effects are quantified, where possible, and qualitative discussions are 

also included. Additional discussions include the short-term uses and long-term productivity, 

unavoidable adverse effects, irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, cumulative 

effects, and other required disclosures.

This EIS incorporates the Forest Plan by reference and tiers to the FEIS completed for the Forest 

Plan. The discussions of resource and potential effects take advantage of existing information 

included in the Forest Plan and other sources as indicated. Where applicable, such information is 

briefly summarized and referenced to minimize duplication. The planning record includes all 

project-specific information such as resource reports, ecosystem analyses, and other results of 

field investigations. 

The supporting resource specialist reports and their amendments are available on the Forest 

Internet website at: www.fs.usda.gov/klamath. Key points from the analysis documents are 

summarized and the documents are incorporated by reference.

3.1 Analyzing Environmental Consequences

Environmental consequences are the effects of implementing an alternative on the biological, 

physical, economic, and social environment. The Council of Environmental Quality regulations 

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act include a number of specific categories to 

use for the analysis of environmental consequences. Several form the basis of much of the 

analysis that follows. They are explained briefly here. 

3.1.1 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the initial cause or 

action. Indirect effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the 

activity, but would occur in the foreseeable future. The project is expected to be active over the 

approximately the next 7 to 10 years or from the time the decision is made to full

implementation. Cumulative effects result when the incremental effects of actions are added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or 

person undertakes such actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but 

collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. Past activities contributed to 

the existing condition and are considered in the affected environment. Present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions are assessed along with the effects of the proposed action to determine 

whether significant cumulative effects may occur. This analysis is consistent with the Council on 

Environmental Quality memo from James L. Connaughton titled “Guidance on the 
Hi-Grouse Project

34

Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis” dated June 24, 2005, incorporated 

by reference.

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed 

action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the 

impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all 

prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute 

to cumulative effects.

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by 

adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking 

this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile 

and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over 

the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have 

residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an 

individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or 

alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at

existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of 

individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last 

century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past 

human actions risks and ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may 

contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, 

we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless 

of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Third, public scoping for this 

project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information on individual past 

actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on 

June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an 

adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions 

without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” The cumulative effects 

analysis in this EIS is also consistent with Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008).

The Klamath National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) was reviewed and district 

personnel consulted to identify current and reasonably foreseeable projects on the Goosenest 

Ranger District. Contacts were made with adjacent Forests for proposed activities to be 

considered in select wildlife analyses for cumulative effects analysis. 

Assessment areas vary by resource, and so do the other actions included in each cumulative 

effects analysis. Cumulative effects may include estimated effects from present logging (timber 

harvest, fuels treatments, road and landing construction and maintenance) and wildfire activities

(e.g. suppression activities and the affected burn areas). Other actions may include but are not 

limited to grazing and fuels reduction and/or forest health projects in the vicinity.

Ongoing activities include annual road maintenance, recreation trail use for hiking and 

snowmobiling, dispersed camping, hunting, appropriate responses for fire suppression, and 

implementation of the Forest Travel Management decision. Future fuels reduction and vegetation 

management projects in the planning stages include the Pumice project east of the Hi-Grouse 

Project Area on the Goosenest Ranger District, and the Hoffmann project on the Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest, southeast of the project area. 

The recent past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions considered for this project analysis

are displayed in appendix A on maps A-7 and A-8, and described in appendix E.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

35

3.2 Biological Environment

3.2.1 Forest Vegetation

A more detailed description of affected environment, methods, and environmental consequences 

for this project can be found in the Silviculture Report (Schantz 2009a), incorporated by 

reference and available on the Forest Internet website at: www.fs.usda.gov/klamath.

Goosenest Adaptive Management Area Ecosystem Analysis (AMA Analysis 1996). In 1996 

an ID team was organized to conduct an intermediate analysis between Forest planning direction 

and project planning. This analysis provides an integrated assessment of the ecosystem processes 

and functions operating within the AMA, resource issues and the affected resources, and 

management recommendations. The analysis was used as a source of information on the existing 

conditions and reference conditions, and as background for the purpose and need for the project.

Methodology 

Vegetation information was compiled from Forest vegetation databases and from stand exams 

taken in the project area. Field reconnaissance of the project area was conducted by the project 

silviculturist and logging systems specialist to assess stand conditions and refine unit boundaries, 

prescriptions, and logging system access. In addition to project specialists, the area pathologist 

and area entomologist from Forest Health Protection (FHP) visited the project area and prepared 

a report outlining the conditions regarding annosus root disease, mountain pine beetle, and dwarf 

mistletoe (Angwin 2008).

Geographic information system (GIS) data was used to develop the maps of the proposed action 

and alternatives; these layers included stands and roads. A 10-meter digital-elevation model was 

used to generate contours and slope classes as an aid in determining appropriate logging systems.

The South Central Oregon, Northeastern California Variant of the Forest Vegetation Simulator 

(FVS) (Dixon 2005) was used to simulate management activities. The Fire and Fuels Extension 

to FVS (FFE) was used to predict fuels parameters.

Limitations and Assumptions. Stand exam data was used to run the FVS model; however, data 

was not available for each stand. Stands representative of the different forest strata were run and 

used to compute stratum averages. Thinning and fuels treatment were simulated for each 

prescription.

Indicators from Model. The model was used to generate pre- and post-thinning stand 

parameters of canopy cover, average diameter, basal area, trees per acre, and stand density index.

Timber volumes from thinning were computed by the model. The FFE provided estimates of 

stand height, canopy bulk density, canopy base height, and total canopy cover.

Scope of Analysis: Affected environment includes recent past actions and historic actions that 

have impacted the existing condition. Past activities recorded in Forest databases were 

considered and displayed on map A-7 in appendix A, and described in appendix E.

Direct and indirect effects analyses consider the treatments associated with the no action 

alternative and the treatment areas in the action alternatives, along with the project design 

features. Implementation of the Hi-Grouse Project is anticipated to start in 2010. The estimated 

duration of the harvest activities is approximately 7 years. It is likely that some pile burning and 
Hi-Grouse Project

36

underburning could begin a few years after the last thinning units are completed (i.e., 9 or 10 

years after project start). 

Cumulative effects considers current and future foreseeable similar actions (other fuel reduction 

and vegetation management projects) noted in the Forest's statement of proposed actions (SOPA) 

that overlap the analysis area in time. The cumulative effects analysis area is the entire HiGrouse Project Area. The analysis timeframe is 20 years for short-term effects such as temporary 

decreases in canopy closure after thinning treatments. Some long-term effects, such as the time it 

takes trees to mature, would occur in excess of 20 years. Ongoing and foreseeable future projects 

recorded in Forest databases were considered in the cumulative effects and displayed on maps A7 and A-8 in appendix A, and described in appendix E.

Affected Environment

Major influences on the Hi-Grouse Project Area over the last 100 years are railroad logging that 

started in the early 1900 and fire suppression (USDA Forest Service 1996; Ritchie 2005). Past 

timber harvests removed most of the larger ponderosa pine and white fir from the original forest 

(Creasy et al. 2007; Ritchie 2005). It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of the Hi-Grouse 

Project Area had previous partial cutting (pine removals, sanitation/salvage, thinning), 5 percent 

were regenerated by clearcut and shelterwood methods and 30 percent had a full or partial 

overstory removal of the largest trees. The selective cutting prescriptions that removed larger 

true fir over the last several decades in the true fir-dominated stands has lead to annosus root 

disease impacts on stand structure, including mortality (Angwin 2008).

The removal of pine seed sources, combined with livestock grazing and post-logging fires, 

created ideal conditions for germination of true firs. Fire suppression has allowed the 

establishment and dominance of white fir in the white fir series, where ponderosa pine was 

historically maintained as the dominant species by frequent low-severity fires (Creasy et al. 

2007). In the higher elevation red fir series a similar situation occurred where the removal of 

pine seed sources with logging lead to increases in the amount of true fir. These stands would 

have historically had more fir in them due to the mixed-severity fire regime, but they have still 

been altered by lack of fires (Creasy et al. 2007; Ritchie 2005).

Selective logging in the white fir/pine and red fir types has lead to the introduction and spread of 

annosus root disease, which is now a major factor in stand health. Due to the recent drought, 

insect and disease-related mortality is occurring in true firs and ponderosa pine. Mature 

lodgepole pine stands are continuing to experience heavy stand-replacing mortality due to the 

mountain pine beetle, and these high beetle populations are now infesting ponderosa pine within 

the white fir/pine type (Angwin 2008). 

Most of the stands in the project area are overstocked and substantial mortality is occurring and 

is expected to continue (USDA Forest Service 1996; Angwin 2008). Most of the area has missed 

several fire cycles, severely departing from the historic fire-return intervals (Ritchie 2005).

According to Long (1985), density management is the manipulation and control of growing 

stock to achieve specific management objectives. Stand density index (SDI) (Reineke 1933) was 

used to develop guidelines for maintaining stand density within a range where individual tree 

growth rates would be optimized, and mortality would be reduced. In general, maintaining the 

stand between 30 percent of maximum SDI (approximate onset of inter-tree competition) and 50 

percent of maximum SDI (zone below onset of competition induced mortality) (Long 1985) 

allows for maintaining healthy stands while meeting a variety of management objectives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

37

SDI was used to characterize the site potential for ponderosa pine stockability using methods 

outlined above. The upper management zone, or the density that a suppressed class of trees 

begins to develop, was calculated as approximately 120 to 140 square feet of basal area per acre 

for the average diameter of ponderosa pine (12 to 24 inches) within the white fir series. This 

range corresponds well with Oliver (1995) who estimated the threshold for imminent bark beetle 

mortality in ponderosa pine at a basal area of 150 square feet per acre based on observations and 

inventory data. The lower management zone was established at a density that allows for high 

rates of individual tree growth while still capturing a significant portion of site resources (intertree competition is present, but full site occupancy has not been reached). Stands managed 

towards the lower management zone would produce trees with long crowns with large limbs,

typical of old-growth ponderosa pines, beneficial for goshawk and spotted owl nesting structure.

For ponderosa pine in the white fir series, the lower management zone would be approximately 

80 to 90 square feet of basal area per acre for this project.

White fir is noted for its rapid early growth. It is capable of out-growing ponderosa pine on 

similar sites, and this was observed within the project area through increment coring. The upper 

management zone for white fir would be 160 to 180 square feet of basal area per acre, and the 

lower management zone would be 100 to 115 square feet, assuming a maximum SDI of 560 

(Cochran 1983). However, stockability for white fir on these sites may be largely determined by 

water availability. Cochran (1998) reported on the results of a white fir growing stock study on 

the Fremont and Deschutes National Forests that was begun in 1983 and destroyed by mortality 

between 1990 and 1995 after prolonged drought. Mortality was severe even in plots that were 

thinned to 20 percent of maximum SDI. Mortality was attributed to root disease, spruce 

budworm defoliation, and fir engraver beetles. Cochran (1998) cautioned against managing for 

white fir on sites with mean annual precipitation below 32 inches, even at very low densities. 

Cochran (1998) recommended maintaining a large component of ponderosa pine in the stand, 

and managing these sites based on ponderosa pine stockability guides. The recent widespread 

increase of tree mortality rates in the western United States (van Mantgem et al. 2009), which 

has been attributed to regional warming and increasing moisture stress, also casts doubt on the 

ability to manage for high levels of white fir on these sites in the long term, especially where 

diseases and parasites are already causing additional stress on this species. 

Red fir is noted for its high maximum density in natural stands, and is reported to have one of the 

highest maximum SDI levels of any species (Reineke 1933). Based on the methods outlined 

above, the upper management zone for red fir would be 230 to 300 square feet of basal area per 

acre, and the lower management zone would be 150-180 square feet, assuming a maximum SDI 

of 800. The main concern with stocking of red fir in this project is the effect of root disease 

which deteriorates roots making trees more susceptible to competition. Having lost most of the 

historic pine component means there are fewer species to anchor these stands against the effects 

of losing red fir to drought-root disease interactions. However, contrary to white fir, it is thought 

that thinning red fir could help reduce losses to annosus root disease (Angwin 2008).

Insects and Disease. Several insects and diseases are common in the project area and are having 

an impact on species composition and structure (Angwin 2008). The mountain pine beetle 

(Dendroctonus ponderosae) and fir engraver beetle (Scolytus ventralis) are very active in the HiGrouse Project Area in both ponderosa and lodgepole pines (Angwin 2008). In ponderosa pine

the beetles have been attacking trees within dense white fir leading to a substantial loss of the

pine component in these stands. Pine engraver beetle (Ips species) activity currently appears to 

be low in the Hi-Grouse Project Area.
Hi-Grouse Project

38

Approximately one-third of the Hi-Grouse Project Area consists of early- and mid-seral true firdominated stands that have a high incidence of annosus root disease, primarily as a result of past 

management (Angwin 2008). Annosus root disease infection centers in white fir expand at the 

rate of approximately 1 foot per year, as the fungus grows through root contacts of live trees 

(Angwin 2008). 

Two main dwarf mistletoes found within the project area are lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe (A. 

americanum) and true fir dwarf mistletoe (A. abietinum). Lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe is 

found in all lodgepole pine stands and is especially heavy in mature lodgepole stands in both the 

remnant overstory trees and in the advanced lodgepole regeneration. Remnant trees are 

providing a recurring source for infection to seedlings and saplings. Moderate to heavy infection 

in lodgepole reduces growth drastically, and most of these trees would never reach the typical 9 

to 12 inch diameters of a mature stand; this level of infection leads to development of stunted, 

bushy trees that persist for long periods without any substantial growth (Angwin 2008). 

Infection of white fir by the true fir dwarf mistletoe tends to be moderately heavy throughout the 

white fir series. Damage can be substantial with this dwarf mistletoe when combined with 

concurrent infection by a canker fungus (Cytospora spp.). The canker causes branches to die and 

leads to a general dieback of the crowns. This effect was commonly observed in the Hi-Grouse 

Project Area where white fir was infected with dwarf mistletoe, and along with annosus root 

disease is creating a high hazard for attack by fir engraver beetles (Angwin 2008). 

When trees become stressed by density-related competition and drought, the effects of insects 

and disease agents often increase. For more information on the specific pathogens present in the 

project area see the Silviculture Report (Schantz 2009a).

The Final Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (NSO Recovery Plan) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2008, page 26) identifies active management of the matrix as a high priority. The following

features are recommended to guide these treatments (ib. pages 109-110): Favor fire tolerant 

species, e.g., old ponderosa pine, and promote smaller size classes of these species for future 

recruitment of large-tree habitat.

1) Retain large, old trees

2) Apply treatments unevenly within stands

3) Apply treatments unevenly among stands

4) Develop landscape-level prescriptions 

In the Hi-Grouse Project Area the element most lacking in high-quality habitat is the presence of 

large, old, fire-resistant ponderosa pines which previously dominated this landscape. Promotion 

of existing smaller size classes and establishment of pine would be necessary to meet the Plan’s 

goal of restoration of fire tolerance and large tree habitat that would “anchor” stands from one 

disturbance to the next by providing the legacies that are the slowest to develop. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

39

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

The no action alternative does not address the purpose and need for the project. This alternative 

would lead to a continued loss of tree species diversity and movement away from the 

historic/desired species composition and structure. High stand densities and slow growth would 

continue the trends of mortality and increase the time in which smaller trees would replace the 

larger fire-resistant trees that have recently been killed. Dense canopies in both the vertical and 

horizontal dimensions, as well as continued fuel buildup from mortality, would perpetuate the 

propensity towards tree torching and active crown fire during a wildfire event.

Historic Forest Composition and Structure/Resiliency to Disturbance. Resiliency to 

disturbance would remain low, since almost all mid-seral stands are overstocked (at or above the 

upper management zone for stand density). There would be continued loss of the larger 

ponderosa pine, which are the most fire-resistant trees that provide a long-lived component for 

late-successional habitat with the ability to survive wildfire. At the high stand densities found in 

this area, the larger, older trees are often the first to die, because under stress they are unable to 

maintain their higher respiratory requirements compared to smaller trees, and are susceptible to 

bark beetles (Fettig et al. 2006). Ritchie et al. (2008) noted this mortality of the larger pines in 

northeastern California at the Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest, and this situation was also

observed within the Hi-Grouse Project Area.

The trend of true fir dominance would continue and this area would move even further away 

from the pine-dominated forest conditions that existed prior to early logging and fire 

suppression. Early- and mid-seral true fir-dominated stands that have a high incidence of 

annosus root disease primarily would continue to experience mortality, leading to increasing fuel 

loadings and loss of canopy cover, until they would eventually reach the stand initiation phase in 

20 to 30 years. Regeneration in these stands would be heavily dominated by true fir, which 

would perpetuate the disease on the site. 

Mature lodgepole stands will continue to die. There would be a stagnation of small trees infected 

with dwarf mistletoe and a high hazard of losing all advance regeneration of other species to 

wildfire. This advance regeneration would continue to develop slowly. True fir and ponderosa 

pine would continue to be susceptible to mountain pine beetles.

Late-Successional Habitat. No action would leave all late-successional habitat untreated, 

leaving this habitat at a higher hazard for loss to wildfire and insects and disease. A primary 

effect would be that larger ponderosa pine would continue to be lost to bark beetles.

No action would not address the loss of long-lived fire-resistant tree species. Mid- and earlyseral stands in the white fir/pine and mixed conifer communities on over 50 percent of the HiGrouse Project Area would remain in slow growing conditions.

Fuel Loadings/Fire Regime. Current trends of heavy fuel loadings would continue under no 

action due to ongoing mortality related to bark beetles, root disease, and tree suppression. Forest 

structure would not be modified from its current condition, which is conducive to high-severity 

fire, to a structure that would be conducive to non-lethal surface fire.
Hi-Grouse Project

40

Effects Related to the Key Issues

The no action alternative does not directly affect any late-successional habitat, but has the 

indirect effect of perpetuating the high risk factors that in the future could lead to a rapid and 

widespread loss.

This alternative does not address the current and future conditions in the beetle-killed lodgepole 

pine stands, since fuel loadings and stand composition are not treated.

Cumulative Effects

Within the Hi-Grouse Project Area, timber harvest and fire suppression have been the dominant 

management activities having a cumulative effect on vegetation. The trends that have developed 

under this management regime would continue under no action, and would contribute to the 

adverse forest health conditions discussed in the existing condition in chapter 1.

The level of infection in white fir-dominated stands with previous partial cutting would lead to 

significant losses of canopy cover and high levels of down wood as annosus root disease 

progresses in the next 20 to 30 years.

Alternative 1 would not move the project area toward meeting the goals for the Goosenest AMA, 

since restoration treatments that employ prescribed burning and silvicultural techniques would 

not be initiated.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Historic Forest Composition and Structure/Resiliency to Disturbance. Resiliency to 

disturbance would improve. Mid-seral white fir-ponderosa pine stands would be thinned to levels 

that are just below the threshold for bark beetle mortality to levels approaching the upper 

management zone. Thinning would reduce mortality from bark beetles and create stand 

structures more conducive to low-severity surface fires when compared to the existing condition.

In terms of stand density, it is expected that the effects of reduced canopy closure would be less 

intensive and short-lived compared to alternative 4. 

In lodgepole pine and white fir stands removal of the overstory dwarf mistletoe seed source and 

sanitation of the understory by removal of the most heavily infected trees would allow existing 

advanced regeneration to eventually develop into an upper canopy.

The target upper density level of basal area is generally not reached due to the 20-inch diameter 

limit, and the stands are projected to be well above the upper density level by 2029 (table 3.2-1).

The year 2014 represents the effects of thinning after treatment. Canopy cover in the pinedominated and white fir dominated thinning treatments would be reduced after thinning and 

increase slightly by 2029 (table 3.2-2)

Small-tree thinning (less than 12 inches dbh) treatments would promote growth, promote a 

higher proportion of pines in the composition, and reduce potential for crown fire. These 

treatments would maintain these stands within desired density ranges for at least 20 years, which 

should reduce the effects of insects and diseases as well as promote growth rates of individual 

trees.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

41

Table 3.2-1. Current and projected basal area for alternative 3 treatments

Silviculture Rx

Ave. Sq. Ft. Basal Area per Acre by Year*

2009 Before 

Treatment

2014 After 

Treatment

2029 After 

Treatment

Lodgepole thinning 93 39 58

Underburn 153 151 185

Light thinning ponderosa pine 174 145 170

Light thinning white fir, ponderosa pine 200 191 216

Light thinning red fir 177 176 213

Light thinning mixed conifer 148 153 186

Small tree thinning mixed conifer 64 69 92

Small tree thinning promote ponderosa pine 100 94 117

Small tree thinning in old growth red fir 154 144 171

* These are average basal areas as modeled in FVS by treatment type across the project area and are not reflective of 

any particular stand or unit.

Table 3.2-2. Current and projected canopy cover for alternative 3 treatments

Silviculture Rx

Ave. Canopy Cover per Acre by Year*

2009 Before 

Treatment

2014 After 

Treatment

2029 After 

Treatment

Lodgepole thinning 38 15 20

Underburn 49 48 53

Light thinning ponderosa pine 53 44 47

Light thinning white fir, ponderosa pine 60 53 54

Light thinning red fir 51 46 49

Light thinning mixed conifer 55 52 55

Small tree thinning mixed conifer 16 14 19

Small tree thinning ponderosa pine 40 32 35

Small tree thinning in old growth red fir 41 29 32

* These are average canopy cover as modeled in FVS by treatment type across the project area and are not reflective of 

any particular stand or unit.

Approximately a third of the Hi-Grouse Project Area has mid-seral white fir with a high 

incidence of annosus root disease that would not be treated under alternative 3. Over the next 20 

to 30 years these stands would be regenerated by the effect of the root disease in conjunction 

with fir engraver beetles, which commonly attack white fir weakened by disease and/or drought. 

Since there is little or no ponderosa pine seed source in these stands, the resulting regeneration is 

also expected to be white fir, which would perpetuate the disease on the site (Angwin 2008). As

mortality continues to occur, fuel loadings would reach high levels. High fuel loadings lead to 

concerns over resistance to control for fire suppression forces, potential for lethal surface fires,

and tree torching within the stands.

Ips species are commonly called pine engraver beetles and have several generations per year. Ips 

beetle populations may build up in slash to levels where small diameter trees and tops of mature 
Hi-Grouse Project

42

trees in the vicinity are at risk for attack (Angwin 2008). Thus, the proposed slash treatment is

essential to the management of these beetles (Livingston 1979).

Late-Successional Habitat. Alternative 3 and would maintain the late-successional forest in this 

alternative. Light thinning treatments would reduce ladder fuels on approximately 165 acres of 

mid-late seral white fir-ponderosa stands identified as NSO and NGH habitat..

Thinning in alternative 3 would promote pole-sized (4 to 8 inches dbh) and small tree (less than 

12 inches dbh) stands towards mid- and late-seral stages because of more durable structure and 

species composition. Ponderosa pine would be promoted over other species that would increase 

fire-resistance and future large-tree structure as described in the Recovery Plan for the NSO.

Another long-term benefit of thinning would be to open up very dense areas to encourage growth 

of understory shrub and herbaceous species that would increase overall biodiversity. Thinned 

areas, small openings, and un-thinned clumps in close proximity mimics historic stand 

conditions and provides for species diversity. 

Prescribed burning and thinning treatments would improve forest health and promote sustainable 

late-successional forests in both the short and long term. A semi-landscape approach would be 

used to restore disturbance processes and patterns more typical of historic conditions before 

widespread changes resulting from logging and fire-suppression.

Cumulative Effects

Effects of Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions. Similar restoration projects are 

being carried out within the Goosenest AMA and other parts of this watershed. In conjunction 

with these projects, it is likely that the potential for large uncharacteristic wildfires and bark 

beetle outbreaks in ponderosa pine and white fir would be reduced. Use of fire, including 

wildland fire, as a management tool in the future could be increased.

Alternative 4 (Modified Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 has similar effects as alternative 3, except as described below.

Historic Forest Structure and Composition/Resiliency to Disturbance. Resiliency to 

disturbance would improve. Thinning would reduce susceptibility to mortality from bark beetles 

and create stand structures more conducive to low-severity surface fires. The effects of the 

reduction in stand density would last for at least 20 years (table 3.2-3). Canopy cover in the pinedominated thinning treatments would be reduced to approximately 33 percent after thinning and 

would be 35 percent in 2029 (table 3.2-4). In the white fir-dominated thinning treatments, 

canopy cover would be reduced to approximately 37 percent, and would reach 40 percent in 

2029. Heavy thinning in pine on 405 acres would reduce canopy cover below 30 percent—these 

stands would provide an open forest, park-like structure on the landscape.

Late-Successional Habitat. The effects on late successional habitat under alternative 4 would be 

the same as discussed for alternative 3.

Cumulative Effects

Effects of Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions. The effects under alternative 4 

would be the same as discussed for alternative 3.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

43

Table 3.2-3. Current and projected basal area for alternative 4 treatments

Silviculture Prescription

Ave. Sq. Ft. Basal Area per Acre by Year*

2009

Before 

Treatment

2014 After 

Treatment

2029 After 

Treatment

Thinning ponderosa pine 183 97 111

Lodgepole thinning 93 39 58

Thinning white fir, ponderosa pine 191 122 141

Light thinning white fir, ponderosa pine 200 191 216

Heavy thinning ponderosa pine 147 72 85

Heavy thinning mixed conifer/mixed conifer reestablishment 166 107 126

Small tree thinning mixed conifer 64 69 92

Small tree thinning promote NGH forage habitat 113 113 143

Small tree thinning promote ponderosa pine 100 94 117

Small tree thinning in old growth red fir 154 144 171

Underburn 153 151 185

* These are average basal areas as modeled in FVS by treatment type across the project area and are not reflective of 

any particular stand or unit.

Table 3.2-4. Current and projected canopy cover for alternative 4 treatments

Silviculture Prescription

Ave. Canopy Cover per Acre by Year*

2009

Before 

Treatment

2014 After 

Treatment

2029 After 

Treatment

Thinning ponderosa pine 54 33 35

Lodgepole thinning 38 15 20

Thinning white fir, ponderosa pine 61 37 40

Light thinning white fir, ponderosa pine 60 53 54

Heavy thinning ponderosa pine 49 22 24

Heavy thinning mixed conifer/mixed conifer reestablishment 64 41 45

Small tree thinning mixed conifer 16 14 19

Small tree thinning promote NGH forage habitat 36 29 32

Small tree thinning promote ponderosa pine 40 32 35

Small tree thinning in old growth red fir 41 29 32

Underburn 49 48 53

* These are average canopy cover as modeled in FVS by treatment type across the project area and are not reflective of 

any particular stand or unit.

Summary and Conclusions

A comparison of alternatives as it relates to purpose and need and key issues, including 

lodgepole treatment, can be found in sections 2.5 and 2.6.
Hi-Grouse Project

44

3.2.2 Fuels

A more detailed description of affected environment, modeling methods, and environmental 

consequences for this project can be found in the Fire and Fuels Report (Helmbrecht and Kurth 

2009), incorporated by reference and available on the Forest Internet website at: 

www.fs.usda.gov/klamath.

Methodology

Vegetation information was compiled from Forest vegetation databases and from stand exams 

taken in the project area. Field reconnaissance of the project area was conducted by the project 

silviculturist and fuels specialists to assess stand conditions. 

The South Central Oregon, Northeastern California Variant of the Forest Vegetation Simulator 

(FVS) (Dixon 2005) was used to simulate silvicultural treatments proposed in the action 

alternatives. The Fire and Fuels Extension to FVS (FFE) (Reinhardt and Crookston 2003) was 

used to predict canopy fuel parameters for both critiquing LANDFIRE data and building posttreatment landscape data for use in FlamMap.

LANDFIRE (www.landfire.gov) is a national vegetation and fuels mapping project that provides 

nationally consistent and seamless geospatial data products for use in wildland fire analysis and 

modeling. LANDFIRE national data on elevation, aspect, slope, fire behavior fuel model, 

canopy cover, canopy height, canopy base height, and canopy bulk density were used as the 

basis for geospatial wildland fire modeling. Together these geospatial data layers make up the 

“landscape” file used by the FlamMap fire behavior modeling system (Finney 2006) used for 

analysis of this project. LANDFIRE national data was evaluated together with other local fuels 

data and was determined to be the best suited for this analysis.

Given uncertainty of any modeling, the results are best used to compare the relative effects of the 

alternatives, rather than an indicator of absolute effects. Interpretation, professional judgment, 

and local knowledge of fire behavior were used to evaluate the outputs from the models and 

adjustments made as necessary to refine the predictions. 

Scope of Analysis: Affected environment includes recent past actions and historic actions that 

have impacted the existing condition. Past activities recorded in Forest databases were 

considered and displayed on map A-7 in appendix A, and described in appendix E.

Direct and indirect effects analyses consider the treatments associated with the no action 

alternative and the treatment areas in the action alternatives, along with the project design 

features. For analysis purposes, implementation of the Hi-Grouse project is anticipated to start in 

2010. The estimated duration of the harvest activities is approximately 7 years. It is likely that 

some pile burning and underburning could begin a few years after the last thinning units are 

completed (i.e., 9 or 10 years after project start). 

Cumulative effects considers current and future foreseeable similar actions (other fuel reduction 

and vegetation management projects) noted in the Forest's SOPA that overlap the analysis area in 

time. Activities within and adjacent to the planning area can collectively modify wildland fire 

spread and behavior. To account for fire spread into the planning area, ongoing and proposed 

activities recorded in the Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS) within the Badger 

Basin-Willow Creek HUC 5 Watershed were analyzed. The cumulative effects analysis area is 

the entire Hi-Grouse Project Area. The analysis timeframe is 20 years for short-term effects such 

as temporary decreases in canopy closure after thinning treatments. Some long-term effects, such 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

45

as the time it takes trees to mature, would occur in excess of 20 years. Ongoing and foreseeable 

future projects recorded in Forest databases were considered in the cumulative effects and 

displayed on maps A-7 and A-8 in appendix A, and described in appendix E.

Historical Fire Weather Analysis

Remote automated weather stations (RAWS) collect fire weather that is archived and available 

through KCFAST (http://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/kcfast/mnmenu.htm) and the Western Region 

Climate Center (http://www.raws.dri.edu/index.html). Weather for this analysis was initially 

obtained from three RAWS stations. Based on input from the KNF fire personnel and a review of 

the data, the Van Bremmer station data was determined to best represent the planning area.

Fire Behavior Potential

Fire behavior is driven by the combination of fuels, topography, and weather across the 

landscape. Surface fire is fire that burns in the surface fuels (grass, shrubs, litter, dead and down 

branch wood, and short trees in contact with the ground surface). Crown fire refers to fire 

burning in the tree canopy. Two types of crown fire can be modeled in fire behavior modeling 

systems. Passive crown fire also referred to as torching, kills individual or small groups of trees.

Active crown fire, also referred to as continuous crown fire, involves the entire surface and 

canopy fuel complex and crowning remains dependent on heat from the surface fuels. Crown 

fires are more difficult to control and have more severe and lasting effects than surface fire due 

to the increased rate of spread, increased intensity, and likelihood to start spot fires long 

distances ahead of the fire front.

The FlamMap fire modeling system (Finney 2006) was used to assess the distribution of 

potential fire behavior characteristics in the planning area. Specific characteristics assessed were 

fireline intensity expressed as flame length, rate of spread, and type of crown fire activity.

Late-Successional Wildlife Habitat and Burn Probability

The FlamMap fire behavior modeling system was used to estimate burn probability. Burn 

probability, as used in FlamMap, is defined as the number of times a pixel (each pixel represents 

a 30 meter by 30 meter area) burned as a proportion of the total number of fires simulated. One 

thousand random ignitions were used in the simulations. Burn probabilities are related to the 

sizes of fires that occur on a given landscape. Large fires burn a larger portion of the landscape 

than small fires and therefore a given pixel is likely to be burned by multiple fires resulting in a 

higher burn probability. Since fire size is a function of the gross spread rate and duration of the 

fire, treatments that reduce the spread rate would lower the burn probability. Burn probability 

estimates were used to assess the effectiveness of treatment alternatives in reducing fire spread 

into areas of high quality NSO nesting/roosting and NGH nesting habitat. 

Analyzing potential fire behavior and effects were based on the severe weather conditions, 

collected from historical weather records. To model fire behavior in FlamMap, fuel moistures 

and conditioning periods were selected to represent the 97th percentile. The 97th percentile was 

used because it represented maximum fire behavior for approximately 90 percent of the fires that 

have occurred. Kit Jacoby indicated that problem fire weather occurs from June through 

September when the 1-hour fuel moisture is 6 percent and 10-hour fuel moisture is slightly 

higher, with wind playing a prominent role (Jacoby, K., 2008, personal communication). The 

Van Bremmer station has a high frequency of days when the 1-hour fuel moisture was no higher

than 6 percent and the 10-hour fuel moisture was no higher than 8 percent. Winds of 25 mph 

from the northwest were used for analysis since those were the predominant winds during the 

burning periods
Hi-Grouse Project

46

Affected Environment

Major influences on the Hi-Grouse Project Area over the last 100 years are railroad logging that 

started in the early 1900 and fire suppression (USDA Forest Service 1996; Ritchie 2005). Past 

timber harvests removed most of the larger ponderosa pine and white fir from the original forest 

(Creasy et al. 2007; Ritchie 2005). It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of the Hi-Grouse 

Project Area had previous partial cutting (pine removals, sanitation/salvage, thinning), 5 percent 

were regenerated by clearcut and shelterwood methods, and 30 percent had a full or partial 

overstory removal of the largest trees. The selective cutting prescriptions which removed larger 

true fir over the last several decades in the true fir-dominated stands has lead to annosus root 

disease impacts on stand structure and mortality (Angwin 2008).

Fire History, Occurrence, and Regime

Fires were much more common in the planning area prior to European settlement, with much of 

the area experiencing short fire-return intervals. Estimated fire-return intervals are slightly longer 

than 4 to 19 years for white fir/ponderosa pine, 8 to 20 years in mixed conifer, 9 to 42 years for 

white fir/mixed conifer, and about 60 to 80 years for lodgepole pine/mixed conifer (USDA 

Forest Service 1996). With the natural fire occurrence, low intensity fires kept the understory 

fairly open, with scattered grasses and forbs. (USDA Forest Service 1996). 

Analysis of fire history data reveals that the planning area has not experienced a wildland fire 

greater than 100 acres since 1918 when one touched the planning area’s northern boundary 

(Creasy et al. 2007). This lack of fire in the planning area has contributed to the current 

vegetative structure and composition, fuel load, and subsequent increase in fire hazard. Fire 

exclusion has allowed the establishment and dominance of true firs, where ponderosa pine was 

historically maintained as the dominant or a co-dominant species by frequent, low- to mixedseverity fires. This influx of true firs in the understory and mid-story provides a ladder for fire, 

thus threatening the overstory trees. 

A fire regime is a generalized description of the role fire plays in an ecosystem (Agee 1993).

Historical fire regimes can provide useful references for evaluating landscape health and 

designing ecologically viable fuel treatments (Reinhardt et al. 2008). For a more detailed

synopsis of fire regimes in the planning area, refer to the Silviculture Report (Schantz 2009a). In 

general, the lower elevation white fir series historically experienced a frequent low severity fire 

regime. Due to fire exclusion and changes in species composition and structure, most notably the 

replacement of fire tolerant ponderosa pine with fire intolerant white fir, the series has 

accumulated surface and ladder fuels conducive to stand-replacement fire. In the higher 

elevation red fir series, fire was historically less frequent than in the white fir series and the fire 

regime was characterized as a moderate frequency mixed-severity fire regime. Today the red fir 

series is also more conducive to stand-replacement fire.

Measured live woody fuel moistures vary greatly depending on time of season and species 

measured, with values as low as 60 percent and well above 180 percent. Based on the measured 

fuel moistures for greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula) and live fuel moisture guidelines 

(Scott and Burgan 2005), live herbaceous and live woody values are assumed two-thirds cured, 

or dried (60 percent herbaceous, 90 percent woody). Generally, fire in fuels with shrubs (grass 

shrub, shrub, and timber understory models) would have more active fire behavior when live 

woody fuel moisture is below 100 to 120 percent, depending on species and location. By using 

the selected live fuel moistures, the modeled fire behavior in this analysis would reflect more 

active fire behavior in fuel models that incorporate live fuels.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

47

Fire Behavior and Fuels

A fire behavior fuel model is a set of fuelbed inputs used to predict surface fire behavior and 

transition to crown fire. Table 3.2-5 shows the distribution of fuel models in the Hi-Grouse 

Planning Area.

Table 3.2-5. Current distribution of fire behavior fuel models in the Hi-Grouse Planning Area

Fuel 

Model Fuel Model Descriptor Acres

Percent 

of Total

TU5 Very high load, dry climate timber-shrub 3,144 42

TL8 Long-needle litter 858 12

TL5 High load conifer litter 762 10

GS2 Moderate load, dry climate grass-shrub 761 10

TL4 Small downed logs 616 8

TU1 Low load dry climate timber-grass-shrub 532 7

TL3 Moderate load conifer litter 477 6

Other Includes grass, grass-shrub, shrub, timber litter, timber understory 

models with less than 25 acres each and non-burnable areas currently 

in the planning area

302 5

Forty-two percent of the planning area is mapped as fire behavior fuel model timber-understory 

5 (TU5). The primary carrier of fire in TU5 is heavy forest litter with a shrub or small tree 

understory. Within the planning area, this fuel model is mostly associated with the white fir/pine 

community. Thirty-six percent of the planning area is mapped with a timber litter (TL) fuel 

model. The primary carrier of fire in the timber litter fuel models is dead and down woody fuel.

Live fuel, if present, has little effect on fire behavior. The timber litter fuel models are dispersed

throughout the planning area with the exception of TL5, which is concentrated in the lodgepole 

pine community. The primary carrier of fire in TL5 is high-load conifer litter and light slash or 

mortality fuel. Ten percent of the planning area is mapped as grass-shrub 2 (GS2). The primary 

carrier of fire in GS2 is grass and shrubs combined.

Fire behavior characteristics are directly related to fire behavior fuel models, but vary with fuel 

moisture and wind. Modeled minimum, maximum, and mean flame lengths and rates of spread 

and number of acres of crown fire activity under current conditions for each fuel model are

included in table 3.2-6. Flame lengths range from nearly 0.5 feet to several hundred feet where 

there is crown fire. The average flame length for the planning area is 41 feet. The dominant TU5 

fuel model would have a lot of crown fire resulting in the high average flame length. Rates of 

spread range from less than 20 feet per hour to several miles per hour where there is crown fire 

or flashy grass and shrub fuels. The average rate of spread is 48 chains per hour. Fire behavior in 

the planning area is dominated by the expected high flame lengths and rates of spread associated 

with crown fire in the majority of the area represented by the TU5 fuel model. Nearly one-half of 

the area is expected to experience either passive or active crown fire with flame lengths greater

than 8 feet (table 3.2-7).
Hi-Grouse Project

48

Table 3.2-6. Current fire behavior characteristics in the major fuel models

Flame length and Rate of Spread

Fuel 

Model Acres

Minimum 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Maximum 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Mean 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Minimum 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

Maximum 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr) 1

Mean 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

TU5 3,144 3 349 86 1 451 91

TL8 858 1 228 6 1 399 12

TL5 762 1 3 2 1 12 3

GS2 761 1 143 17 1 415 54

TL4 616 1 2 1 <1 7 2

TU1 532 1 4 1 <1 12 1

TL3 477 <1 1 1 <1 3 1

Crown Fire Activity (acres)

Surface Torching

Active 

Crown

TU5 282 1,291 1,572

TL8 824 2 32

TL5 762

GS2 479 193 89

TL4 616

TU1 532

TL3 477

Acres with Potential Fire Behavior

Flame 

Length 

(ft) Acres

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr) Acres

Crown Fire 

Activity Acres

0–4 3,868 0–1 594 Surface 3,972

4–8 442 1–5 2,944 Torching 1,485

8–11 118 5–10 555 Active 1,692

> 11 3,024 10–20 373

20–40 442

40–80 621

> 80 1,923

1

Late-Successional Habitat. Fuel model TU5 makes up the majority of the identified NSO

nesting/roosting (72 percent) and NGH nesting (68 percent) habitats. The expected high flame 

lengths in this fuel model, in combination with the higher stand densities and multi-layered 

structure of these late-successional forests, lead to approximately two-thirds of the identified 

habitat areas expected to experience either passive or active crown fire. High flame lengths and 

rates of spread in the areas surrounding the late-successional habitat increase the likelihood of 

fire moving into the habitat areas. Mean burn probability is 11 percent for the NSO 

nesting/roosting habitat and 10 percent for the NGH nesting habitat. Acres of potential crown 

fire activity and burn probability modeled under current conditions within each habitat area is 

included in table 3.2-7.

ch/hr = chains per hour; one chain equals 66 feet.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

49

Table 3.2-7. Crown fire activity and burn probability within NSO nesting/roosting and northern 

goshawk nesting habitat

Crown Fire Activity (acres) Burn Probability (percent)

Surface Torching

Active 

Crown Minimum Maximum Mean

NSO nesting/roosting 186 141 217 3 15 11

NGH nesting 275 154 298 2 15 10

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct effect on fuels and fire behavior from the no action alternative. Over 

time, indirect effects of no management actions would result in additional accumulation of large 

dead and down fuels in areas of annosus infection. Forest fuel models would become fuel model 

TL7 where there is little herbaceous or shrub understory and TU5 where there is understory. This 

would result in increased fire intensity and severity, including increased passive and active 

crown fire. 

Cumulative Effects

The above noted accumulations of large dead and down fuels would furthermore increase the 

probability of fire spread into late-successional habitat patches and risk of losing the desired 

composition and structure to stand-replacement fire.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 would reduce surface fuels, resulting in a change in fuel models in much of the 

planning area, but on fewer acres than alternative 4. Some areas would retain their surface fuel 

characteristics, but receive treatment that would result in increased canopy base heights, 

decreased canopy cover, and decreased canopy bulk density, resulting in reduced fire behavior.

The fire behavior would be reduced from current conditions. Table 3.2-8 shows the fire behavior 

characteristics by fuel model. While the ranges of flame length and rate of spread are similar to 

the current conditions, the means for each fuel model are reduced. Average flame length and rate 

of spread for the planning area are 26 feet and 32 chains per hour, respectively. Approximately 

25 percent of the planning area is expected to experience either passive or active crown fire 

and/or flame lengths greater than 8 feet (table 3.2-8).
Hi-Grouse Project

50

Table 3.2-8. Alternative 3 fire behavior characteristics in the major fuel models

Flame length and Rate of Spread

Fuel 

Model Acres

Minimum 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Maximum 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Mean 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Minimum 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

Maximum 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr) 1

Mean 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

TU5 2,571 3 349 65 1 451 70

TU1 1,011 1 4 2 <1 12 2

TL1 726 <1 1 1 <1 1 1

TL3 640 <1 2 1 <1 4 1

GS2 526 1 143 18 1 415 61

GS1 501 1 176 5 1 298 17

TL8 497 1 228 7 1 399 13

TL4 420 1 2 1 <1 7 2

TL5 335 1 3 2 1 12 3

Crown Fire Activity (acres)

Surface Torching

Active 

Crown

TU5 911 689 971

TU1 1,011

TL1 726

TL3 640

GS2 369 79 78

GS1 489 1 11

TL8 477 <1 20

TL4 420

TL5 335

Acres with Potential Fire Behavior

Flame 

Length 

(ft) Acres

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr) Acres

Crown Fire 

Activity Acres

0–4 4,516 0–1 1,108 Surface 5,380

4–8 1,039 1–5 2,970 Torching 769

8–11 96 5–10 988 Active 1,079

> 11 1,801 10–20 505

20–40 301

40–80 358

> 80 1,222

1

Late-Successional Habitat. Alternative 3 would treat the same amount of acres of latesuccessional habitat as alternative 4. Table 3.2-9 shows the potential crown fire activity and burn 

probability within NSO nesting/roosting and NGH nesting habitat areas for alternative 3. The 

reduced fire behavior outside of the late-successional habitat would decrease the probability of 

ch/hr = chains per hour.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

51

fire spread into the habitat areas. Mean burn probability is 5 percent for the NSO

nesting/roosting habitat and 4 percent for the NGH nesting habitat (table 3.2-9).

Table 3.2-9. Alternative 3 crown fire activity and burn probability within NSO nesting/roosting and 

northern goshawk nesting habitat

Crown Fire Activity (acres) Burn Probability (percent)

Surface Torching

Active 

Crown Minimum Maximum Mean

NSO nesting/roosting 218 128 199 <1 11 5

NGH nesting 391 128 209 0 11 4

Cumulative Effects

Similar restoration projects have been carried out within the Goosenest AMA and other parts of 

the watershed. In conjunction with these projects, it is likely that with any of the action 

alternatives the potential for large uncharacteristic wildfires and bark beetle outbreaks in 

ponderosa pine and white fir would be reduced. Use of fire as a management tool, including 

wildland fire, in the future could be increased. 

Proposed vegetation and fuels activities within FACTS are likely to have little effect on wildland 

fire spread and behavior within the planning area due to their small acreage and location in 

relation to the planning area. Proposed activities are at least 2 miles from the planning area 

boundary and most of the acreage is to the northeast within the Callahan Lava Flow HUC 7 

Watershed, while the predominant winds are from the south to northwest (figure 3.2-1).

Alternative 4 (Modified Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 would reduce surface fuels, resulting in the change in fuel models in much of the 

planning area, and approximately 300 more acres than alternative 3. Some areas would retain 

their surface fuel characteristics, but receive treatment that would result in increased canopy base 

heights, decreased canopy cover, and decreased canopy bulk density, resulting in reduced fire 

behavior. The fire behavior would be reduced from current conditions. Table 3.2-10 shows the 

fire behavior characteristics by fuel model. While the ranges of flame length and rate of spread 

are similar to the current conditions, the means for each fuel model are reduced. Average flame 

length and rate of spread for the planning area are 23 feet and 30 chains per hour, respectively.

Approximately 22 percent of the planning area is expected to experience either passive or active 

crown fire and/or flame lengths greater than 8 feet (table 3.2-10).
Hi-Grouse Project

52

Table 3.2-10. Alternative 4 fire behavior characteristics in the major fuel models

Flame length and Rate of Spread

Fuel 

Model Acres

Minimum 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Maximum 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Mean 

Flame 

Length (ft)

Minimum 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

Maximum 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr) 1

Mean 

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr)

TU1 1,910 1 4 2 <1 12 2

TU5 1,790 3 349 82 1 451 87

GS2 1,314 1 143 9 1 415 33

TL1 678 <1 1 1 <1 1 1

TL4 403 1 2 1 <1 7 2

TL3 357 <1 1 1 <1 3 1

TL8 311 1 228 9 1 399 19

GS1 270 1 51 3 1 197 16

TL5 202 1 3 2 1 12 4

Crown Fire Activity (acres)

Surface Torching

Active 

Crown

TU1 1,910

TU5 341 606 843

GS2 1,180 61 73

TL1 678

TL4 403

TL3 357

TL8 292 <1 19

GS1 270 1

TL5 202

Acres with Potential Fire Behavior

Flame 

Length 

(ft) Acres

Rate of 

Spread 

(ch/hr) Acres

Crown Fire

Activity Acres

0– 4 4,831 0–1 977 Surface 5,633

4–8 972 1–5 3,167 Torching 668

8–11 81 5–10 707 Active 935

> 11 1,567 10–20 705

20–40 498

40–80 322

> 80 1,075

1

Late-Successional Habitat. Alternative 4 would treat the same amount of acres of latesuccessional habitat as alternative 3. Table 3.2-11 shows the potential crown fire activity and 

burn probability within NSO nesting/roosting and NGH nesting habitat areas for alternative 4.

The reduced fire behavior outside of the late-successional habitat decreases the probability of 

ch/hr = chairs per hour. One chain equals 66 feet, 80 chains equals a mile.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

53

fire spread into the habitat areas. Mean burn probability is 4 percent for the NSO

nesting/roosting and NGH nesting habitat (table 3.2-11).

Table 3.2-11. Alternative 4 crown fire activity and burn probability within NSO nesting/roosting and 

northern goshawk nesting habitat

Crown Fire Activity (acres) Burn Probability (percent)

Surface Torching

Active 

Crown Minimum Maximum Mean

NSO nesting/roosting 218 128 199 0 9 4

NGH nesting 391 128 209 0 9 4

Cumulative Effects 

Within the planning area, timber harvest and fire suppression have been the dominant 

management activities having a cumulative effect on vegetation and fuel. The trends that have 

developed under this management regime would continue with no action, and would contribute 

to the adverse forest health conditions discussed under the existing condition in chapter 1 and 

increase the risk of high-severity fire.

Cumulative effects for alternative 4 would be similar to those discussed under alternative 3. An 

additional 300 acres of lodgepole would be treated under alternative 4 and result in reduced burn 

probability (see figure 3.2-1).

Summary and Conclusions

Table 3.2-12 summarizes the crown fire activity and burn probability within NSO and NGH

habitat. Figure 3.2-1 includes burn probability maps for current conditions and each alternative.

Currently, fire behavior in the planning area is dominated by the high flame lengths and rates of 

spread associated with crown fire in the majority of the area represented by the TU5 fuel model.

Nearly one-half of the area is expected to experience either passive or active crown fire with 

flame lengths greater than 11 feet. Mean burn probabilities are 11 percent for the NSO 

nesting/roosting habitat and 10 percent for the NGH nesting habitat. Modeled fire behavior under 

current conditions is not characteristic of the frequent low severity and moderate frequency 

mixed-severity historical fire regimes of the planning area. 

Both alternatives 3 and 4 include treatments that would reduce the amount of TU5 fuel model, 

increase canopy base heights, and reduce canopy bulk density; thus reducing crown fire and burn 

probabilities and moving the expected fire behavior more towards conditions characteristic of the 

historical fire regimes of the planning area. Alternative 4 would provide a greater reduction in 

fire behavior in the planning area followed by alternative 3.

Alternative 3 would have reduced flame length, rate of spread, and torching or active crown fire 

when compared to no action. Burn probability would be reduced from no action, and slightly 

more than alternative 4. Acres with crown fire within the planning area would be reduced by 

approximately 40 percent in this alternative. Mean burn probability would be reduced by 6 

percent in both NSO nesting/roosting and NGH nesting habitat.

Alternative 4 would have approximately 300 more acres overall with reduced flame length, rate 

of spread, and passive or active crown fire; and lower burn probability in late-successional 

habitat than alternative 3. Acres with crown fire within the planning area would be reduced by 
Hi-Grouse Project

54

approximately 50 percent in this alternative. Mean burn probability would be reduced by 7 

percent in NSO nesting/roosting habitat and 6 percent in NGH nesting habitat.

Table 3.2-12. Crown fire activity and burn probability within NSO nesting/roosting and northern 

goshawk nesting habitat for all alternatives

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Crown Fire Activity (acres) Burn Probability (percent)

Surface Torching

Active 

Crown Minimum Maximum Mean

NSO nesting/roosting 186 141 217 3 15 11

NGH nesting 275 154 298 2 15 10

Alternative 3

Crown Fire Activity (acres) Burn Probability (percent)

Surface Torching

Active 

Crown

Minimu

m Maximum Mean

NSO nesting/roosting 218 128 199 <1 11 5

NGH nesting 391 128 209 0 11 4

Alternative 4

Crown Fire Activity (acres) Burn Probability (percent)

Surface Torching

Active 

Crown

Minimu

m Maximum Mean

NSO nesting/roosting 218 128 199 0 9 4

NGH nesting 391 128 209 0 9 4

Figure 3.2-1. Burn probability by alternative
Final Environmental Impact Statement

55

3.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife

3.2.3.1 Wildlife–General

The effects of each alternative on Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) LSR, endangered and 

threatened species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); designated NSO critical 

habitat; species listed as sensitive by Region 5 of the USDA Forest Service, NWFP survey and 

management species, management indicator species (MIS) designated in the Forest Plan, and

migratory birds and deer within the project area are summarized in table 3.2-13. Species that 

may occur within the project area, or may be impacted from project alternatives are discussed 

below. Among the most notable of these are NSO, which are protected through multi-state 

habitat management plans. How well each alternative would meet the project objective and the 

impacts to wildlife and their habitats is discussed within this section.

For more detailed discussions of affected environment, methods, or environmental consequences 

for the species considered see the following reports: Biological Assessment (Oechsner 2010a, 

2010b) for the federally listed species; the Biological Evaluation (Oechsner 2010c) for Region 5 

sensitive species; the Management Indicator Species Project Level Assessment Part I and Part II 

(Oechsner 2010d, 2010e) for MIS; the Survey and Manage Report (Oechsner 2009) for Chace 

sideband; and the Migratory Bird and Deer Analysis (Oechsner 2010f) for the affected birds and 

deer. These reports are incorporated by reference and available on the Forest Internet website at: 

www.fs.usda.gov/klamath.

Methodology

The methodology and scope used for the wildlife analyses are noted here where in common. 

Only the areas of difference are noted in the species specific discussions below. 

Stand examination data and walk-through field recognizance data were used to discuss and 

evaluate the existing forested conditions and habitats within the project area. Using field 

verifications and aerial photography, the vegetation data layer called ‘e-veg04’ from USFS 

Region 5 Remote Sensing Laboratory was updated by Rob Schantz (USDA Forest Service 

silviculturist), Christy Cheyne (USDA Forest Service wildlife biologist) and Elizabeth Willy 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service wildlife biologist). 

Acres noted are approximate. New or relocated landing locations would be approximately onehalf acre in size.

Scope of Analysis: Affected environment for all species includes recent past actions and historic 

actions that have impacted the existing condition. Past activities recorded in Forest databases 

were considered and displayed on map A-7 in appendix A, and described in appendix E.

Direct and indirect effects analyses consider the treatments associated with the no action

alternative and the action alternatives, along with the project design features. Implementation of 

the Hi-Grouse project is anticipated to start in 2010. The estimated duration of the harvest 

activities is approximately 7 years. It is likely that some pile burning and underburning could 

begin a few years after the last thinning units are completed (i.e., 9 or 10 years after project start) 

(Schantz 2009a).

Cumulative effects considers current and future foreseeable similar actions (other fuel reduction 

and vegetation management projects) noted in the Forest's SOPA that overlap the analysis area in 

time. The cumulative effects analysis area varies by species, due to range and or habitat 
Hi-Grouse Project

56

availability, and is discussed in more detail below. The analysis timeframe varies by the 

anticipated habitat effect. For example, 20 years may be used for short-term effects such as 

temporary decreases in canopy closure after thinning treatments. Some long-term effects, such as 

the time it takes trees to mature, would occur in excess of 20 years. Ongoing and foreseeable 

future projects recorded in Forest databases were considered in the cumulative effects and 

displayed on maps A-7 and A-8 in appendix A, and described in appendix E.

Three future projects located adjacent to the Hi-Grouse Project Area overlap the analysis areas 

for NSO, bats, MIS, and deer. A brief description of these future projects follows, and the effects 

of these relevant projects are noted in the related species sections. 

Adjacent to the southwest of the Hi-Grouse Project Area, the 9,562-acre Pumice Project is in the 

early planning stages, and would focus on vegetation management and fuels reduction 

treatments. The 14,833-acre Hoffman Project is located adjacent to the south of the Hi-Grouse 

Project Area on the McCloud District of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest and would focus on 

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

proposed.

The Highlands Roadside Safety Improvement Project is planned east of the Hi-Grouse Project 

Area on the Doublehead District of the Modoc National Forest. The proposed action is to remove 

dead and dying hazard trees from along approximately 147 miles of major access roads.

Vegetation would be removed around corners to increase sight distance. The following activities 

are proposed:

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

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

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

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

Species Considered in Analysis. The list of threatened, endangered and proposed species for the 

area affected by the project was obtained via internet from the Arcata Field Office of the USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service on November 24, 2009. The project area lies within the 

Shasta/McCloud Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Unit Number 29 which was designated 

on August 13, 2008 (Oechsner 2010a, 2010b). The Regional Forester's sensitive species list (last 

amended October 15, 2007, to include the delisted bald eagle) identifies 22 sensitive animal 

species that may occur on the Forest. The Forest Plan (as amended August 15, 2007) lists the 

peregrine falcon as a sensitive species. However, peregrine falcons are no longer on the Regional 

Forester’s sensitive species list and were not analyzed (Oechsner 2010c). The Forest Plan also 

identifies MIS and a project-level assessment was completed to identify potentially affected 

species (Oechsner 2010d, 2010e). Additional species that may occur in the project area were also 

analyzed (Oechsner 2009).

In order to determine the scope of analysis, a preliminary evaluation was conducted for each 

potentially affected species. There are many species that would not be affected by this project, 

due to lack of habitat and or lacking likelihood of occurrence in or adjacent to the project area. 

The following species or and their habitats would not be affected by project actions and are listed 

in the respective wildlife analysis (Oechsner 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e, 2010f).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

57

Federally Listed Species

shortnose sucker

Lost River sucker

delta smelt

vernal pool fairy shrimp

Region 5 Sensitive Species

California wolverine

Pacific fisher

Sierra Nevada red fox

bald eagle

willow flycatcher

Swainson’s hawk

greater sandhill crane

great gray owl

northwestern pond turtle

Siskiyou mountain salamander

Cascades frog

foothill yellow-legged frog

southern torrent salamander

Tehama chaparral snail

Steelhead–Klamath Mountain

Province Evolutionary 

Significant Unit (ESU)

Upper Klamath/Trinity Chinook 

ESU–Spring Run

Upper Trinity River Chinook 

ESU–Fall Run

Management Indicator Species

acorn woodpecker

western gray squirrel

northern red-legged frog

western pond turtle

rainbow trout

steelhead

tailed frog

Cascades frog

American dipper

northern water shrew

long-tailed vole

pronghorn

montane vole 

loggerhead shrike

Swainson’s hawk

sage thrasher

burrowing owl

hairy woodpecker

downy woodpecker

pinyon jay

Survey and Manage Species

Chace sideband

blue-gray taildropper slug

This analysis document focuses on only those species with potential habitat that 

may occur in the project area, and that may be affected by project activities. 

Table 3.2-13 summarizes the species discussed in this document. 
Hi-Grouse Project

58

Table 3.2-13. Summary of species considered and their determination or findings of effects 

Species Classification

Potential Suitable 

Habitat / Likelihood 

of Occurrence in 

Project Area?

Determination/Find

ing for Alternative 

1 Determination/finding for Alternatives 3 and 4

NSO and 

NSO critical habitat

Federally listed

Designated critical 

habitat

Yes/may

Designated critical 

habitat present

No effect

No effect

May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect 

NSOs

May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect 

NSO critical habitat

American marten Region 5 Sensitive Yes/may No impact May impact individuals but not likely to result in a 

trend toward listing or loss of viability

Northern goshawk Region 5 Sensitive Yes/may No impact May impact individuals but not likely to result in a 

trend toward listing or loss of viability

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat

Region 5 Sensitive Yes/may No impact May impact individuals but not likely to result in a 

trend toward listing or loss of viability

Pallid bat Region 5 Sensitive Yes/may No impact May impact individuals but not likely to result in a 

trend toward listing or loss of viability

Red-breasted 

sapsucker

Snag associated MIS,

migratory bird

Yes/may No effect No impact on forest-level habitat and no change 

to the population trend

Vaux’s swift Snag associated MIS,

migratory bird

Yes/may No effect No impact on forest-level habitat and no change 

to the population trend

Pileated woodpecker Snag associated MIS,

migratory bird

Yes/may No effect No impact on forest-level habitat and no change 

to the population trend

Black-backed 

woodpecker

Snag associated MIS,

migratory bird

Yes/may No effect No impact on forest-level habitat and no change 

to the population trend

White-headed 

woodpecker

Mature ponderosa pine

MIS, migratory bird

Yes/may No effect No impact on forest-level habitat and no change 

to the population trend

Flammulated owl Mature ponderosa pine

MIS, migratory bird

Yes/may No effect No impact on forest-level habitat and no change 

to the population trend

Mule deer Big game Yes/yes No effect Improve habitat by increasing foraging habitat 

while maintaining adequate cover
Final Environmental Impact Statement

59

Affected Environment

The existing vegetative conditions within the project area are discussed by forest type in chapter 

1 of this document. Specific species habitats are noted in the sections below. 

3.2.3.2 Threatened Species, Northern Spotted Owl and Critical Habitat

Methodology

The list of threatened, endangered and proposed species for the area affected by the project was 

obtained via internet from the Arcata Field Office of the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service on 

November 24, 2009. The NSO (Strix occidentalis caurina) was listed along with the 

Shasta/McCloud Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Unit Number 29, which was designated 

on August 13, 2008 (Oechsner 2010a, 2010b). 

Analysis methods involve a combination of on-the-ground surveys, vegetation modeling, and the 

comparison of documented habitat criteria to pre- and post-treatment conditions. The project area 

and adjacent lands have been extensively surveyed over the past 5 years by KNF and USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service personnel. Most recently, protocol surveys were completed for the project 

area in 2009. 

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

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

reproduction, and survival of NSOs (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. 

Scope of Analysis: Direct and indirect effects of the Hi-Grouse project were evaluated at the 

Badger Basin-Willow Creek Watershed level, quarter townships, the project area, LSR #5297, 

and Critical Habitat Subunit 67spatial scales. A new NSO habitat layer was created from the 

stand examination, aerial photos, and field verification that encompass the NSO critical habitat, 

the project area. For cumulative effects analysis an estimated 1.3-mile home range of NSO that 

overlaps the project area was used with, a 16-mile radius for dispersal habitat was considered 

(Oechsner 2010a, 2010b). The timeframe is 20 years for short-term effects and long-term effects 

are those occurring in excess of 20 years (e.g., for nest trees to mature). 

Terminology important for this section:

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. 

Dispersal (connectivity) habitat ~ patches of vegetation used by wildlife to move between 

habitats. Areas with 50 percent 11-inch dbh and greater trees with 40 percent canopy closure 

are considered to function as NSO dispersal habitat (Thomas 1979).

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 (remains 

capable).
Hi-Grouse Project

60

Affected Environment

The Goosenest District is the eastern most district of the KNF, and the project area is the eastern 

extent of the NSO range in the fire-prone California Cascades (USDA Forest Service 1996). Six 

activity centers occur on the eastside of the Goosenest 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 District of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest 

has two NSO activity centers within 16 miles of Activity Center KL-3201 (D. Derby 2009, 

personal communication). 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 (P. Beuttner 2009, personal 

communication).

Activity Center KL-3201 was established in 1989 when a pair of NSOs was found. Surveys for 

NSOs were conducted in and around KL-3201 off and on since 1991, including 2007, 2008, and 

2009. In recent survey years, barred owls were detected within 0.7 mile of Activity Center KL3201; NSOs have not been detected there since 1994. The presence of barred owls is known to 

interfere or inhibit responses from NSOs in the vicinity. Thus, survey results are inconclusive as 

to whether or not activity center KL-3201 is occupied by NSOs. Some nesting/roosting and 

foraging habitat located outside the project area, but within 1.3 miles of NSO habitat proposed 

for treatment, has not been surveyed to protocol. 

Trend analysis for NSO habitat 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 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 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 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). 

The California Cascade Province has shown a relatively high rate of NSO habitat loss (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 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 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). 

Approximately 60 percent of the project area has had previous partial cutting, 5 percent has been 

regenerated, and 30 percent had a full or partial overstory removal of the largest trees (Schantz 

2009a). The Hi Timber Sale of 1989–1990 removed suitable nesting/roosting habitat within 

activity center core of KL-3201 and the surrounding area (C. Cheyne 2009, personal 

communication). Reductions in the amount of suitable nesting/roosting and foraging habitat have

continued in the project area as a result of drought and increased insect- and disease-caused tree 

mortality. 

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 considered capable land. 

Capable lands include those forests within NSO elevation limits of occupancy, at some time in 

the future, capable of growing and sustaining structural conditions that would function as owl 

habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). The Badger Basin/Willow Creek Watershed is 

well below the 15 percent retention of late-successional/old-growth forest (LSOG) in Forest 

S&G 6-4 (USDA Forest Service 1995a). Table 3.2-14 displays the acres and percent of latesuccessional/old growth habitat in the Badger Basin-Willow Creek 5th-Field Watershed (Stresser 

2009).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

61

Table 3.2-14. Acres/percent of available late-successional/old growth habitat (LSOG) in the 5th-field 

watershed

5thField 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 or connectivity

habitat is defined as 50 percent of the area with 11 inch or greater trees with 40 percent canopy 

closure (Thomas et al. 1990). Dispersal habitat was determined for these six quarter townships 

and ranges from 61 percent to 85 percent of the total acres. All quarter townships exceed the 50 

percent threshold for dispersal habitat.

Late-Successional Reserves. The project area contains a 155-acre late-successional reserve 

(LSR #5297). LSRs are land allocations established in the NWFP. LSR #5297 lies within an area 

designated as NSO critical habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008) and has 71 acres of 

NSO nesting/roosting habitat, and 82 acres of NSO foraging habitat. LSR #5297 has no NSO 

dispersal habitat and 2 acres are classified as non-habitat (Oechsner 2010a, 2010b). See the NSO 

discussion below.

KL-3201 Activity Center. Tables 3.2-15, 3.2-16, and 3.2-17 display the amounts of 

nesting/roosting, foraging and suitable habitat needed and that exists within the KL-3201 503-

acre core area and the 3,396-acre home range. 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 NSOs currently exists within KL-3201 Activity Center.

Table 3.2-15. 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. Approximately 2,233 acres is suitable habitat for NSOs 

within the home range. There are 662 acres in the home range not considered NSO habitat. Table 

3.2-16 displays the acres of suitable NSO habitat that currently exists, and the non-habitat acres,

within KL-3201 home range.

Table 3.2-16. Existing habitat within the KL-3201 home range (excluding the core area)

Suitable Habitat Acres of Suitable Habitat

Percent of Suitable 

Acres

Percent of Home 

Range

Nesting/Roosting 223 10% 8%

Foraging 2,005 90% 69%

Dispersal 5 <1% <1%

Total Suitable 2,233 100 % 77%

Non-habitat 662 - 23%
Hi-Grouse Project

62

Table 3.2-17. 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%

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

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

within the project area removed suitable NSO habitat and may have reduced the overall ability of 

NSOs to persist in the area. Although 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 (C. Cheyne; E. Willy 2009, personal communication).

Critical Habitat. Critical habitat for a listed species contains the physical or biological features 

(primary constituent elements) essential to the conservation of the species. Primary constituent 

elements associated with nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats include moderate to 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. 

All but 15 acres (greater than 99 percent) of the 1,751 acres of Critical Habitat Unit 29, Subunit 

67, occur within the Hi-Grouse Project Area. High quality habitat within Critical Habitat Subunit 

67 is limited. Table 3.2-18 displays the existing habitat available.

Table 3.2-18. Existing NSO habitat in Critical Habitat Subunit 67 within the Hi-Grouse Project Area

Habitat Type

Acres of Critical Habitat 

Subunit 67 in Project 

Area

Percent of Suitable 

Critical Habitat in 

Subunit 67 in Project 

Area

Percent of Critical 

Habitat in Subunit 67 in 

Project Area

Nesting/Roosting 326 25% 19%

Foraging 973 75% 55%

Dispersal 0 0 0

Total Suitable 

Acres

1,299 - -

Non-habitat 452 - 26%

Total Critical 

Habitat Acres

1,751 - -
Final Environmental Impact Statement

63

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect

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

previously authorized activities in the project area. Tree mortality from insects and disease would 

be expected to continue within the project area. Canopy cover would be expected to decrease 

over time due to the loss of dominant trees in the overstory from insects and disease. Snag 

numbers and down woody material would be expected to gradually increase as trees die due to 

crowded conditions, insects, and disease. Further development of large old trees within stands 

would likely progress slowly due to existing tree densities and competition for sunlight, 

nutrients, and water.

The amount of available nesting and roosting habitat for NSO within KL-3201 Activity Center

and Critical Habitat Subunit 67 would be expected to continue to decline in the short and long 

term. Foraging habitat would continue to be provided in the short term, but would also be 

expected to decline long term. Dispersal habitat would be expected to increase as nesting, 

roosting, and foraging habitat declined over time.

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

been relatively high over the last decade and if this trend continued, could significantly impact 

the owl in these drier forests (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). In the event of a wildfire 

within the project area, burn intensity, extent, and post-fire conditions would likely vary widely, 

resulting in a mosaic of habitat conditions. The quantity and quality of NSO habitat remaining 

after a wildfire would affect the continued viability of the KL-3201 Activity Center and Critical 

Habitat Subunit 67.

Cumulative Effects

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

alternative.

Determination

Alternative 1 (no action) would have no effect on NSOs or their habitat.

Alternative 1 (no action) would have no effect to Critical Habitat Subunit 67.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect

Alternative 3 would not alter existing late-successional old growth habitat conditions in the 

Badger Basin-Willow Creek 5th field Watershed, and would not alter the existing amount of 

connectivity habitat within the six quarter townships. The potential for wildfire to burn through 

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

around it (Helmbrecht and Kurth 2009). Reducing the potential effects of wildfire burning 

through the LSR would benefit NSOs and their habitat. The effects of reduced stand density and 

canopy closure would last 10 to 20 years (see section 3.2.1 Forest Vegetation, tables 3.2-1 and 

3.2-2). Alternative 3 effects would be less intensive and short-lived when compared to alternative 

4.
Hi-Grouse Project

64

Some nesting/roosting and foraging habitat would be degraded until canopy closure grows in

(approximately 20 years). Habitat removal would result from new landings. No downgrades are 

anticipated from treatments. 

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

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

the district biologist would reassess what appropriate actions should be taken to protect NSOs 

and their habitat. Actions proposed in alternative 3 across the project area would:

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

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

the same.

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

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

Alternative 3 would not change the quantity or quality of nesting/roosting or foraging habitat 

within the 100-acre LSR #5297, because no treatments are proposed.

Treatments proposed in alternative 3 within Kl-3201 Core Area and home range would degrade 

some nesting/roosting and foraging habitat, until canopy closure grows in. Habitat removal 

would result from new landings. No downgrades are anticipated from treatments. Actions 

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

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

• Degrade 46 acres of foraging habitat.

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

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

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

Post-treatment, habitat within the KL-3201 Core Area and home range will remain above 

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

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

alternative 4, more higher quality NSO nesting and roosting habitat would be maintained over 

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

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

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

provide habitat for northern spotted owls. Light thinning from below treatments would maintain 

NSO habitat in treated stands for the short and long term.

NSO Critical Habitat Subunit 67. Alternative 3 would have a minor effect on the primary 

constituent elements available to NSO within Critical Habitat Subunit 67 in the short term. 

Alternative 3 would degrade 27 acres of nesting and roosting habitat and remove 0.5 acre of 

nesting and roosting habitat within Critical Habitat Subunit 67. The amount of nesting and 

roosting habitat available to NSO within Critical Habitat Subunit 67 would remain essentially 

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

foraging habitat.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

65

Treatments proposed in alternative 3 within critical habitat would degrade some nesting/roosting 

and foraging habitat, until canopy closure grows in. Habitat removal would result from new 

landings. No downgrades are anticipated from treatments. Light thinning from below treatments 

would maintain NSO habitat in Critical Habitat for the short and long term.

The characteristics of NSO nesting, roosting and foraging habitat will be retained post-treatment

with the light thinning-from-below treatments, underburning, FMZs treatments, and use of 

existing roads and landings. Use of borax on freshly cut stumps is not expected to have adverse 

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

Temporary roads and new landings would remove approximately 19 acres. Due to the number of 

acres and spatial arrangement of the treatments, the effects would not be expected to 

significantly impact primary constituent elements associated with NSO habitat or NSO critical 

habitat. There are no new temporary roads or non-system roads proposed for use within NSO 

critical habitat; therefore, no effects to NSO critical habitat are expected. The creation of new 

landings is not expected to significantly affect the PCEs associated with NSO critical habitat.

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

some, but would be higher than in alternative 4 due to less intensive fuel reductions on fewer 

acres.

Snag and Down Woody Primary Constituent Elements. Implementation of any thinning or 

prescribed burning is likely to result in loss of snags, future snags, and down wood—important 

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

(Pilliod et al. 2006). During project activities, a few snags would be knocked over during 

thinning processes, and a few snags would be removed during temporary road building, and 

within FMZs. Any large-diameter snags deemed a hazard and felled for safety reasons would be 

left on site as needed to meet the objectives for down woody debris standards and guidelines.

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

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

woody material may affect prey species and foraging opportunities of NSO.

The amount of down woody material would be reduced in units with heavy fuel levels.

Generally, coarse woody debris greater than 12 inches dbh would be left on site. Within thinning

units some existing down woody material may be inadvertently crushed by machinery.

During and following treatments, current Forest Plan snag and down woody material standards 

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

woody debris would remain the same in that portion of the project area not treated. Snag 

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

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

this important primary constituent element within the project area. As insects and diseases 

continue to kill trees in untreated areas, the number of snags and amount of down woody 

material would be expected to increase in those places.

Cumulative Effects

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

alternative 3. The Pumice project overlaps the KL-3201 home range and proposes to maintain 

nesting habitat (C. Cheyne 2010a, biologist personal communication). Within the six quarter 

townships around the project area considered for dispersal habitat, alternative 3 would maintain 

the existing late-successional old growth habitat conditions in the Badger Basin-Willow Creek 
Hi-Grouse Project

66

5th field Watershed, and would maintain connectivity habitat within the six quarter townships. In 

relation to the Hi-Grouse Project area, the Pumice Project is located to the southwest, the 

Hoffman Project is located to the south, and the Highlands Roadside Safety Improvement Project 

is to the east. Adequate NSO dispersal habitat (50 percent of the area with greater than 11 inch 

trees and 40 percent canopy closure) would remain available in the dispersal areas within the 

quarter townships around the Hi-Grouse Project area.

The closest known NSO activity center is less than 5 miles to the southwest of the southern 

quarter township that overlaps the Hi-Grouse Project area. Non-capable ground such as large 

lava flows, glass and pumice mountains (Little Glass Mountain Geologic Area) are immediately 

south and east of the project boundary, as well as large tracts of lodgepole pine (also considered 

non-capable of becoming nesting/roosting habitat).

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

and dispersal habitat for NSO (D. Derby 2009, personal communication). Movement of a 

northern spotted owl between the Goosenest District and the Shasta-Trinity National Forest has 

been demonstrated with a color-banded adult moving from the Haight Mountain area (KL-0372) 

16 miles southwest to the Six Shooter Butte area (D. Derby 2009, personal communication). The 

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

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

facilitate continued connectivity for dispersal of NSO to and from the project area and critical 

habitat subunit 67.

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

Doublehead District of the Modoc National Forest. This landscape is dominated by lodgepole, 

glass flows and high elevation true 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.

With the maintenance of nesting and roosting habitat within the home range, and maintaining 

adequate dispersal habitat in areas beyond the project area, no adverse cumulative effects are 

anticipated.

Determination

Alternative 3 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect NSOs.

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

habitat.

Alternative 4 (Modified Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect

Alternative 4 would have a short-term negative effect on the quantity and quality of NSO habitat 

across less than 2,500 acres of the project area. Alternative 4 would not alter existing latesuccessional old growth habitat conditions in the Badger Basin-Willow Creek 5th Field 

Watershed and would maintain dispersal/connectivity habitat at or above 50 percent across all of 

the six quarter townships.

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. The potential for wildfire to 

burn through the LSR would be reduced by thinnings, fuel reductions, and the fuel management 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

67

zone proposed around it (Helmbrecht and Kurth 2009). Reducing the potential effects of wildfire 

burning through the LSR would be of benefit to NSOs and their habitat. Effects of the reduction 

in stand density and canopy closure would last for at least 20 years (see section 3.2.1 Forest 

Vegetation, tables 3.2-3 and 3.2-4). 

Approximately 2,257 acres of NSO habitat would be treated. Some nesting/roosting and foraging 

habitat would be degraded until canopy closure grows in. Habitat removal would result from 

new landings and new temporary roads. No nesting/roosting habitat would be removed within 

treatment units. 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 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.

Within the home range the amount of foraging habitat would decrease and the amount of nonhabitat would increase after treatments due to stand density reductions. No downgrades are 

anticipated from treatments. 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.

Alternative 4 proposes more intensive thinning prescriptions overall than alternative 3. In the 

short-term there would be slightly more reduction in the higher quality NSO nesting and roosting 

habitat. However, in the long term, the treated stands would be more resilient to wildlife 

potential (see fire fuels figure 3.2-1). As with alternative 3, untreated white fir stands that are 

currently infected with root disease and fir engraver beetles and function as nesting, roosting and 

foraging habitat, would decline to the point that they would no longer provide habitat for 

northern spotted owls. Light thinning from below treatments would maintain NSO habitat in 

treated stands for the short and long term.

NSO Critical Habitat Subunit 67. NSO nesting, roosting and foraging critical habitat would be 

affected by treatments proposed in alternative 4. Twenty-seven acres of nesting and roosting 

habitat would be degraded and 340 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded within critical 

habitat, until canopy closure grows in. Approximately 2 acres of habitat would be removed as a 

result from new landings. No downgrades are anticipated from treatments. 
Hi-Grouse Project

68

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

negatively affect the primary constituent elements available to NSOs within Critical Habitat 

Subunit 67 in the short term. 

• Degrade 27 acres of nesting and roosting habitat and remove a 0.5 acre of nesting and 

roosting habitat within Critical Habitat Subunit 67. The amount of nesting and roosting 

habitat available to NSO within Critical Habitat Subunit 67 would remain essentially the 

same.

• Degrade 340 acres of foraging habitat and would remove 1.5 acres of foraging habitat.

Alternative 4 includes several different thin-from-below prescriptions, and the effects to NSO

habitat and primary constituent elements would vary. Thinning treatments would maintain but 

temporary degrade some habitat areas due to reductions in canopy closure and tree density. 

Reductions in canopy cover and tree density would increase herbaceous and shrub growth that 

would increase in number and type of prey species available to NSOs. Reduction of canopy 

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

canopy gradually closed. Culturing around select ponderosa pine trees and thinning around 

clumps of mixed conifers would create future habitat features such as large primary limbs and 

full crowns. Light thinning-from-below and plantation thinning would maintain NSO habitat in 

the project area in the short and long term. 

The characteristics of NSO nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat will be retained post-treatment 

with underburning, FMZs treatments, and use of existing roads and landings. 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). Temporary roads and new landings 

are not expected to significantly affect the PCEs associated with NSO critical habitat.

Use of machinery causes noise, which could temporarily disturb a NSO 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. 

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

alternative 4 than alternative 3 due to more intensive thinning that will reduce fuels and 

treatment of approximately 300 more acres.

The effects of alternative 4 to snag and down woody primary constituent elements would be 

similar to that as described in alternative 3.

Cumulative Effects

Reasonably foreseeable effects and cumulative effects for alternative 4 would be the same as 

discussed in alternative 3.

Determination

Alternative 4 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect NSOs.

Actions proposed in alternative 4 may affect, and is not likely to adversely affect NSO critical 

habitat.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

69

Summary and Conclusions

A comparison of alternatives as it relates to purpose and need and key issues, including NSO

habitat, can be found in sections 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7.

3.2.3.3 Sensitive Species, American Marten 

Marten are found on the district in mature white and red fir or mixed conifer stands. Slauson 

(2009, personal communication) suggests marten are found in the upper portion (greater than 

6,000 feet elevation) of the project area. Marten are also known to occur adjacent to the project 

area on the Goosenest District, the Doublehead District of the Modoc National Forest (P. 

Beuttner 2009, personal communication), and the McCloud District of the Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest (D. Derby 2009, personal communication).

Methodology

The vegetation data layer was used for GIS queries along with on-going research information (K. 

Slauson 2009, personal communication) to estimate acres of habitat. 

Scope of Analysis: The 14,407-acre marten cumulative effects analysis area includes the project 

area and adjacent areas determined to provide capable habitat for martens (Oechsner 2010c; K. 

Slauson 2009, personal communication) and the timeframe is 20 years for the short term and 

over 20 years for the long term. 

Affected Environment

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

of suitable denning and resting habitat for marten. There are about 1,087 acres of 

foraging/dispersal habitat for marten. The denning/resting stand where marten were detected 

within the project area is characterized as a late-seral red fir/white fir/mixed conifer stand. The 

foraging/dispersal stands are mostly early-mid seral true fir (5 to 24 inches dbh) with root 

disease (which typically equates to heavy down wood) (Schantz 2009a). 

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

(2009, personal communication) has documented that there are four individual marten using the 

project area. 

Within the marten analysis area there are approximately 1,600 acres of denning and resting 

habitat and 8,404 acres of foraging habitat. There are approximately 3 miles of paved road 

(Highway 15) within the marten analysis area or 0.13 miles per square mile of paved road. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect

With no action, there would be no change to the existing amount and quality of habitat for 

marten habitat in the project area. 

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

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

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

marten would continue to be provided and would be expected to increase over time. 
Hi-Grouse Project

70

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cumulative Effects

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

alternative.

Determination

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

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

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect

Alternative 3 would maintain the same amount of denning, resting, and foraging habitat for 

marten that currently exists. Treatments would alter the quality (reduced canopy closure and 

down material), but not the quantity, of denning and resting habitat available to marten. 

Because less fuel reduction would take place, the risk of a higher intensity and/or standreplacement fire within marten habitat in the project area is higher than in alternative 4. 

The amount of down woody material would be reduced in treated units. Existing numbers of 

snags and amounts of down woody debris would remain across 68 percent of the available 

marten habitat. Snag numbers and down woody material would also be unaffected in 10 to 15 

percent of each unit left untreated. As insects and diseases continue to kill trees in untreated 

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

in those places.

Cumulative Effects

There are three foreseeable actions proposed within the marten analysis area. The Pumice, 

Hoffman, and Highlands Roadside Safety Improvement projects would reduce canopy closure 

understory structure and coarse woody debris through treatments to reduce fuels while meeting 

their respective Forest Plan direction for coarse woody debris. Treatments proposed would 

reduce the incidence of insect and disease mortality, reduce crown fire potential by 40 percent, 

prevent rapid future fuel build-up for approximately 20 years, and allow the reintroduction of 

fire within the treated areas. Removal of dead and dying trees would result in the loss of existing 

snags, future snags and down woody debris for snag and down woody dependent species such as 

marten, in the short and long term. Foraging substrate, resting and denning habitat and cover 

would be reduced for marten. Though the risk is low and dependent, in part, upon the width of 

clearing, fragmentation of marten habitat and increased marten vulnerability to predation and 

vehicle mortality may occur as a result of vegetation removal along road corridors.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

71

Determination

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

listing or loss of viability. 

Alternative 4 (Modified Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect

Alternative 4 would alter the quality, but not the quantity, of denning and resting habitat 

available to marten. The quality of 200 acres of marten foraging habitat would be reduced 

following treatments, but would continue to provide usable habitat for marten in the short and 

long term. Approximately 45 acres (about 4 percent) of the existing marten foraging habitat 

would be altered to the extent that it would become unsuitable for use by marten long term. The 

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

would be lower than in alternative 3.

Effects to snags and large down woody material in marten habitat would be similar to those 

described under alternative 3. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be similar to alternative 3. Thinning treatments proposed in alternative 

4 would leave less basal area in the majority of the thinned stands. Treatments would reduce the 

incidence of insect and disease mortality, reduce crown fire potential by 50 percent, prevent 

rapid future fuel build-up for approximately 20 years, and allow the reintroduction of fire within 

the treated areas.

Determination

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

listing or loss of viability. 

3.2.3.4 Sensitive Species, Northern Goshawk 

Northern goshawks (NGH) have broad geographic and elevation distributions in North America 

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

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

States (Andersen et al. 2004). NGH populations in California are considered vulnerable 

(NatureServe 2008a).

Methodology

The results of district NGH surveys were incorporated into the Forest databases.

Scope of Analysis: Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to NGH were evaluated across the 

project area as well as for each territory that occurred wholly or partially within the project area. 

Short-term effects would be those occurring within about 10 years of implementation and longterm effects would be those occurring in excess of 50 years. 

Terminology:

Primary nest zone (PNZ) ~ a 0.5-mile radius circle (504 acres) around the last known nest or the 

geometric center of a cluster of all known nests.
Hi-Grouse Project

72

Foraging areas (FA) ~ 1-mile radius circle (2,010 acres: 1,506 acres excluding PNZ) centered on 

the primary nest zone.

Affected Environment

NGH are found on the Goosenest District. Approximately 12 percent of the project area (873

acres) provides suitable goshawk nesting habitat and approximately 60 percent (4,442 acres) 

provide foraging habitat. There are five known NGH territories partially or completely within the 

project area. Table 3.2-19 displays the amount of existing NGH habitat within the primary nest 

zone (PNZ) and foraging area (FA) of each of the five territories.

Table 3.2-19. Existed amount of goshawk habitat by territory

Primary Nest Zone (PNZ) Foraging Area (FA)

Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat Nesting/Foraging Non-Habitat 1

Territory Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Rainbow 90 18 222 44 192 38 714 47 794 53

Red Cap 193 38 184 36 127 25 612 40 896 60

Davis 256 51 238 47 10 2 1,215 81 293 19

Hi Ridge 324 64 114 23 65 13 1,265 84 243 16

West Grouse 322 64 63 13 117 23 1,191 79 317 21

1

The Red Cap, Hi Ridge, and West Grouse NGH territories all lack the desired 40 percent nesting 

habitat within their PNZs. The Rainbow, Red Cap, and Davis territories lack the desired 60 

percent foraging habitat in their PNZs. The Rainbow and Red Cap territories also lack the 

desired 60 percentage foraging/nesting habitat in their foraging areas. None of the five territories 

meet all of the KNF Forest Plan standards and guidelines for suitable amounts of NGH nesting 

and foraging habitat within the PNZ and foraging areas. 

Some foraging areas overlap.

Surveys of the five NGH territories have consistently been conducted for a number of years.

NGH activity within the five territories varies by year. Complete survey and activity records 

included in the project record.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect

With no action, there would be no change to the existing amount and quality of habitat for NGH

within the project area.

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

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

overstory from insects and disease. Snag numbers and down woody material would be expected 

to gradually increase as trees die due to crowded conditions, insects, and disease. Further 

development of large old trees within stands would likely progress slowly due to existing tree 

densities and competition for sunlight, nutrients and water. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

73

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

would likely vary widely, resulting in a mosaic of habitat conditions. Wildfire would affect the 

amount and distribution of nesting and foraging habitat available to NGH. Habitat components 

important to NGH and their prey, such as snags, vertical and horizontal structure, canopy closure 

and large down woody material would be affected by wildfire. Conditions following a wildfire 

event would influence the continued use of the remaining suitable habitat by NGH.

Cumulative Effects

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

alternative. 

Determination

Alternative 1 (no action) would result in no impact

Alternative 3

to NGH or their habitat. 

Direct and Indirect

Alternative 3 would result in changes to the quantity and quality of NGH habitat within the 

project area and within each of the five NGH territories. Project design features WL-5, -6, and -7 

(table 2.2-3) would minimize the likelihood of disturbance or displacement of NGH during 

implementation of alternative 3. Mortality to NGH from any activities proposed would not be 

expected.

Approximately 47 percent (2,500 acres) of the available NGH nesting and foraging habitat 

within the project area would be treated. Approximately 31 percent (271 acres) of suitable 

nesting habitat and approximately 51 percent (2,246 acres) of NGH foraging habitat would be 

treated. The immediate effect of fuel reduction and thinning treatments would be a change in the 

structure of the vegetation (Pilliod et al. 2006), including reduced canopy closure and tree 

density. These changes would be expected to increase shrub and plant growth in the understory 

which would be beneficial to some prey species of NGH (Oechsner 2010c). The existing 821 

acres of nesting habitat and the existing 4,442 acres of foraging habitat would remain functional 

within the project area.

Alternative 3 would maintain the existing amount of nesting and foraging habitat available to 

NGH across the project area in the short term and would comply with Forest Plan S&G 8-20.

Habitat quality in the treated stands would be reduced in the short term. Treatments proposed 

would reduce the incidence of insect and disease mortality, reduce crown fire potential by 40 

percent, prevent rapid future fuel build-up for approximately 20 years, and allow the 

reintroduction of fire within the treated areas Over the long term, many of the untreated densely 

spaced stands that are currently infected with root disease, pine and fir engraver beetles would be 

expected to decline to the point that they would no longer provide habitat for NGH.

Existing numbers of snags and amounts of down woody debris would remain across 52 percent 

of the project area. Snag numbers and down woody material would also be unaffected in 10 to 15 

percent of each unit left untreated. The snag and down woody material project design features

would help in maintaining this important primary constituent element within the project area. As 

insects and diseases continue to kill trees in untreated areas, the number of snags and amount of 

down woody material would be expected to increase in those places.
Hi-Grouse Project

74

Cumulative Effects

On the district, the Pumice Project Area overlaps with and has the potential to affect the primary 

nest zones and foraging areas in the Rainbow and Red Cap NGH Territories. The Davis and Hi 

Ridge NGH foraging areas would be unaffected by the Pumice Project.

South of the Hi-Grouse Project Area on the McCloud District of the Shasta-Trinity National 

Forest, the Hoffman Project would affect habitat in the foraging area of the Hi-Ridge NGH

territory.

No known foreseeable actions would affect the West Grouse Hill NGH territory.

Determination

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

listing or loss of viability. 

Alternative 4 (Modified Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect

Approximately 53 percent (2,800 acres) of the available NGH nesting and foraging habitat 

within the project area would be treated. Approximately 31 percent (271 acres) of suitable 

nesting habitat and approximately 57 percent (2,546 acres) of NGH foraging habitat would be 

treated. 

Alternative 4 would result in a 60-acre reduction in the amount of nesting habitat and a 331-acre 

reduction of foraging habitat available to NGH across the project area. Non-habitat would 

increase by 391 acres across the project area in alternative 4. 

Alternative 4 would maintain the existing amount of nesting and foraging habitat in the PNZ and 

foraging areas of the Rainbow and Red Cap Territories. Alternative 4 would change the amount 

of nesting and foraging habitat in the PNZ and foraging area of the Davis Territory and in the Hi 

Ridge Territory. In the West Grouse Hill Territory PNZ and foraging area, the amount of foraging 

habitat would change; however, nesting and foraging habitat thresholds in the PNZ and foraging 

areas would remain above thresholds in all five territories. Alternative 4 would provide NGH

habitat to comply with Forest Plan S&G 8-20 by meeting the nesting and foraging habitat 

amounts or maintaining the available habitat in territories that are currently lacking in nesting or 

foraging habitat in the primary nest zone or foraging areas. 

Habitat quality of nesting and foraging habitat for NGH would be reduced in the five territories 

and across the project area in the short term. Treatments proposed would reduce the incidence of 

insect and disease mortality, reduce the wildfire potential by 50 percent, prevent rapid future fuel 

build-up for approximately 20 years, and allow the reintroduction of fire within the treated areas. 

By reducing the risk of a stand-replacement fire within the project area and within NGH

territories, thinning, fuel treatment zones, and underburning treatments proposed with alternative 

4 should benefit NGH over the long term.

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 NGH. These 

effects would diminish over time as the canopy gradually closed within approximately 20 years. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

75

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

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

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

zones, and underburning treatments proposed with alternative 4 should benefit NGH over the 

long term. Other than this, the effects of alternative 4 to snag and down woody components in 

NGH habitat would be similar to alternative 3. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for alternative 4 would be the similar to those discussed in alternative 3.

Determination

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

listing or loss of viability.

Summary and Conclusions

A comparison of alternatives as it relates to purpose and need and key issues, including NGH

habitat, can be found in section 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7.

3.2.3.5 Sensitive Species, Townsend’s Big-eared Bat and Pallid bat

More detailed descriptions of affected environment, methods, and environmental consequences 

for this project can be found in the biological evaluation (Oechsner 2010c).

It has not been verified whether or not Townsend’s big-eared bats or pallid bats occupy or use the 

project area. Lava tubes and large decadent trees and snags exist in the project area and may be 

used by these bats. Foraging and roosting habitat is likely present within the project area.

Hayes and Loeb (2007) described four ecological factors considered important in shaping habitat 

suitability for bats in North American forests; these are: characteristics and abundance of roost 

sites, amount of “clutter”, availability of prey, and availability of water. These four ecological 

factors will be evaluated for project effects analysis in this section. Note: Clutter is the number of 

obstacles a bat must detect and avoid in a given area; it affects maneuverability and influences 

habitat use by bats.

Methodology

Scope of Analysis: The cumulative effects analysis timeframe for short-term effects would be 

those occurring within about 10 years of implementation; long-term effects would be those 

occurring in excess of 50 years. The cumulative effects analysis area includes the project area 

(Oechsner 2010c). 

Affected Environment

Townsend’s big-eared bats maternity and hibernation colonies are typically in caves and mine 

tunnels in elevations between 4,500 to 10,460 feet (Gruver and Keinath 2006). Connectivity of 

habitat may be especially important as commuting distance from roosts to foraging or drinking 

habitat increases (Gruver and Keinath 2006). Maximum one-way distances traveled between 

roosts and foraging areas in California ranged between 3.1 and 8 miles (Fellers and Pierson 

2002). 
Hi-Grouse Project

76

Foraging occurs in a wide variety of habitats. Foraging sites are preferred that have dense and 

structurally diverse vegetation that may support greater abundances of insect prey and provide 

escape from potential avian predators (Gruver and Keinath 2006). 

Townsend’s big-eared bats are moth specialists, emerging from roosts to begin foraging about 60 

minutes after sunset (Gruver and Keinath 2006). In California, Fellers and Pierson (2002) found 

that they foraged among foliage near the perimeter of trees, usually between mid-canopy and 

near the top of the canopy, as well as gleaned insects directly from substrates.

Pallid bats are found in a variety of habitats and elevations, and known to occur in Siskiyou 

County California (California Department of Fish and Game 1997; NatureServe 2008b). They 

are commonly found in arid deserts and grasslands, often near rocky outcrops, cliffs, and water. 

They also inhabit chaparral shrublands and higher elevation (over 7,000 feet) coniferous forests. 

Day and night roosts include crevices in rocky outcrops and cliffs, caves, mines, tree cavities,

and various human structures. Pallid bats roost alone, in small groups, or gregariously and may 

switch day roosts on a daily and seasonal basis.

Pallid bats travel 0.31 to 1.55 miles from day roosts for foraging (California Department of Fish 

and Game 1997, 2009). Pallid bats are opportunistic generalists that glean a variety of large 

insects, such as crickets, grasshoppers, and scorpions, usually from the ground (Western Bat 

Working Group 2005).

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect 

With no treatment, there would be no change to the existing habitat for bats within the Hi-Grouse 

Project area or the larger analysis areas. Some habitat conditions for bats would gradually change 

over the next 20 years. The amount of snags available for roosting would be expected to 

gradually increase as a result of tree mortality from insects and disease. Water availability, 

primarily occurring in the analysis area, would remain static. The gradual reduction in the 

canopy as large trees die and eventually fall would decrease the amount of clutter and increase 

the number of openings. An increase in the number of small openings would increase ground 

cover and shrubbery in these openings which may increase the amount of prey and foraging 

opportunities for bats. 

Little or no research has been conducted on wildfire and prescribed burning impacts to bats and 

bat populations (Carter et al. 2000). In the event of a wildfire within the project area, burn 

intensity, extent, and post-fire conditions would likely vary widely, resulting in a mosaic of 

habitat conditions. Smith (2000) reported that the effects of fire on mammal species are related 

to the uniformity and pattern of fire on the landscape. A wildfire would be expected to affect 

prey and roosting and foraging habitat of bats by altering the structural components of the area 

burned. 

Cumulative Effects

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

alternative. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

77

Determination

Alternative 1 (no action) would result in no impact to Townsend’s big-eared bats or pallid bats 

or their habitat. 

Alternatives 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect

While occupancy and/or use of the project area by Townsend’s big-eared bats and/or pallid bats 

is uncertain, most all of the project area would be expected to provide some habitat components 

important to bats.

The amount of potential bat habitat (approximately 3,955 acres) affected by alternative 4 is 301 

acres greater than alternative 3 (approximately 3,654 acres) because of the additional area of 

lodgepole pine treated. Thinning and prescribed burning have direct and indirect effects on bats. 

Thinning and burning alter the structure of forest stands, reducing the amount of clutter and 

possibly affecting insect prey abundance (Loeb and Waldrop 2008). The immediate effect of the 

proposed treatments would result in changes to the density and vertical and horizontal structure 

of the vegetation by removing smaller diameter trees. In response to a change in stand vertical 

structure, bats may change their vertical use of space (Loeb and Waldrop 2008). A decrease in 

the density of trees would increase bat foraging maneuverability (Hayes and Loeb 2007). 

Thinning forested habitats, prescribed fire, and mowing would be expected to increase the 

amount of shrubs, forbs, and grasses on the forest floor. An increase in shrubs, herbs, grasses and 

forbs would provide additional foraging opportunities for bats and may increase numbers and 

diversity of insect prey.

Effects of treatments proposed to snag habitat would affect roosting habitat of bats and may 

potentially impact a few individual bats. Felling or burning-up a roost structure (snag) could 

result in displacement of bats or the mortality of the bat(s) inside the roost (Hayes and Loeb 

2007). A decrease in the density of trees could alter the thermal properties in and adjacent to live 

trees with cavities and snags used for roosting (Hayes and Loeb 2007). Microclimate changes 

could affect the habitat suitability of these existing snag roosts for bats. Project design features 

will assure that with few exceptions existing potential bat roosts (snags) will be retained in all 

units.

The actions proposed in either alternative 3 or 4 would not change the availability of water 

sources for bats. 

Cumulative Effects

The Pumice Project and Hoffman Project may affect foraging and roosting habitat of both bat

species by reducing tree densities and canopy closure. The Highlands Roadside Safety 

Improvement project may affect foraging and roosting habitat of Townsend’s big-eared bat by 

reducing tree densities and canopy closure.

Determination

Either Alternative 3 or 4 may impact individual Townsend’s big-eared bats, but would not 

likely result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability. 

Either Alternative 3 or 4 may impact individual Pallid bats, but would not likely result in a 

trend toward listing or loss of viability.
Hi-Grouse Project

78

3.2.3.6 Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Methodology

MIS for the KNF are identified in the Forest Plan standards and guidelines 8-21 through 8-34. A 

review was conducted using the MIS Report Part I—Project Level Assessment Checklist to 

determine: (1) if the project is within the range of any MIS, (2) if habitat for which the species is 

an indicator is present within or adjacent to the proposed treatment areas, and (3) if there are 

potential direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on habitat components (Oechsner 2010d, 2010e). 

Table 3.2-20 displays the species associations and MIS selected for analysis for the Hi-Grouse 

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

described in the MIS Project Level Assessment Part I (Oechsner 2010d, 2010e). 

Table 3.2-20. Species associations and MIS that may be affected by project activities

Species Association MIS

Snag Species Red-breasted sapsucker 

White-headed woodpecker 

Vaux’s swift 

Pileated woodpecker 

Black-backed woodpecker 

Mature Ponderosa Pine Species Association (Eastside Pine) Flammulated owl 

White-headed woodpecker 

Scope of Analysis: The cumulative effects analysis timeframe is 20 years for short-term effects 

and over 20 years for long-term effects. The cumulative effects analysis area encompasses the 

project area and areas with activities proposed directly adjacent to the project area. 

Affected Environment

The project area habitat was stratified by vegetation seral stage. Acres of habitat by stratum were 

calculated from 2009 stand exam data and field verification information, and are displayed in 

table 3.2-21.

Table 3.2-21. Habitat strata within the Hi-Grouse Project Area

Habitat Strata Acres

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

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

Early/Mid-Seral Lodgepole Pine, Immature 583

Early Seral Mixed Conifer 327

Early Seral White Fir 91

Mid-Seral Lodgepole Pine, Mature 1,072

Mid-Seral Mixed Conifer 1,267

Mid-Seral Ponderosa Pine 292

Mid-Seral White Fir-Ponderosa Pine 2,160

Mid-Late-Seral White Fir 863

Late Seral Red Fir 347

Other 237

Total 7,451
Final Environmental Impact Statement

79

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect

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

providing more and larger snags for the six selected snag-associated MIS birds. Habitat for static 

numbers of black-backed woodpeckers would be expected to continue to be available as the bark 

beetle infestation continued. The death of conifers would reduce foraging habitat for the redbreasted sapsucker and white-headed woodpecker that forage on and under the bark of live trees.

Black-backed and pileated woodpecker forage would continue to be available in the insect- and 

disease-ridden trees and fallen logs. 

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

dense ponderosa pine habitat in the short term (about 5 years) and long term (more than 50 

years). Vaux’s swift habitat would remain available. 

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

would likely vary widely, resulting in a mosaic of habitat conditions. Fire effects on birds depend 

largely on fire severity (Smith 2000). Changes to the quality and quantity of habitat available to 

the seven selected MIS species would vary widely.

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

pine habitat for flammulated owls and white-headed woodpeckers in the long term (more than 50 

years). Long-term impacts to forest structure would be expected in areas burned by highintensity crown fire. Trees of all sizes would be killed, including large trees suitable for cavity 

nesting and foraging by selected MIS birds. Large snags currently suitable for nesting would be 

burned up in a high-intensity crown fire. Displacement and reduced reproduction of selected 

MIS birds would occur in areas that experienced a stand-replacing wildfire.

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

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

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

for the flammulated owl over the long term in areas burned at low intensity.

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

availability for pileated woodpeckers. Black-backed woodpecker habitat would increase in 

burned areas and their numbers would be expected to rise for approximately 5 years following 

the wildfire. Some snag habitat would be created while existing decadent standing snags would 

be burned up.

Cumulative Effects

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

cumulative effects to MIS.

Alternatives 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect

Both action alternatives would reduce selected MIS habitat elements such as individual snags, 

smaller green trees, and down woody debris. Snag loss within treatment areas would be 

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

areas, but down woody debris Forest Plan standards would be met across the project area. Snags 
Hi-Grouse Project

80

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

alternatives.

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

smaller green conifer trees during thinning in either of the action alternatives. By promoting 

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

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

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

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

woodpecker foraging and nesting habitat would be removed in alternative 4 with the thinning of 

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

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

benefit the most from alternative 4. The emphasis in alternative 4 is maintaining the latesuccessional habitat in project area, while increasing resiliency of the stands by treating fuel 

build-up and insect and disease infestations in adjacent stands. 

Promoting and preserving larger fire resilient ponderosa pine within stands and across the project 

area would benefit white-headed woodpeckers and flammulated owls. Removal of smaller trees 

during thinning proposed in all three action alternatives would improve existing habitat 

conditions for white-headed woodpeckers and flammulated owls. 

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

in alternatives 3 or 4 across the Klamath National Forest by less than one half of one percent. 

There should be no impact on forest-level habitat and no change to the population trend for MIS

with the implementation of either alternative 3 or 4.

Cumulative Effects

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

down woody debris for snag and down woody dependent species in the short and long term with 

the Pumice and Hoffman Projects. As proposed in the Highlands Roadside Safety Improvement 

Project, thinning of green trees less than 12 inches would reduce available red breasted 

sapsucker habitat. Foraging substrate, nesting habitat, and cover would be reduced for snag and 

down woody debris dependent species. Brush mowing and low growing vegetation mowing 

would result in the short-term and long-term loss of some amount of cover, nesting, and foraging 

habitat for shrub and ground nesting/foraging MIS species.

3.2.3.7 Migratory Birds

Methodology

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

for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the 

specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives.” (P.L. 94-588, section 

6(g)(3)(B)). The January 2000 USDA Forest Service Landbird Conservation Strategic Plan, 

Executive Order 13186 in 2001, Partners in Flight specific habitat conservation plans for birds, 

and the January 2004 Partners In Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan, all 

reference goals and objectives for integrating bird conservation into forest management and 

planning.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

81

In late 2008 a memorandum of understanding was signed between the USDA Forest Service and 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds. The intent of the 

MOU was to strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration and 

cooperation between the Forest Service and the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service as well as other 

Federal, State, tribal, and local governments. Within the national forests, conservation of 

migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales 

and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when planning for land management activities.

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

bird species listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened (T) or endangered (E), those 

species designated by the Regional forester as sensitive species (S) (pages 4-27 to 4-29) and 

those species listed under standard and guideline 8-21 through 8-34 (pages 4-30 to 4-32 of the 

Klamath Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended 08/15/07) as Management Indicator 

Species (MIS) for project-level assessment (see sections pertaining to NSO and MIS). 

Environmental Consequences

Alternatives 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect

Snag- and down woody debris-dependent species (NSO, NGH, red-breasted sapsuckers, blackbacked woodpeckers, white-headed woodpeckers, pileated woodpeckers, Vaux’s swifts and 

flammulated owls) would be affected by the reduction in the number of snags and amount of 

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

be maintained across the treated areas in both alternatives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

woodpeckers, NGH, and flammulated owls. Removal of smaller trees during thinning proposed 

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

woodpeckers, NGH, and flammulated owls.

The emphasis in alternative 4 is maintaining the late-successional habitat in project area, while 

increasing resiliency of the stands by treating fuel build-up and insect and disease infestations in 

adjacent stands. Species that prefer late-successional habitat (Vaux’s swift, NSOs, NGH, and 

pileated woodpeckers) would benefit from both alternatives, and the most from alternative 4.

By promoting resiliency to fire, insects, and disease within the project area, the project reduces 

the risk of wildfire within the project area, thereby maintaining migratory bird habitats over the 
Hi-Grouse Project

82

long term. Sustaining migratory bird habitat in both treated and untreated areas of the project 

area is compatible with maintaining bird migration habitat.

Project design features (table 2.2-3) would minimize disturbance to NSOs and NGH and other 

migratory birds utilizing habitat within known or suspected nesting locations during the breeding 

season and maintain and/or enhance the composition, structure, and juxtaposition of migratory 

bird habitats within the project area.

In balance, the long-term benefits of forest restoration are of greater conservation value to the 

species than the short- and long-term adverse effects.

Summary

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

concern and their key habitats under alternatives 3 and 4 are:

• Alternative 4 would positively and negatively affect the quantity and quality of existing NSO

and NGH habitat in the short term. Wildfire, insect, and disease resiliency in NSO and NGH

habitat would increase in the short and long term (Oechsner 2010a, 2010b, 2010c).

• Alternative 3 would positively and negatively affect the quantity and quality of existing NSO

and NGH habitat in the short term. In the long term, NSO habitat would be expected to 

decline due to the amount of insect and disease that would persist in untreated areas. In the 

long term, the wildfire hazard would remain high (Oechsner 2010a, 2010b, 2010c). 

• Mature ponderosa pine dependent species (white-headed woodpeckers, flammulated owls,

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

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

• Snag and down woody debris dependent species (NSOs, NGH, red-breasted sapsuckers, 

black-backed woodpeckers, white-headed woodpeckers, pileated woodpeckers, Vaux’s 

swifts, and flammulated owls) would be negatively affected by the reduction in the number 

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

(Oechsner 2010e). 

• Species that prefer late-successional habitat (Vaux’s swift, NSOs, NGH, and pileated 

woodpeckers) would benefit the most from alternative 3 in the short term. These species 

would benefit the most in the long-term from alternative 4 treatments (Oechsner 2010e). 

• The short-term and long-term loss of black-backed woodpecker habitat is the similar 

between alternatives 3 and 4. Under alternative 4 approximately 300 acres more blackbacked woodpecker foraging and nesting habitat would be removed with the thinning of 

more acres of lodgepole pine than that proposed in alternative 3 (Oechsner 2010e). 

Cumulative Effects

The past, present and future foreseeable effects for migratory birds associated with snags, coarse 

woody debris, mature ponderosa pine, and late and mid seral habitat trees include forest 

management, livestock grazing, hazard trees, impacts from roads, firewood gathering, prescribed 

fire, and other restoration projects throughout the analysis area.

The Forest Service will actively manage livestock grazing, using rest periods and compliance 

with existing standards and guidelines. Firewood gathering will occur in the analysis area and 

would remove standing lodgepole snags and down woody debris along roads. Forest 

management will include hazard tree removal along roads, thinning small diameter trees (greater 

than 12 inches dbh), commercial thinning for forest health and fuels reduction and prescribed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

83

fire. There will be some loss of snags, coarse woody debris and loss of green trees with these 

activities. Forest-wide standards and guidelines will be met. 

The Biological Evaluation, Biological Assessment, Management Indicator Species report for this 

project provides a more detailed analysis of the impacts to wildlife and bird species, including 

migratory birds, from the proposed action. Several design features are incorporated into the 

proposed action to maintain a mosaic of habitat types across the landscape and in stand diversity, 

including no treatment leave islands, a mosaic treatment of understory fuels, spacing variability 

and the retention of the largest trees in thinning units (see table 2.3-3 for project design features).

This may open up some areas for browse and grass species, but this would likely occur in such 

relatively small areas that it would have negligible impacts to the project area. In addition, 

prescribed burning will include a variety of burn intensities to retain desired understory 

characteristics. 

At the project scale, pertinent standards and guidelines would be implemented to maintain 

habitat diversity. Habitat modification would not cause a measurable negative effect to migratory 

bird populations due to the small amount of acreage where project activities would occur during 

the breeding season relative to the large amount of migratory bird habitat across the Forest.

3.2.3.8 Big Game, Mule Deer

More detailed descriptions of affected environment, methods, and environmental consequences 

for this project can be found in the Migratory Bird and Deer Analysis (Oechsner 2010f).

Methodology

Stand examination data and walk-through field recognizance data were used to discuss and 

evaluate the existing forested conditions within the project area. The vegetation data layer called 

‘e-veg04’ from USFS Region 5 Remote Sensing Laboratory was verified and updated by Rob 

Schantz (USDA Forest Service silviculturist), Christy Cheyne (USDA Forest Service wildlife 

biologist) and Elizabeth Willy (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service wildlife biologist) in the field 

and with aerial photography. Analysis used GIS queries for generalized deer habitat mapping 

using the Mule Deer Habitat Capability Model. 

Scope of Analysis: Effects to deer fawning habitat were evaluated at the project area as well as 

those portions of the two fawning areas that occur within the project area. The cumulative effects 

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

is appropriate because portions of the two fawning areas extend beyond the project area. The 

analysis time for the short-term effects is 20 years. Long-term effects would be those occurring 

in excess of 20 years. 

Affected Environment

The project area is part of the Goosenest AMA. Much of the Goosenest AMA has been identified 

as critical deer fawning habitat. Good fawning habitat contains low shrubs or small trees from 2 

to 6 feet tall under a tree overstory of about 50 percent or more crown closure, is located on 

slopes less than 15 percent, has water available within 600 feet, and has abundant succulent 

forage for does and young fawns. Optimum size is 1 to 5 acres (California Department of Fish 

and Game 1997). 

Mule deer populations within the Goosenest AMA (USDA Forest Service 1996) are migratory 

and part of the much larger McCloud Flats Deer Herd. The project area is used by deer; a mule 
Hi-Grouse Project

84

deer fawn was observed in a timbered stand within the project area on June 25, 2008 (M. 

Oechsner 2009, personal communication). California Department of Fish and Game (1992)

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

percent thermal cover, and 15 percent fawning and fawn-rearing habitat. 

The project area, which overlaps portions of two delineated fawning areas, is densely timbered 

with little foraging habitat existing beneath the canopy. Table 3.2-22 displays the estimated 

amounts of cover and forage within the two fawning areas. Forest cover habitat is above and 

forage habitat is below the suggested proportions.

Approximately 11.8 miles of open road exist within the project area; existing open road density 

is 3.7 miles per square mile. Within the east fawning area there are approximately 15.7 miles of 

open road. The east fawning area has an open road density of 4.3 miles per square mile. Within 

the west fawning area, there are approximately 7.4 miles of open road. The west fawning area 

has an open road density of 2.5 miles per square mile.

Table 3.2-22. Cover and forage for the fawning areas and the project area portions of fawning areas

Fawning 

Area

Total Fawning 

Area Cover

Total Fawning 

Area Forage Project Area Cover Project Area Forage

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

East 2,212 95 125 5 965 94 62 6

West 1,764 95 91 5 1,095 93 85 7

Total 3,976 95 216 5 2,060 93 147 7

Based on the high amount of cover, low amount of forage, long distance to water, and the high 

open road density displayed above, the habitat capability of the project area and fawning areas is 

medium to low. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect

With no action there would be no change to the existing habitat conditions for deer within the 

project area or the fawning areas. Cover would continue to predominate over forage within the 

project area and within delineated fawning habitat areas. Miles of open road and road densities 

would remain the same. 

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

widely across the landscape resulting in a mosaic of habitat conditions. Overall, a wildfire would 

affect the distribution and amount of cover and forage available to deer. A wildfire event would 

likely reduce the amount of cover and increase the amount of forage available to deer over the 

long term.

Cumulative Effects

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

alternative.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

85

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect

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

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

occur if a tree fell on it during thinning operations and/or it became separated from its mother 

due to disturbance or displacement. Treatments proposed across the project area and within 

fawning areas will modify the amount of cover and forage available to deer across about 45 

percent of the project area. Canopy cover would be reduced after treatment and would increase 

over time. Approximately 30 percent of the east fawning area and 55 percent of the west fawning 

area within the project area is proposed for treatment in alternative 3, which would reduce cover 

for the short term. 

The effects of different fuel reduction techniques on most wildlife and invertebrate species are 

not very well known (Pilliod et al. 2006). Most of the activities proposed in alternative 3 would 

stimulate the growth of varying amounts of grasses, forbs, and shrubs, which would increase 

foraging habitat for deer. Underburning in a mosaic pattern may help to increase grasses and 

forbs important to does during the fawning season (California Department of Fish and Game 

1992). 

Overall, the distribution, quantity, and quality of hiding cover and foraging habitat would change 

across approximately 41 percent of project area with alternative 3. The quantity of hiding cover 

would decrease while the quantity and quality of foraging habitat would increase on the treated 

acres. Alternative 3 would result in some improvement in the deer habitat capability in the short 

term within the project area and to both of the fawning areas. Alternative 3 would bring 

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

Cumulative Effects

The Hi-Grouse Project area, located within Badger Basin, is part of the 34,500-acre Three Sisters 

Range Allotment. The cattle allotment season of use is from June 16 to September 30. A small 

(less than 50 individuals) wild horse herd uses the Badger Basin area yearlong. Wild horse use in 

sagebrush grasslands outside of the timbered project area was observed (M. Oechsner 2009, 

personal communication). Grazing practices can reduce the amount of forage available to deer.

Two planned projects adjacent to the Hi-Grouse Project area would contribute to effects to 

fawning areas by reducing cover and increasing foraging areas. The Pumice Project would affect 

the habitat in the west fawning area. The Highlands Roadside Safety Improvement Project would 

be expected to minimally affect the east fawning habitat adjacent to roads. 

Alternative 4 (Modified Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect

Overall, the distribution, quantity, and quality of hiding cover and foraging habitat would change 

across approximately 44 percent of project area with alternative 4. The quantity of hiding cover 

would decrease while the quantity and quality of foraging habitat would increase on the treated 

acres. When compared to alternative 3, alternative 4 would result in more improvement to deer

habitat capability in the short and long term within the project area and to both of the fawning. 

Under alternative 4, cover would decrease more and foraging opportunities would increase more 

than in alternative 3, bringing cover/forage ratios closer to the desired condition in deer range.
Hi-Grouse Project

86

After the Hi-Grouse Project is completed, 1.5 miles of road within the project area would be 

closed. The KNF Motorized Travel Management decision, signed August 13, 2010, included 

converting 0.8 mile of non-system road within the project area to an open-system road. When 

considering the Motorized Travel Management decision, open road density across the project 

area would be 3.5 miles per square mile, a decrease of 0.2 miles per square mile. About 0.2 miles 

of Forest Service Road 44N80A within the west fawning area would be closed after the HiGrouse Project is completed. This small decrease would not result in any change to the existing 

open road density within the west fawning area.

Cumulative Effects

Foreseeable cumulative effects for alternative 4 would be similar to those discussed for 

alternative 3.

3.2.4 Fish and Aquatic Habitat

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

and Tamarack Flat. The project area contains ephemeral drainages that likely flow only in 

response to very large runoff events (McNamara 2009). There are no vernal pools and no 

mapped surface hydrologic connectivity between the project units and downstream waters 

(McNamara 2009); therefore, fish species associated with streams are not addressed further in 

this analysis.

3.2.5 Botany

Scope of Analysis for Botany: Affected environment includes recent past actions and historic 

actions that have impacted the existing condition. Past activities recorded in Forest databases 

were considered and displayed on map A-7 in appendix A, and described in appendix E.

Direct and indirect effects analyses consider the treatments associated with the treatments in the 

action alternatives, along with the project design features. Implementation of the Hi-Grouse 

Project is anticipated to start in 2010. The estimated duration of the harvest activities is 

approximately 7 years. It is likely that some pile burning and underburning could begin a few 

years after the last thinning units are completed (i.e., 9 or 10 years after project start). 

Cumulative effects considers current and future foreseeable similar actions (other fuel reduction 

and vegetation management projects) noted in the Forest's SOPA that overlap the analysis area in 

time. The cumulative effects analysis area is the entire Hi-Grouse Project area. The analysis 

timeframe is 10 years. Ongoing and foreseeable future projects recorded in Forest databases 

were considered in the cumulative effects and displayed on maps A-7 and A-8 in appendix A, 

and described in appendix E. 

3.2.5.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

More detailed descriptions of affected environment, methods, and environmental consequences 

related to plants for this project can be found in the following reports incorporated by reference:

Hi-Grouse Project Biological Assessment/Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and 

Sensitive Plant Species (Baker 2009a), Hi-Grouse Project Supplemental Botany Report for 

Ethnobotanical Species (Baker 2009b), and Hi-Grouse Project Noxious Weed Assessment (Baker 

2009c). These are incorporated by reference and available on the Forest Internet website at: 

www.fs.usda.gov/klamath.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

87

Methodology

An office pre-field review and a preliminary field review were conducted to determine if this An 

office pre-field review and a preliminary field review were conducted to determine if this project 

is within the range of any KNF-listed threatened, endangered, proposed, sensitive, or survey and 

manage species, and if suitable habitat is present within the proposed project area (USDA Forest 

Service 2007c). All threatened, endangered, proposed, sensitive, and survey and manage species 

listed for the KNF were considered during this review (USDA Forest Service 2006b). USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Arcata Field Office, was consulted regarding listed plant species and 

responded to the KNF on March 9, 2009 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). 

There is one known population of a sensitive bryophyte species in a non-treatment area of the 

project, Ptilidium californicum. Surveys for sensitive plants were conducted on August 1, 2, 7, 

and 9; and October 11 and 13, 2007. Surveys conducted during October were for Ptilidium 

californicum (see USDA Forest Service 2007d). Surveys were conducted for this species, and no 

other suitable habitat or populations were found.

Consultation to Date: No consultation was required because threatened and endangered species 

are not suspected or present (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

Affected Environment

There were no threatened, endangered, or proposed plant species within the Hi-Grouse Project 

area. The Hi-Grouse Project is not within the range, and does not contain habitat for any 

threatened, endangered, or proposed species within the project area. No federally listed 

threatened, endangered, or proposed plant species would be affected by this project.

Pre-field review, and field surveys for Ptilidium californicum did not yield any locations of 

sensitive plants, survey and manage plants, fungi, or bryophytes within the Hi-Grouse Project 

area.

The Region 5 Regional Forester has listed plants for which there is a concern for species 

viability as “sensitive.” Sensitive plants are those species which may occur in few to large 

numbers in a small localized area, or which may occur in a wide geographical area, but in few 

numbers in restricted specialized habitats. Fifty-one sensitive plant species are known, or thought 

likely to occur on KNF (USDA Forest Service 2006b). Only those species of concern that have 

potentially suitable habitat or documented occurrences in areas that may be affected by the 

proposed project are discussed in this document. These areas include all activities in the action 

alternatives.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

No direct or indirect effects to threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive plants are 

anticipated because no treatments are proposed.

Cumulative Effects

Without direct or indirect effects there would be no cumulative effects. Possible natural 

disturbance (such as windthrow of trees or wildfire) may occur in the analysis area.
Hi-Grouse Project

88

Alternatives 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

No federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed, plant species would be affected by this 

project alternative. The action alternatives were grouped for determination of effects because the 

effects are the same. Since no sensitive plants are present within treatment units of the project 

area, the Hi-Grouse Project would have no impact to any sensitive species by implementation of 

any action alternatives.

No direct effects to threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive plants are anticipated 

because the one known population of Ptilidium californicum is in a no-treatment area. No 

indirect effects from habitat modification from treatments are anticipated. The treatments would 

be within the range of possible natural disturbance (such as windthrow of trees or wildfire) in the 

analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects

Without direct or indirect effects from project activities there would be no cumulative effects. 

Possible natural disturbance (such as windthrow of trees or wildfire) may occur in the analysis 

area.

3.2.5.2 Noxious Weeds

Methodology

The Forest Noxious Weed GIS Database was used for information on existing noxious weed 

sites currently mapped within or adjacent to the project area. Inventory in the project area was 

conducted during August 2007. Forest Service Manua1 2080 Noxious Weed Management 

(USDA Forest Service 1995b) includes the policy statement, “When any ground disturbing 

action or activity is proposed, determine the risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds 

associated with the proposed action.” A noxious weed risk assessment was completed for this 

project (Baker 2009c). 

Affected Environment

The KNF places high priority on the management of noxious weeds, particularly the introduction 

and spread of noxious weeds related to forest management activities (USDA Forest Service 

2001). Surveys were completed and no weeds were located within the project area.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Currently, according to the district database, the area is weed-free and low levels of disturbance 

are present. The short growing season also limits the types of weeds that could infest the area.

Vulnerability to weed infestation/spread is low. Low levels of use and current weed-free 

condition of the area indicate that non-project vectors pose a low risk from weeds.

Cumulative Effects

Wind could disperse weeds to un-infested areas. The relative distance of weeds to susceptible 

habitat tempers the risk. Currently weed risk in the area from wind-blown seed is low.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

89

Alternatives 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Increases in traffic and equipment use directly related to the project implementation in the action 

alternatives could increase the risk of weeds. This is a moderate risk as weeds are not known 

from the project area and the roads to the area are generally weed-free. Project design features 

NNIS-1 through NNIS-3 will prevent the potential spread of weeds. As weeds are detected 

across the KNF they are controlled as appropriate. With the weed prevention design criteria in 

place, the Hi-Grouse Project has a low risk of weed introduction and spread.

Cumulative Effects

While weeds could find opportunities to infest into the project area, the current weed-free nature 

of the area, low levels of disturbed areas, high vegetative cover, and the limited timeframe after 

treatments when bare ground would be available to invade, severely limit infestation 

opportunities. In addition, prevention measures NNIS-1 through NNIS -3 would be followed

(section 2.2.5). The use of weed free materials and washing equipment will reduce the risk of 

introducing and spreading weeds. 

3.3 Physical Environment 

More detailed descriptions of affected environment, methods, and environmental consequences 

for soils, geology, and hydrologic resources for this project can be found in the Watershed Report 

(McNamara 2009), incorporated by reference and available on the Forest Internet website at: 

www.fs.usda.gov/klamath.

3.3.1 Soil Resource

Methodology

The forest soil scientist and ID team hydrologist conducted field reviews in the project area for 

soil data collection surveys and making other field observations. Plot data was collected using 

traverses in proposed units. Fieldwork included verification of soils mapped in 1994.

Each management activity was reviewed and rated (low, moderate, or high) for its probability of 

meeting each applicable evaluation criteria. Probability ratings are qualitative estimators based 

on past experiences, observations, and monitoring data. A high rating is comparable to a 90 to 

100 percent likelihood of the activity meeting the evaluation criteria. A moderate rating is 

comparable to a 75 percent likelihood of the activity meeting the evaluation criteria. A low rating 

is comparable to greater than 50 percent likelihood of the activity meeting the evaluation criteria.

Detrimental disturbance consists of two main types of disturbance: detrimental compaction and 

detrimental displacement. Detrimental compaction is compaction that exceeds threshold bulk 

density values as measured at the 4 to 8 inch soil depth. Detrimental disturbance is where soil 

displacement of the topsoil removes greater than 15 percent of the soil organic matter in the 

upper 12 inches of soil (disturbed area must be greater than 1 square meter in size).

Scope of Analysis: Affected environment includes recent past actions and historic actions that 

have impacted the existing condition. Past activities recorded in Forest databases were 

considered and displayed on map A-7 in appendix A, and described in appendix E.

Direct and indirect effects analyses consider the treatments associated with the no action

alternative and the treatment areas in the action alternatives, along with the project design 
Hi-Grouse Project

90

features. Implementation of the Hi-Grouse Project is anticipated to start in 2010. The estimated 

duration of the harvest activities is approximately 7 years. It is likely that some pile burning and 

underburning could begin a few years after the last thinning units are completed (i.e., 9 or 10 

years after project start). 

Cumulative effects considers current and future foreseeable similar actions (other fuel reduction 

and vegetation management projects) noted in the Forest's SOPA that overlap the analysis area in 

time. The cumulative effects analysis area is the entire Hi-Grouse Project area. The analysis 

timeframe is 20 years. Ongoing and foreseeable future projects recorded in Forest databases 

were considered in the cumulative effects and displayed on maps A-7 and A-8 in appendix A, 

and described in appendix E. No foreseeable future projects overlap with the project area.

Affected Environment

Soils in the project area have developed primarily from volcanic ash deposited over lava flows.

Soils are generally moderately deep to very deep (20 to 60 inches or greater). Surface soil 

textures are gravelly, coarse sandy loams overlying gravelly, cobbly, or very cobbly, sandy loam 

subsoils. Estimated soil productivity, as determined from soil properties, is generally FSSC 4-5.

Maximum erosion hazard ratings for 100 percent bare soil are moderate. Currently, erosion 

hazards are low due to gentle slopes and the high amount of soil cover. 

Total soil cover ranges from about 85 to 100 percent and averages about 92 percent. The average 

slope distribution within the project area ranges from about 0 up to 50 percent and averages 

around 5 to 10 percent. The amount of area in identifiable skid trails and landings is 

approximately 3 percent of the project area. The level of existing detrimental soil disturbance 

that exceeds the soil compaction thresholds at 4 to 8 inch depth or loss of soil organic matter in 

the upper 12 inches of soil was estimated to vary from 0 to 15 percent and averages 3 percent.

Currently, over 95 percent of the soils in the project area have a well functioning soil biological 

system.

Coarse woody debris or downed logs are an important component of coniferous forest 

ecosystems. Existing levels of course woody debris are an interaction between past fires, past 

management activities, and the age of the existing vegetation. Currently, course woody debris

(greater than 20 inches diameter) varies from 0 to 11 logs per acre and averages 4 logs per acre.

The course woody debris is poorly dispersed throughout the project area. Overall, the course 

woody debris will continue to increase over time as trees continue to fall by natural events. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

With no action taken, the effect on the soil resource would be no new disturbances and the 

gradual increase in larger course woody debris. Nutrient cycling would be maintained as fine 

organic matter increases as duff/litter layers. Soil fertility would be maintained due to the 

increased organic matter on the soil surface and in the soil. Compacted soils (reduced porosity) 

in portions of old, existing skid trails will slowly increase their porosity due to biological 

activities, and thereby regain lost soil productivity over the next 40 to 50 years. 

Cumulative Effects

Depending of severity, future wildfires could change the forest floor and increase the time 

frames for rebuilding the litter layer and mesofauna population recovery. Future wildfires could 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

91

also cause organic matter decomposition rates to increase due to more sunlight and changes in 

organic litter composition. Depending on the severity of future wildfires, soil erosion could 

significantly increase. A severe wildfire could interrupt nutrient cycling by removing the duff 

layer. If this happens, the duff layer would not return until the grass/brush seral stage evolved 

into pine stands. 

Alternatives 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in various intensities of soil disturbance, such as, compaction, 

displacement, and loss of soil organic matter on the treated acres. Alternative 4 includes slightly 

more intensive treatments that would impact approximately 632 more acres than alternative 3. 

Machine piling under alternative 4 is anticipated to be minimal because whole-tree yarding will 

be used to move trees to landing areas.

Based upon soil compaction monitoring (Laurent 2006a, b) on the district, detrimental soil 

disturbance would be confined to a small portion of main skid trails and landings which would 

equal approximately 6 to 11 percent of the project area. A small portion of the total disturbed 

project acres, such as portions of skid trails and landings, would exceed the soil quality analysis 

standard (SQAS) thresholds for loss of porosity and soil organic matter. These two alternatives 

would cause both reduced and increased soil productivity in skid trails and landings, but would 

not, spatially, exceed Forest Plan and SQAS standards and guidelines of 15 percent.

Within the project area, soil integrity (functionality) and productivity would be maintained.

Overall, this project would result in recommended soil cover levels, varying degrees of 

decreased macroporosity, maintaining existing organic matter content in the soil, maintaining the 

existing moisture regime, a slightly altered hydrologic function, and unchanged buffering and 

exchange capacities.

Under alternatives 3 and 4 there would be varying degrees of fertility/growth reduction and some 

growth increases on approximately 700 to 800 acres of skid trails and landings due to varying 

levels of compaction (decreased macroporosity and increased microporosity), soil displacement 

and loss of soil organic matter. Changes in site productivity are a normal occurrence associated 

with ground-based harvesting methods and may not be measurable due to the affects of 

competing vegetation.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulatively, mechanical harvesting and biomass removal have the most potential to affect soil 

productivity. The effects are mostly associated with nutrient displacement and removal, which 

has the ability to recover over the long term. There may be a slight (within normal variability) 

short-term soil productivity decrease, but long-term soil productivity will not be significantly 

decreased (greater than 15 percent decline) over the life of the new stand.

Overall, the generally low to moderate intensity of harvesting and fuel reduction activities will 

minimize any cumulative effects. The use of existing skid trails and landings minimizes 

cumulative effects to these previously disturbed acres. Machine mowing (mastication) would not 

significantly increase soil compaction (reduction in soil porosity) because generally, only one 

pass would be made over any piece of ground. Short-term disturbance effects would not 

measurably affect long-term soil productivity. The dynamic and highly variable nature of soil 

processes and ecosystems and its strong buffering capacity reduce the possibility of having any 

measurable negative long-term cumulative effects on soil productivity. 
Hi-Grouse Project

92

Potential future management treatments for these stands may be more thin harvests. Studies

(Wells and Jorgensen 1979) have shown that thin harvest would remove only 2.9 percent of the 

total site nitrogen, which is 67 percent less nitrogen removal than a total biomass harvest (wholetree clear-cut). The literature also suggests that it would take at least three total biomass 

removals within 150 years to significantly reduce soil productivity (Wells and Jorgensen 1979).

These stands, within the same timeframe, could have at least two biomass thin harvests and 

numerous bole only harvests. The literature also indicates that repeated bole only harvest would 

not produce a significant soil productivity decline (Wells and Jorgensen 1979).

Individually as well as cumulatively, these project activities would result in a slight decrease in 

soil fertility, but that would be within the natural variability for the soils within the project area.

Soil productivity would be increased in areas where there is a slight increase in soil bulk density 

(equipment tracks) due to decreased macroporosity and increased microporosity. Reductions in 

macroporosity (compaction) and increased erosion rates would not exceed the SQAS. Both 

alternatives 4 and 3 would retain sufficient soil cover to minimize soil erosion, maintain nutrient 

cycling, and maintain soil fertility and soil integrity/health, and therefore, maintain short- and 

long-term soil productivity.

3.3.2 Hydrologic Resource

Methodology

Topographic maps and recent aerial photos were examined and combined with local information 

from knowledgeable district personnel. Field reviews were conducted to evaluate potential 

hydrologic features and to observe surface hydrologic connectivity. The project hydrologist 

walked along the un-named stream riparian reserve to verify that there is no surface hydrologic 

connectivity between the project area and downstream waters. Potential intermittent channels 

identified on a 1:24000 quad map in the project area units were field inspected. Field 

observations found no evidence of any past flow in these features. 

Three quantitative cumulative watershed effects models were used (USDA Forest Service 2004a; 

Reichert 2008). The model results are intended to provide an indication of the potential 

magnitude of effects. Combined with an estimate of the probability of these effects occurring, 

this information can be interpreted as the relative risk of altering stream flows (ERA Model), 

surface erosion (USLE Model), or mass wasting (GEO Model) attributable to implementation of 

this project.

Scope of Analysis: Affected environment includes recent past actions and historic actions that 

have impacted the existing condition. Past activities recorded in Forest databases were 

considered and displayed on map A-7 in appendix A, and described in appendix E.

Direct and indirect effects analyses consider the treatments associated with the no action

alternative and the treatment areas in the action alternatives, along with the project design 

features. Implementation of the Hi-Grouse Project is anticipated to start in 2010. The estimated 

duration of the harvest activities is approximately 7 years. It is likely that some pile burning and 

underburning could begin a few years after the last thinning units are completed (i.e., 9 or 10 

years after project start). 

Cumulative effects considers current and future foreseeable similar actions (other fuel reduction 

and vegetation management projects) noted in the Forest's SOPA that overlap the analysis area in 

time. Cumulative effect analysis is based on the 7th field watersheds that intersect the project 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

93

and all recent past, present, and future foreseeable actions. Cumulative watershed effects for this 

project were assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. Ongoing and foreseeable future projects

recorded in Forest databases were considered in the cumulative effects and displayed on maps A7 and A-8 in appendix A, and described in appendix E. No foreseeable future projects overlap 

with the project area.

Affected Environment

The project area lies within the Badger Basin-Willow Creek 5th-field HUC Watershed. This 

watershed is further subdivided into 6th and 7th-field HUCs. The following 7th

Antelope Well 7

-field HUC 

watersheds—Antelope Well, Dock Well, Grouse Hill, Hill 22, and Tamarack Flat—are within the 

project area. Two mapped riparian reserves segments were identified previously with remote 

sensing inside the project area boundary. However, field verification revealed that there is no 

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

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

reserves lack the characteristics necessary for classifying them as riparian reserves. There is no 

mapped surface hydrologic connectivity between the project units and downstream waters. There 

are no domestic water sources in the project watersheds. The project area is upstream of 

domestic and fish beneficial uses.

th-Field Watershed. In the Antelope Well 7th

Disturbances and past impacts in the watershed include roads, logging activities, OHV use, and 

grazing. The current road density is approximately 3.1 miles per square mile. Currently, ERA 

cumulative watershed effects risk ratios range from 0.12 to 0.33 for the three modeled 

erosion/disturbance processes. Cumulative effects risk ratios are the relative risk of the current 

watershed conditions exceeding the threshold of concern for the watershed. A risk ratio of 1 

indicates that the risk of sedimentation or sediment delivery to streams exceeds the threshold of 

concern.

-Field Watershed, there are no fish 

and no identified stream courses. Drainages consist of ephemeral draws that flow only in direct 

response to large precipitation events. There is no sign of inter-annual scour in drainages.

Dock Well 7th

Grouse Hill 7

-Field Watershed. Disturbances and past impacts in the watershed include roads, 

logging activities, OHV use, and grazing. The current road density is approximately 3.3 miles 

per square mile. Currently, cumulative watershed effects risk ratios range from 0.11 to 0.52 for 

the three modeled erosion/disturbance processes. 

th

Hill 22 7

-Field Watershed. Disturbances and past impacts in the watershed include roads, 

logging activities, OHV use, and grazing. The current road density is approximately 3.3 miles 

per square mile. Currently, cumulative watershed effects risk ratios range from 0.22 to 0.48 for 

the three modeled erosion/disturbance processes. 

th

Tamarack Flat 7

-Field Watershed. Disturbances and past impacts in the watershed include roads, 

logging activities, OHV use, and grazing. The current road density is approximately 3.1 miles 

per square mile. Currently, cumulative watershed effects risk ratios range from 0.14 to 0.38 for 

the three modeled erosion/disturbance processes. 

th-Field Watershed. Disturbances and past impacts in the watershed include 

roads, logging activities, OHV use, and grazing. The current road density is approximately 3.0 

miles per square mile. Currently, cumulative watershed effects risk ratios range from 0.11 to 0.37 

for the three modeled erosion/disturbance processes. 
Hi-Grouse Project

94

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Existing conditions resulting from past disturbances and impacts in the project area include 

roads, logging activities, off highway vehicle (OHV) use, and grazing. Current road density 

varies from 3.08 to 3.45 miles per square mile by 7th

There would be no new indirect effects. Existing indirect effects are increased snow pack, 

increased subsurface water due to reduced evapotranspiration, and surface erosion as a result of 

past logging. These indirect effects would be reduced over time as the existing vegetation 

increases in density and height. Impacts from existing road densities would remain the same.

Water quality would remain the same as current conditions.

-field watershed. Current risk ratios range 

from 0.11 to 0.52 for the three modeled erosion/disturbance processes. With no action, existing 

conditions would steadily improve over time. Effects of road density on the area would remain 

the same. Erosion would lower over time as soil cover increases in disturbed areas. Given the 

affected environment and lack of hydrologic connectivity, water quality would remain basically 

the same as current conditions.

Cumulative Effects

Existing cumulative effects would decrease as vegetation and soil cover in disturbed areas 

increases. Cumulative effects from future projects would be somewhat less if this area 

experiences no new disturbances. Water quality would remain the same as current conditions.

Beneficial uses would remain the same as current conditions.

Depending on intensity, future wildfires could change the forest floor and increase the time 

frames for rebuilding the litter layer, removing soil cover, and reducing evapotranspiration.

Depending on intensity, wildfires could drastically increase soil erosion due to loss of soil cover 

and increased runoff, and could negatively affect un-named drainages leaving the project area.

Alternatives 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

No direct effects are anticipated from this project because there are no stream channels within 

the project area. Overall, alternatives 3 and 4 have a very high probability of meeting the 

watershed resource evaluation criteria, and therefore maintaining long-term watershed 

condition/quality. This project will meet the Forest Plan and Basin Plan objectives for suspended 

sediment, settleable materials, turbidity, and water temperature. Overall, this project will not 

significantly decrease short- or long-term watershed condition and water quality.

Given the proposed silviculture and fuels treatments in alternatives 3 and 4, there would be little 

to no impacts to this resource. Fuel treatments are not anticipated to cause sedimentation to 

channels because there are no defined channels and no surface connectivity between the project 

units and downstream waters. Compliance with BMPs and wet weather operations standards 

during implementation and at the close of the timber sale will prevent erosion problems.

Decommissioning of the existing temporary roads including putting barriers to at the road 

takeoff would be beneficial over the long term, allowing the road to revegetate and recover 

without additional disturbance. Compared to Alternative 3, the road closures proposed in 

Alternative 4 would have additional benefits long term benefits.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

95

Alternatives 3 and 4 would not measurably increase short- or long-term suspended sediment, 

settable material, stream turbidity, and water temperature in the five 7th

Cumulative Effects

-field drainages. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 have a very high probability of meeting the watershed resource evaluation 

criteria, and, therefore, maintaining long-term watershed condition/quality. These alternatives 

would meet the Forest Plan and Basin Plan objectives for suspended sediment, settleable 

materials, turbidity, and water temperature.

The surface erosion (USLE) model shows that surface erosion is slightly increased, but these 

increases would probably be within the natural variability of sediment transport and turbidity.

The cumulative effects of the project on the mass wasting risk (GEO model) are the same or 

mostly reduced due to road decommissioning, except for the Tennant-Antelope Creek Watershed, 

with implementing either alternative 3 or 4, including future foreseeable actions. All the 

increases in the risk ratio are no more than 2 percent. The cumulative risk ratios as determined 

by the ERA model are raised 0.04 for Antelope Well, 0.42 for Dock Well, 0.01 for Grouse Hill, 

0.16 for Hill 22, and 0.04 for Tamarack Flat. These increases are small and would not result in 

detectable increased effects on peak flows. Project activity would not negatively affect channel 

conditions or water quality. Beneficial uses in the project area would not be significantly affected 

by these small increases in cumulative watershed effects.

Inference Points and Thresholds of Concern: Much of the cumulative watershed effects

assessment of sedimentation and hydrologic runoff incorporates model-supported information 

that accumulates disturbances relative to land sensitivity. As disturbances increase (and recover) 

over time and space, at some point, depending on the rate of recovery verses new activities, the 

risk of initiating or contributing to existing cumulative watershed impacts becomes a concern.

These model-specific levels are defined as “inference points” (or “thresholds of concern” [TOC]) 

and are used to inform land managers of potential risks for a project or activity. A transition 

exists from lower to higher potential risk of adverse effects to beneficial uses (from minor to 

potentially significant). From a management perspective, inference points are intended to 

represent the center of that transition zone. Inference points do not represent the exact point at 

which cumulative watershed effects will occur. Rather, they serve as “yellow flag” indicators of 

increasing susceptibility for significant adverse effects occurring within a watershed.

Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis. Cumulative effects of past, present, and future 

activities may increase the risk of (1) hydrologic (peakflow) changes, modeled in ERA/TOC; (2) 

increased rate of sedimentation from surface erosion sources, modeled in the USLE; and (3) 

increased rate of landslides, displayed in the GEO Mass Wasting model. The model outputs need 

to be put in perspective of the surface hydrology of the project area as previously discussed.

Alternatives 3 and 4 occur within five 7th-field drainages—Antelope Well, Dock Well, Grouse 

Hill, Hill 22, and Tamarack Flat. With implementation of either alternative 3 or 4, model values 

increase in each of the drainages. These increases, however, do not push any of the drainages to a 

higher categorical status for any of the models (USDA Forest Service 2004a, Cumulative 

Watershed Effects 2006).

After implementation alternatives 3 and 4, activities would raise the current risk ratios of 0.28 to 

0.52 for surface erosion as determined by the USLE model slightly to 0.30 to 0.66. The small 

differences between alternatives are minor to negligible. These risk ratios are not considered 

elevated since they are mostly well below the 0.80–1.0 threshold of concern zone. 
Hi-Grouse Project

96

The cumulative risk ratios for mass wasting as determined by the GEO model shows that there is 

basically no difference in effects between alternatives 3 and 4. The differences between

alternatives 3 and 4 in are not sufficient to change the risk ratios. These risk ratios of 0.18 to 0.42 

are well below elevated (greater than 0.80) conditions. The modeled sediment increases are 

relatively minor and are not enough to affect channel conditions and water quality.

The increased cumulative risk ratios as determined by the ERA model for alternatives 3 and 4 are 

essentially the same for project watersheds. The increases are small and will not result in 

detectable effects on peak flows downstream of the project. The differences in alternatives 3 and 

4 are very small and the differences in their effects would be minimal to none.

The surface erosion model (USLE) shows that surface erosion is slightly increased with the 

action alternatives, but these increases would probably be within the natural variability of 

sediment transport and turbidity. The cumulative effects of the project on the mass wasting risk 

(GEO model) are the same or mostly reduced due to road decommissioning, except for the 

Tennant-Antelope Creek Watershed, with implementing either alternative 3 or 4, including future 

foreseeable actions. All the increases in the risk ratio are small and would not result in detectable 

increased effects on peak flows. Project activity would not negatively affect channel conditions 

or water quality. Beneficial uses in the project area would not be significantly affected by these 

small increases in cumulative watershed effects.

3.3.3 Geologic Resource

Methodology

The ID team hydrologist conducted field reviews in the project area for soil data collection 

surveys and making other field observations. 

Scope of Analysis: Affected environment includes recent past actions and historic actions that 

have impacted the existing condition. Past activities recorded in Forest databases were 

considered and displayed on map A-7 in appendix A, and described in appendix E.

Direct and indirect effects analyses consider the treatments associated with the no action

alternative and the treatment areas in the action alternatives, along with the project design 

features. Implementation of the Hi-Grouse Project is anticipated to start in 2010. The estimated 

duration of the harvest activities is approximately 7 years. It is likely that some pile burning and 

underburning could begin a few years after the last thinning units are completed (i.e., 9 or 10 

years after project start). 

Cumulative effects considers current and future foreseeable similar actions (other fuel reduction 

and vegetation management projects) noted in the Forest's SOPA that overlap the analysis area in 

time. The cumulative effects analysis area is the entire Hi-Grouse Project area. The analysis 

timeframe is 10 years. Ongoing and foreseeable future projects recorded in Forest databases 

were considered in the cumulative effects and displayed on maps A-7 and A-8 in appendix A, 

and described in appendix E. No foreseeable future projects overlap with the project area.

Affected Environment

The project area contains various lava deposits dominated by Quaternary- and Pliocene-aged 

basalt flows. The bedrock is basically unweathered and very competent. These flows have been 

subsequently covered by a mantel of volcanic ash. The majority of the project area has a low 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

97

slope stability hazard rating with a small inclusion of moderate hazard in relatively steeper areas.

Mass wasting is not in evidence due to the relatively flat terrain making up the project area.

The Forest Plan standards and guidelines for geology and the physical environment (S&G 1-1 

through 2-11, page 4-19–4-21) were reviewed for applicability to this project. The project is not 

within any geologic special interest areas, there are no known geologic hazards in the project 

area. The project could use local rock pits in the area, but there are no concerns or issues related 

to rock sources for the project.

Management activities were rated (low, moderate, or high) for the ability to meet the applicable 

evaluation criteria. A probability rating of moderate or high is just an indicator on the likelihood 

of the evaluation criteria being met. The ratings are more like achievement expectations. A rating 

of low would imply that there is a strong likelihood that the geologic resource objective would 

not be met.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Existing conditions resulting from past disturbances and impacts in the project area include 

roads, logging activities, OHV use, and grazing. Current road density varies from 2 to 4 miles 

per square mile by 7th

There would be no new indirect effects. The project area is dominated by high slope stability due 

to gentle slopes, competent bedrock, and highly permeable soils. Landslide rates would remain at 

its current levels which are minimal to none. Existing landings and roads have little to no cuts 

and fill slopes. OHV use would remain at its current use. Road-related runoff and erosion would 

remain the same.

-field watershed. With no action, existing conditions would remain the 

same and recover over time. Effects of road density on the area would remain the same.

Cave resources, if found during project layout or implementation, would remain the same as 

current conditions. Any cave resources would remain in their present condition; however, 

wildfires would have potential to adversely affect cave habitat. 

Overall, this alternative will not change the current landslide rates which are very low to none.

The cave resources would remain in their current condition. Road-related runoff and erosion as 

well as OHV use would remain at their current levels. 

Cumulative Effects

With no action, risks for mass wasting would remain the same as current conditions. The risk 

ratios are well below elevated (greater than 0.80) conditions. Potential effects on the potential 

cave resources are minimal to none.

Existing effects could increase if vegetation increases in density to the point where a intense 

future wildfire would result in major increases in the slope stability hazard which would 

negatively affect water quality.
Hi-Grouse Project

98

Alternatives 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Direct effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the action. If caves are present, 

direct effects relating to lava tube or fault caves includes soil disturbance, ground shaking, and 

disturbance to cave entrances. Soil disturbance could change surface drainage and allow runoff 

and sediment to enter the cave or lava tube. Ground shaking can affect the cave by dislodging 

portions of the cave ceiling, thereby creating new openings or disturbing wildlife using the cave.

Disturbances can change the size and shape of cave entrances as well as cave interiors. All 

proposed management activities for this project that could produce direct effects have a high 

probability of meeting the geologic resource standards and guidelines.

No adverse direct or indirect effects are anticipated from this project because there are no slope 

stability concerns and the cave resources will be adequately protected from disturbance and 

potential sediment. Overall, alternatives 3 and 4 have a high probability of meeting the geologic 

resource evaluation criteria, and therefore maintaining public health, safety, welfare, and 

property. The groundwater and cave resources will be adequately protected from potential 

adverse affects by the equipment exclusion buffers. There were no detectable differences 

between alternatives 3 and 4 regarding their effect on mass wasting rates (GEO model). 

Given the proposed silviculture and fuels treatments in Alternative 3 and 4, there would be little 

to no change in mass wasting potential because the root strength of the stand would not be 

altered. The project area is dominated by high slope stability due to gentle slopes, competent 

bedrock and highly permeable soils. The landings and roads have little to no cuts and fill slopes.

Decommissioning or closing of the temporary roads, including putting barriers at the road 

takeoff, would be beneficial over the long term as vehicle use (including OHV use) would be 

eliminated or reduced, allowing the road to revegetate and recover without additional 

disturbance. 

Cumulative Effects

Since there are no adverse direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects 

anticipated from this project because there are no slope stability concerns due to gently sloping 

terrain, sandy loam soil material, and hard unweathered bedrock. Cave resources will be 

adequately protected from disturbance and potential sediment. Overall, alternatives 1, 3, and 4 

would equally meet the geologic resource evaluation criteria, and therefore, maintain public 

health, safety, welfare, and property. The groundwater and cave resources will be adequately 

protected from potential adverse affects by the equipment exclusion buffers.

3.4 Social Environment

This section describes the aspects of the social environment of the project area. 

Residents, tribes, and communities within or adjacent to the project area, and other members of 

the public, use the area in a variety of ways, and value these lands for diverse reasons. National 

forest management of public lands affects these uses and values. The Hi-Grouse Project involves 

vegetation- and road-modifying activities (e.g., thinning, prescribed burning, mowing, temporary 

road use). Discussions on social effects for this analysis include scenery, recreation, cultural 

resources, air quality, social-economic, transportation, environmental justice, and civil rights.

The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 

Act, and the National Forest Management Act direct the national forests to supply goods and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

99

services and to be managed for a broad array of resources. Consistent with these guiding laws, 

the Forest Plan established land allocations and management direction for the Forest. The project 

does not propose changes in the management of the Forest, but rather is a mechanism for 

implementing management direction. Therefore, the social effects of this single proposal are 

limited in scope. 

Forest Service Manual 1973 requires a social effects analysis if the potential social effects of 

Forest Service actions are important to the decision. Social effects are important. However, 

social effects were not identified as a significant issue for the Hi-Grouse proposal; therefore, an 

extensive analysis was not done nor required.

Effects to social values in this analysis are discussed in narrative form for many factors. 

Economic factors were estimated based on experienced costs. The discussions are supported by a 

number of more detailed documents, incorporated by reference, including: Social-Economic 

Report (North 2009a), Scenery Reports (Mattson 2009), Recreation Report (Desser 2009), 

cultural resource input (Goetz, J. 2009), Air Quality Report (Pfeffer 2009), environmental justice 

input (Pfeffer 2010) and the Transportation Report (North 2009b). These documents are

available on the Forest Internet website at: www.fs.usda.gov/klamath.

3.4.1 Social-Economic

This section summarizes the social impacts and the economic costs and benefits of the HiGrouse Project. The project area is located entirely within Siskiyou County. Siskiyou County has 

local loggers capable of harvesting the timber, and has two large mills with the capacity to utilize 

timber from the project. The social effects are the direct and indirect impacts of the project on 

the residents of Siskiyou County. The economic costs and benefits include an estimate of the 

sales economic viability (return to the government), and estimates of the associated costs to the 

government for the planning and implementation of the project.

Regulatory Framework 

A financial efficiency analysis is required at “gate 2” (project analysis, design and decision 

notice) (FSH 2409.18). The financial efficiency analysis of the proposed timber harvest, 

vegetation management, and transportation management activities is disclosed in this section. A 

comparison of the effects between the alternatives in regard to the following measures is also 

disclosed: harvest volume, estimated jobs supported, and estimated “25 Percent Fund” payment 

to county government. 

Methodology

Social Impacts and Environmental Justice

The analysis focuses on the direct and indirect economic impacts of the Hi-Grouse Project on the 

citizens of Siskiyou County. The impacts are measured in terms of the estimated number of 

logging and sawmill jobs supported by the commodities produced by the project, and the 

economic value of these jobs as compared to the overall economy of the county. Entities outside 

of these counties may also benefit from the project.

The data sources for this analysis include local, county, State, and Federal economic databases 

and reports. The limitations of these data sources are primarily due to the relative small size of 

Siskiyou County’s population and economy. In many cases, there is not enough data available to 

quantify the actual importance of an industry sector to the overall economy, making the affect of 

the economic impacts difficult to judge. 
Hi-Grouse Project

100

Economic Costs and Benefits 

This summarizes the “present net value” of the project. This calculation includes all monetary 

costs and benefits for the project. Future costs and benefits are discounted back to 2008 dollars 

using a 4 percent discount rate. The monetary benefits are the estimated stumpage value for the 

timber sale. The monetary costs include the costs of planning, preparing, and administering the 

project; and the costs associated with the pre-commercial thinning portion of the project. The 

model used for this analysis is the Quicksilver Economic Analysis program (USDA Forest 

Service 2009). Data sources include costs provided by the Forest for each type of activity.

Scope of Analysis: Affected environment includes recent past actions and historic actions that 

have impacted and are considered within the existing condition.

Direct and indirect effects analyses consider the treatments associated with the no action 

alternative and the treatment areas in the action alternatives, along with the project design 

features. Implementation of the Hi-Grouse Project is anticipated to start in 2010. The estimated 

duration of the harvest activities is approximately 7 years. It is likely that some pile burning and 

underburning could begin a few years after the last thinning units are completed (i.e., 9 or 10 

years after project start). 

Cumulative effects considers current and future foreseeable similar actions (other fuel reduction 

and vegetation management projects) noted in the Forest's SOPA that overlap the analysis area in 

time. The cumulative effects analysis area is bounded to the county. The timeframes used for 

both the social and economic analysis is 7 years, beginning in 2010. It is anticipated that this 

period of time will be sufficient to complete financial transactions for both the timber sale and 

the fuels treatments.

Affected Environment

The Hi-Grouse project area is located entirely within Siskiyou County with a population of 

45,491 (2006 data) over an area of 6,287 square miles. Most of the population lives in small 

towns, ranches, or farms. Yreka is the county seat, and the largest city with a population of 

approximately 7,300.

The local economy in Siskiyou County has historically been based on government, forestry, light 

manufacturing, and tourism. The economic data available for Siskiyou County is limited due to 

the small size of the economy, much of the gross revenue data is not available at the county level 

to maintain confidentially for businesses. However, the jobs and income data provides a 

reasonable overview of the economy. The economy of Siskiyou County is moderately 

diversified. The timber industry in Siskiyou County currently provides about 25 percent of the 

manufacturing jobs and 45 percent of the manufacturing wages in Siskiyou County. The timber 

industry is stable.

The infrastructure (milling, trucking, and logging businesses) is sized proportionately to the

supply of timber available from all sources, including Federal lands, and is highly dependent on 

the Federal timber to continue operating at the current levels. The Federal lands currently 

contributing 23 percent of the timber supplied to the industry. Large programmatic changes in 

timber volumes from the Federal lands will have a direct affect on the size of the industry. The 

existing industry is very important to Federal land managers. Without an existing infrastructure, 

implementing land management activities such as hazardous fuels reduction under the National 

Fire Plan and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act will be much more difficult and expensive.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

101

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, there would be no timber harvest and no fuels treatments. Overstocked 

stands would remain overstocked, leaving them vulnerable to damage from insects and disease 

that could affect future product quality. No timber would be produced, so there would be no 

timber-related jobs and no “25 Percent” stumpage sharing with Siskiyou County.

Cumulative Effects

There are no foreseeable cumulative effects for this alternative.

Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 (Modified Proposed Action)

Direct Effects

The commercial thinning and restoration portions of the proposed action will result in the 

production of timber commodities (table 3.4-1). In addition to sawlogs, this project could also 

produce fuel for the biomass industry. The proposed harvest removal systems are exclusively 

ground based. The analysis assumed that the tops would be left attached, and skidded to the 

landing for processing and disposal. If no biomass market exists at the time of harvest, the tops 

and slash would be piled and either sold at a later date, or burned at the landing.

Table 3.4-1. Alternatives 3 and 4 approximate volumes, and harvest costs by logging system

Alternative

Sawlog Volume 

MBF

Sawlog 

Volume CCF 1

Sawlog Stump 

to Mill Costs 

per CCF 2

Biomass 

Volume CCF 3

Biomass 

Landing to 

Plant Costs 

per CCF

3

4

4,241 8,364 $132.15 4,084 $45.71

4 13,263 25,262 $105.29 6,603 $45.50

1 MBF = Thousand board feet

2 CCF = Hundred cubic feet

3 Stump to Mill Cost: (Source) HG_Alt3_R5_sale_eval_v3.xls. Costs include all cost centers including harvest, load, 

trucking, temporary road construction and reconstruction, slash disposal, and erosion control. Sawlog costs include 

yarding of biomass to the landing.

4

Financial Efficiency. The financial efficiency of this project is measured by the present net 

value of the project (PNV). The PNV is calculated by subtracting the present value of future 

costs from the present value of future benefits. The present value is the 2008 value of costs and 

benefits earned or spent in future years, discounted back to 2008 dollars (table 3.4-2).

Biomass Landing to Plant Cost: (Source) HG_Alt3_Biomass_R5_sale_eval_v3.xls. Costs includes chipping, loading, 

and trucking to the biomass facility in Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

Table 3.4-2. Alternatives 3 and 4—Present net value summary

Alternative

Present Net Value –

Stumpage

Present Net Value –

Costs Present Net Value

3 $58,696 -$879,343 -$820,647

4 $545,019 -$1,620,804 -$1,075,784

Source: QuickSliver Economic Analysis Program; 2009.
Hi-Grouse Project

102

The present net value of alternatives 3 and 4 are -$820,647 and -$1,075,784, respectively. In 

simpler terms, the Forest Service will need to budget funding (in 2009 dollars) to accomplish all 

the objectives of this project.

Alternatives 3 and 4 would have indirect effects on the local economy. These effects include the 

number of jobs supported, income derived from the jobs, and payments of 25 percent of the 

stumpage value to Siskiyou County (table 3.4-3). Counties receive payments in lieu of taxes 

(PILT) to replace tax revenue lost due to the public nature of lands administered by Federal 

agencies as authorized under the 1976 Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act. The amount is based on 

the amount of acreage administered by certain Federal agencies, population, a schedule of 

payments, the Consumer Price Index, other Federal payments made in the prior year, and the 

level of funding allocated by Congress. These payments would not be affected by changes in 

revenue as a result of implementation of the proposed action or alternatives.

Harvesting and manufacturing timber will support jobs within the local economy. For this 

analysis, only direct jobs (logging and milling) were considered. Jobs are described as a 

person/year employment, and are based on the ratio of logging and milling employment to total 

volume harvested in 2007 within the State of California. The jobs and income are calculated 

using only the non-helicopter volume, as it is unlikely that the helicopter volume will be 

economically viable.

Table 3.4-3. Alternatives 3 and 4—Jobs, income, and payment to county

Alternative MBF Harvested

Jobs 

Supported1 Income Supported

Estimated 

Stumpage Value

Estimated 25% 

Payment to 

County

3 4,241 13.0 $483,394 $29,115 $7,279

4 13,263 40.7 $1,511,635 $524,055 $131,014

1

Cumulative Effects

Direct Logging and Milling Jobs: Source: 2007 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007 California Board of Equalization.

Timber volume harvested from this project contributes to the KNF’s potential sale quantity. The 

KNF LRMP, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, forecasted an ASQ (allowable sale 

quantity) of 51 MMBF for the preferred alternative. The potential sale quantity only considers 

volume produced from matrix lands. The average volume sold between 1995 and 2006 was 25.4 

MMBF per year, or 49 percent of the potential sale quantity. Alternative 3 would contribute 4.2 

MMBF to the annual target, or 8 percent of the potential sale quantity. Alternative 4 would 

contribute 13.3 MMBF to the annual target, or 26 percent of the potential sale quantity.

3.4.2 Environmental Justice

Affected environment 

Executive Order 12898 relating to environmental justice requires Federal agencies to consider 

disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects on minority and low-income 

populations; it also requires that minority and low-income populations be given access to 

information and opportunities to provide input to decision-making on Federal actions. The 

assessment area for this analysis is Siskiyou County, California, and Jackson County, Oregon, 

because these two counties are the geographic-political area that would encompass the 

“footprint” of the area impacted by the proposed project (also called the “community of 

comparison”). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

103

Census data from the U.S. Census Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/) shows that the 

population of Siskiyou County, California, is made up of Whites (80.5 percent), Hispanic or 

Latino (9.7 percent), Native Americans (4.4 percent), Blacks (1.6 percent), Asians (1.3 percent), 

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders (0.2 percent), and persons reporting two or more 

races (3.4 percent) (2008 data). Approximately 16.4 percent of the population is below the 

poverty line (2008 data). The population of Jackson County, Oregon, is made up of Whites (85.8 

percent), Hispanic or Latino (9.2 percent), Native Americans (1.2 percent), Blacks (0.7 percent), 

Asians (1.3 percent), Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders (0.2 percent), and persons 

reporting two or more races (2.3 percent) (2008 data). Approximately 16.0 percent of the 

population is below the poverty line (2008 data).

The nearest community potentially impacted by the project is Tennant. Census data (2006–2008 

data) was obtained (http://factfinder.census.gov/). Data shows the local population (63 persons) 

consists of Whites (88.9 percent), Hispanic or Latino (11.1 percent), Native Americans (1.6 

percent), and persons of other races (6.3 percent) (2000 data). Approximately 34.8 percent of the 

population is below the poverty line (2000 data)

Environmental Effects

All Alternatives Direct and Indirect Effects

Based on the analysis of the environmental effects, alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would have no 

adverse effects on human health or the environment that are significant, unacceptable, or above 

generally accepted norms. Although there are modeled negative cumulative watershed effects, 

there will be no adverse effects to domestic water sources or fish. Census data for the local area 

suggests that the percentage of the local minority population is somewhat higher than the 

community of comparison and that there are a disproportionate number of low-income people. 

Therefore, implementation of alternatives 3 or 4 may have beneficial social effects in that local 

residents may benefit from the work generated by the project. 

The project does not appear to have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or 

low-income populations. Public involvement did not reveal any issues or concerns associated 

with the principles of environmental justice. All interested and affected parties will continue to 

be involved with the public involvement and decision process.

The project area has relatively high road densities, many of which result from non-system routes. 

Alternative 4 includes approximately 1.5 miles of closure of two spur roads (44N80A and 

44N62A). These two road segments were previously physically closed (barricaded) from use and 

are not expected to disproportionately impact public use. The remaining roads in the project area 

would continue to provide access to the general area, and the Forest recreation opportunities will 

remain and should be similar for all persons. This is not expected to disproportionately affect any 

group.

All Alternatives Cumulative Effects

Based on the analysis of the environmental effects, alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would have no 

adverse cumulative effects on human health or the environment that are significant, 

unacceptable, or above generally accepted norms. This document reviews consequences for 

environmental justice by alternatives and fulfills the requirement for a civil rights impact 

analysis (CRIA). No additional CRIA is required.
Hi-Grouse Project

104

3.4.3 Scenery 

Viewing scenery is the single most enjoyed recreation activity on the KNF. Scenery provides the 

setting for all activities experienced by Forest visitors. Each setting is comprised of scenic 

attributes derived by the environmental context of topography, geology, and climate. These 

underlying factors are expressed and highlighted by the scenic attributes that they support. The 

activities proposed by the Hi-Grouse Project potentially affect the current and future condition of 

these valued scenic resources. Managing scenery resources involves the process of analyzing 

effects and implementing scenic conservation design features to achieve the KNF Forest Plan

desired conditions and direction for scenery resources. Information is summarized from the HiGrouse Project Scenery Report (Mattson 2009).

Methodology 

The scenery analysis applied KNF Forest Plan visual quality objectives to describe and measure 

degrees of expected visual disturbance. It also applied USFS Scenery Management System 

principles to track change to scenic character/image, and relative sustainability of that character 

through time (USDA Forest Service 1995d). Analysis used field studies and photography from 

inventoried sensitive viewpoints and other views of the project area, as well as coordination with 

project ID team members, and consideration of public preferences for scenic quality.

Scope of Analysis: Affected environment includes recent past actions and historic actions that 

have impacted the existing condition. Past activities recorded in Forest databases were 

considered and displayed on map A-7 in appendix A, and described in appendix E.

Direct and indirect effects analyses consider the treatments associated with the no action 

alternative and the treatment areas in the action alternatives, along with the project design 

features. Implementation of the Hi-Grouse Project is anticipated to start in 2010. The estimated 

duration of the harvest activities is approximately 7 years. It is likely that some pile burning and 

underburning could begin a few years after the last thinning units are completed (i.e., 9 or 10 

years after project start). The analysis area for scenery resources comprises the immediate 

project area, as well as adjacent areas containing high points identified in the Medicine Lake 

Highland Cultural Area (USDA Forest Service 2004b).

Cumulative effects considers current and future foreseeable similar actions (other fuel reduction 

and vegetation management projects) noted in the Forest's SOPA that overlap the analysis area in 

time. Cumulative scenic quality was within the geographic scope of roadways and other 

viewpoints within and adjacent to the project area. The analysis timeframe is 10 years for shortterm effects such as temporary decreases in canopy closure after thinning treatments. Some longterm effects, such as the time it takes trees to mature, would occur in excess of 20 years. 

Ongoing and foreseeable future projects recorded in Forest databases were considered in the 

cumulative effects and are displayed on maps A-7 and A-8 in appendix A, and described in 

appendix E.

Affected Environment

The Hi-Grouse Project Area is adjacent to the Medicine Lake Recreation Area. Scenic quality is 

the primary recreation value potentially affected by the Hi-Grouse Project, as viewed from 

recreational roads and trails. The project area is not located on steep terrain nor is it prominently 

viewed from areas outside of the project boundary, other than from the identified high points 

such as Red Cap Mountain and Little Mount Hoffman.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

105

The Forest Service developed the Recreation NICHE process for recreation facilities analysis to 

define the particular recreation niche the Forest could provide for the public. The Hi-Grouse 

project area lies primarily within an area defined as “travelways” having no developed 

campgrounds or amenities other than the Four Corners Snowmobile trailhead. However, the area 

is used for dispersed camp recreation during the summer season, and snowmobiling during the 

winter season. Cultural uses include outdoor recreation, and seeking spiritual inspirations on 

various volcanic peaks.

Scenic Character. The major scenic attribute of the Hi-Grouse Project Area is the forest 

vegetation comprised of varying types of coniferous species including the open ponderosa pine

stands with large tree character, the lodgepole stands of more densely stocked, smaller trees with 

small openings, composite stands of pine, and the stands that have a multi-layered appearance 

such as the pine/white fir species, and the red fir/pine species. Secondary attributes such as 

shrubs and rock formations, and small stands of red fir, are also valued in the foreground views. 

In distant views beyond the project area, the landform is comprised of numerous volcanic peaks 

and buttes of differing sizes and shapes, some rounded and others craggy and rugged amidst the 

broad sweeping landscape that varies 1,200 feet in elevation.

Scenic Character Context. The terrain of the project area is heavily influenced by past volcanic 

activity; volcanic peaks are common throughout the area. The 5,400 to 6,500 feet range in 

elevation provides enough diversity to support the varying plant associations that present 

differing scenic characteristics. Higher elevations support the red fir/pine associations; the cold 

air drainage areas support lodgepole. Lower elevations in the area tend to be drier and experience 

more frequent fire than ponderosa pine can tolerate. Mixed pine/fir compositions are found at the 

mid-level elevations. 

Historic logging practices have eliminated the large tree component in much of this area, and fire 

suppression practices have increased the density of the timber stands and altered the species 

composition. Many of the stands are a multi-species conglomerate, and the forest has lost much 

of its varying characteristics. The open pine stands are now multi-layered with white fir and 

Lodgepole Pine stands viewed from Tennant Road #77
Hi-Grouse Project

106

other species. Due to these practices the vegetation allows for minimal views to the volcanic 

peaks. The density of the stands allows minimal views into the forest limiting the viewer to less 

than 30 feet from the road prism. 

Although much of the project area has a natural appearance, these stands are modified to be 

excessively dense and uniform. The scenic attributes are vulnerable to large, stand-replacing 

fires, and insect and disease epidemics. The sensitivity level and related foreground (0 to 0.25

mile) VQO (visual quality objective) along project area roads varies from modification to partial 

retention. 

Existing Scenic Integrity. Scenic integrity is the degree to which the scenery is free from visible 

disturbances that detract from the natural and socially valued appearance, including disturbances 

due to human activities or extreme natural events inconsistent with the historic range of 

variability. Scenic integrity is measured on the KNF through visual quality objective levels 

defined by the USFS Visual Management System’s Chapter 1 USDA Handbook # 46211. These 

levels and descriptors of how people perceive them are shown in table 3.4-4.

Table 3.4-4. Visual quality objectives and perceived alternation

Levels of Scenic Integrity/Disturbance 

(Visual Quality Objectives [VQOs])

The Forest’s Scenic Integrity

as People by People

Preservation Unaltered, complete

Retention Unnoticeably altered

Partial retention Slightly altered

Modification Moderately altered

Maximum modification Heavily altered

Unacceptable modification

(is never an objective on national forest lands)

Unacceptably altered

The area is viewed primarily from inventoried sensitive Forest Roads 15 and 77, which travels 

south from the Four Corners Snow Park at the northern edge of the project area. Views from 

these and the project area’s other sensitive routes are typically limited to foreground views (0 to 

300 feet) by the dense forest stands on both sides of the road. The views that are most 

compelling are those of the distant volcanic peaks that dot the landscape; however, vistas of 

these peaks are very limited. The existing visual quality of the views along Forest Roads 15 and 

77 meets partial retention. There is little evidence of human-caused impacts to the scenic quality 

of the project area as viewed from distances beyond 0.25 mile (foreground). Many of the 

sensitive viewpoints are on top of the volcanic peaks within and adjacent to the project area.

Although these viewpoints are not along sensitive routes, the special place cultural designation 

within the Medicine Lake Highlands recognizes the social importance of views from these 

elevated viewpoints. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

107

The project area is viewed at middle and background distances from high points such as Red Cap 

Mountain, Little Glass Mountain, Squaw Peak, and Little Mount Hoffman outside of the project 

boundary. These views are of particular interest to the native tribes in the area because they are 

culturally sensitive viewpoints. From these viewpoints the middleground and background 

scenery is comprised of a contiguous forest across gently rolling slopes with volcanic peaks and 

buttes. The coarse scale texture and color of the forest is perceivable at these distances. The most 

apparent distinction from these distances is large patches of dead and dying trees, as seen from 

Red Cap Mountain. The foreground views scenery is comprised of the subalpine fir and volcanic 

cinder.

The sensitive routes along the southern portion of the project area are used regularly but lightly.

During the winter months these routes are used as snowmobile routes. The views from these 

routes have no obvious human-caused impacts to the scenic quality. The existing visual quality 

of the views along these routes meets partial retention.

Scenic Stability. A new scenery indicator has been developed for use within the USFS Scenery 

Management System (applied in this analysis according to procedures described in the 

September 20, 2006, Draft Appendix J of the SMS Handbook #701). As size and intensity of fire 

events increase, community response is increasingly in favor of improving resiliency of forest 

stands. Improving resiliency of the forest stands reduces hazards such as loss of property, life, 

economic viability, and recreation settings. People value the landscape’s unique scenic character 

and want it to be sustained.

Scenic stability is the degree to which the desired scenic character can be sustained through time 

and ecological progression. For the Hi-Grouse Project Area, the existing scenic stability analysis 

focuses on the single major scenery attribute of vegetation, addressing its ecosystem conditions 

identified by field observation and fire regime condition class (FRCC) 7 coarse-scale data on 

vegetation and fire history data. Ecosystem changes to other minor scenery attributes such as 

landform, rock outcrops, and winter snowfall are not nearly as critical to the Hi-Grouse Project’s 

scenic character as its vegetation, since these changes are relatively stable over time regardless 

of fire behavior and human activities. Scenic stability levels are defined as follows:

Very High Stability—All dominant and minor scenery attributes of the valued scenic 

character are present and are likely to be sustained.

High Stability—All dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present 

and are likely to be sustained. However, there may be scenery attribute conditions and 

This view from Red Cap Mountain looks northwest directly into the lodgepole pine stands that are heavily 

affected by the bark beetle; much of this stand is dead or heavily infested with bark beetles.
Hi-Grouse Project

108

ecosystem stressors that present a low risk to the sustainability of the dominant scenery 

attributes.

Moderate Stability—Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are 

present and are likely to be sustained. A few may have been lost or are in serious decline.

Low Stability—Some dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present 

and are likely to be sustained. Known scenery attribute conditions and ecosystem stressors 

may seriously threaten or have already eliminated the others.

Very Low Stability—Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are 

seriously threatened or absent due to their conditions and ecosystem stressors and are not 

likely to be sustained. The few that remain may be moderately threatened but are likely to be 

sustained.

No Stability—All dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are absent or 

seriously threatened by their conditions and ecosystem stressors. None are likely to be 

sustained, except relatively permanent attributes such as landforms.

Existing Scenic Stability. Some stand types display greater degrees or amounts of change than 

others. For instance, lodgepole stands are dense and tend to have a short life span and break 

down more rapidly than other stand types. Within these stands, it is expected that the stand 

would slowly break down over a period of 50 to 100 years, and then the stands would begin a 

progression of rapid decay and mortality. This progression of decay and mortality has a visual 

appearance of a forest stand in decline, in poor health, looking sickly and very susceptible to 

large stand-replacement fire. Based on research, most people find that such conditions are not 

visually appealing (USDA-Forest Service 2005). The stability of lodgepole stands is different 

from other species. It is expected that there would be greater amount of change over 100 years 

within a lodgepole pine stand than there would be in a ponderosa pine stand. Pine stands have an 

open and sometimes park-like character (trees spaced 20 to 30 feet apart). Ponderosa pine stands 

tend to maintain health despite drought and low intensity fire; and are resistant to diseases and 

insects; therefore, the amount or degree of change over a 100-year period is much less than that 

of the lodgepole pine stands. The visual appearance of the ponderosa pine stands is valued for 

the large tree character, openness, and overall appearance of health.

At a landscape scale, both of these stand types are present. The FRCC data and the vegetative 

structure data take into account the varying stands and their lifecycle characteristics. When there 

is a departure from the natural, historic conditions, it is expected that the historic, desired scenic 

character of the landscape is at risk of experiencing changes that are outside of its temporal and 

spatial scale. With the conditions and trends present within this project area and at the landscape 

scale, it is expected that large scenic character changes beyond the natural and historic spatial 

and temporal scale would occur.

Evaluating scenic stability considers conditions necessary to sustain desired scenic character of 

stands within the natural and historic range of the landscape. When trends such as increasing 

stand density, encroachment of less resilient species, increasing fuel loads, and high levels of 

mortality exist, the expected consequences are change in the scenic character that are beyond the 

historic scale. Examples of these consequences are large canopy openings from large stands of 

dead and dying timber, and loss of distinctive characteristic such as open, large-tree-character 

pine stands, lodgepole stand mosaics, and multi-layered, mixed-species stands. Gradual trends 

over time have altered the species composition, stand structure, and age classes of the forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

109

vegetation. Stands of large mature ponderosa pine that provide an open forest are diminished due 

to encroaching mixed conifer species.

Much of the coniferous vegetation is trending toward unsustainable conditions. Stocking levels, 

fuel loads, and species composition has departed from the reference/historic conditions. The 

historic fire regime of the ponderosa pine type is one of frequent low-intensity fires which have 

maintained lower stand densities, and fuel loads at a healthy sustainable level. This low-intensity 

fire regime maintains a sustainable species composition of predominantly fire-resistant 

ponderosa pine. Even in cold pockets and in the upper elevations where lodgepole pine reside, 

the suppression of fire has caused a departure from historic conditions. The lodgepole stands are 

very decadent, overstocked and stressed. With this additional stress these stands are vulnerable to 

insect and disease infestations, that can lead to wide spread mortality. 

The white fir/pine stands are densely stocked. The white fir is encroaching where ponderosa pine

stands were once sustained by the low-intensity fire cycles. Stands are in poor shape with heavy 

mortality and stressed conditions. Bark beetle infestations have already killed much of the pine.

Today these stands are beyond the historical range of variability, showing trends toward 

increasing risk of large stand-replacement fire.

The red fir stands are diminished as well, being crowded out by other species. These diminished 

characteristics are scenic attributes that make up the desired scenic character.

White fir stands viewed from Road 44N61

These continuing trends have created fuel conditions that cause concern for stand-replacement 

fire events. Approximately 90 percent of the project area is moderately or severely inconsistent 

with or trending away from historic “pre-settlement” vegetation structure conditions. Figure 3.4-

1 shows these conditions (Creasy et al. 2007). There are widespread excesses of overly dense 

stands of smaller and intermediate trees, and accumulations of highly flammable forest woody 

debris. These conditions are largely due to wildfire suppression and logging within past decades.

The conditions are such that the scenic character is at risk of being severely altered by large 

stand-replacement fire.
Hi-Grouse Project

110

The Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) levels shown in figure 3.4-1 are:

FRCC I (Low) corresponds to the definitions for “High” and “Very High” scenic stability 

levels described above. They both should have scenery attribute conditions that are within 

the range of natural or historic variability. The green areas in the FRCC maps generally 

reflect these scenic stability levels.

FRCC II (Moderate) corresponds to the definitions for “Moderate and Low” scenic stability. 

They both include conditions outside the range of natural or historic variability. These scenic 

stability levels are generally reflected as yellow areas on the FRCC maps.

FRCC III (High) corresponds to the definitions for “Very Low” and “No” scenic stability. 

They are far beyond the range of natural or historic variability. The red areas on the FRCC 

maps reflect these two scenic stability levels (see above photo).

The FRCC-based maps (figures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2) show reliable coarse-scale estimates of 

“departures” from natural, historic vegetation conditions (“Vegetative Structure”) and wildfire 

cycles (“Fire Return Interval”); maps are the approximate scale. Most of the project area is 

highly departed from the natural vegetative structure and highly departed from the natural range 

of fire frequency (figures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2). A departure of natural fire return interval often 

indicates that future fire events would burn more intensely due to the conditions of the stands.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

111

Figure 3.4-1. Departure from historic vegetation conditions within the project area (FRCC 2006)
Hi-Grouse Project

112

Figure 3.4-2. Departure from historic wildfire return interval within the project area (FRCC 2006).

The data indicates that condition of the vegetative structure is poor in 80 to 90 percent of the 

project area, and the stresses of drier/hotter weather, annosus root disease, and western bark 

beetle are moderate to severe across the project area and at a landscape scale. Within a landscape 

where most of the scenery attributes are the vegetative character, these conditions affect the 

scenic stability rating extensively. There is a high risk to most scenery attributes making the 

scenic stability “Very Low”.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

113

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

The no action alternative would not create direct scenery effects, nor would it address conditions 

and trends such as over stocking and non-resilient species compositions that pose a threat to the 

scenery resources. Leaving current conditions unaddressed as the climate continues to change 

would allow threatening conditions to increase.

Scenic Stability and Integrity. The no action alternative would continue existing trends and 

conditions that are increasingly hazardous to the stability of scenery attributes. Increased fuel 

loads combined with the existing stand density and species composition are very hazardous 

conditions. All of these factors would contribute to a large stand-replacing fire in the event of a 

lightning strike or a human-caused fire, which would damage or eliminate several vegetation 

scenery attributes, including the historic canopy pattern. The high incidence of the annosus root 

disease would continue to contribute to mortality of stands, many that already have heavy fuel 

loads and high stand densities. The greatest threat to scenic stability in this area is large standreplacement fire. 

The no action alternative would have no direct effect to the scenic integrity of the project area.

The existing degree of visible disturbances would remain. Table 3.4-5 displays the existing 

scenic integrity/Forest Plan VQO level along with predicted outcome by alternative.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would perpetuate the existing conditions and trends that have created hazardous, 

unstable conditions for project area scenic quality, and have contributed to the loss of the 

attractive open ponderosa pine stands. Perpetuating these conditions would maintain low scenic 

stability in the area. An event such as a large fire or an insect or disease epidemic is very 

probable considering the existing and perpetuating conditions. The indirect effects to scenic 

integrity, if such an event were to occur, are all effects related to stand-replacement fire larger in 

size and intensity than what would occur if the vegetation conditions were within the natural, 

historical range of variability, as well as the potential adverse scenery disturbances arising from 

fire suppression activities.

Scenic Stability and Integrity. The no action alternative would perpetuate conditions and trends 

that increase the scenery hazards of stand-replacement fire. Table 3.4-5 displays the existing 

scenic integrity/Forest Plan VQO level along with predicted outcome by alternative. Without 

direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects to the scenic integrity of the 

project area. 

Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 (Modified Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

The action alternatives would cause short-term, low-intensity adverse effects to scenery in 

foreground views. These alternatives would reduce stocking densities and adjust species 

compositions to more resilient conditions. These actions would improve the potential for a fire 

event to be less intense than a fire event in the project area in its current condition. Scenic 

character attribute changes would improve scenic stability under the action alternatives.
Hi-Grouse Project

114

The existing overall scenic quality would be altered by action alternatives by differing degrees 

based on the method and the amount of acres treated. Some treatments would have minimal 

effects to the scenery resource, while others may change the scenery substantially. This section 

will disclose the predicted effects, including whether the alternatives meet the minimum level of 

scenic integrity required in the KNF Forest Plan and the Medicine Lake Highlands Plan, as well 

as changes to the project area’s scenic character and scenic stability. 

In this landscape, the exclusion of fire has contributed to the trends and conditions that put 

scenic attributes at risk. By reintroducing fire into the ecological progression, resiliency of the 

historic vegetation scenery attributes can be improved. Forest canopy densities can be 

maintained while species composition is regulated to favor the historically dominant fire 

resistant species. Ladder fuels are minimized, and litter is consumed in a controlled manner, 

further stabilizing the ecosystem’s vegetation scenery attributes. Large tree character is promoted 

by fire reintroduction, thus moving the landscape toward the desired scenic character. 

Table 3.4-5. Comparison of effects for scenic integrity/Forest Plan VQO and scenic stability

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Scenic Integrity/Visual Quality Objective

Partial Retention Meets VQO Meets VQO Meets VQO

Modification Meets VQO Meets VQO Meets VQO

Scenic Stability

Overall Project Area 

Existing Condition is Very 

Low Stability 

No improvement Minimal improvement Minimal Improvement

Ponderosa Pine No improvement Improves to low 

stability

Improves to low 

stability

Ponderosa Pine/Mixed 

Conifer

No improvement No improvement No improvement

Lodgepole Pine No improvement Improves to low 

stability

Improves to moderate 

stability

Cumulative Effects

The action alternatives are expected to cause minor adverse effects to scenic integrity while 

causing beneficial long-term effects to the scenic character and scenic stability. The action 

alternatives address (to varying degrees) the conditions, stresses, and trends that currently pose a 

hazard to the scenic attributes. It is expected that the direct effects would be immediate and long 

term (10 to more than 50 years). The large tree character that is now lacking would begin to 

develop over the next 50 years and beyond. Reintroduction of fire into the landscape would be 

beneficial to maintaining open park-like stands of ponderosa pine. As continuing projects in the 

broader area are completed, it is expected that the scenic stability at a larger scale is expected to 

improve. The Little Horse Peak Project along the Tennant Road #77 to the north of the project 

area is a good example of projects being accomplished in the area that contribute to the larger 

effort to improve ecological conditions towards desired scenic character, which in turn improves 

scenic stability while meeting the visual quality objectives that minimize adverse scenic integrity 

effects.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

115

The Hi-Grouse Project would help achieve the KNF’s desired conditions for scenery, which is to 

perpetuate ecologically established scenery, and minimize visual disturbances (meet Forest 

visual quality objectives/VQOs).

3.4.4 Recreation

Viewing scenery is the single most sought after recreation activity on the KNF (Mattson 2009).

Effects on scenery and scenic stability are discussed in the “Scenery” section directly above.

Dispersed recreation in the summer consists mainly of driving for pleasure (or sightseeing), birdwatching, nature hikes, hiking, biking, OHV riding (mainly in conjunction with hunting), and 

hunting. Dispersed recreation in the winter consists of cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, 

snowshoeing, and snow play. 

Methodology

The Forest Service has developed the Recreation NICHE process for recreation facilities analysis

(USDA Forest Service 2007c). This process was developed to define the particular recreation 

niche the Forest could provide for the public. The Forest defined spatial units that had particular 

characteristics which could support a defined set of recreational experiences. The Hi-Grouse 

project area was characterized as a travelway. Forest recreation maps were reviewed for 

recreation related facilities.

Scope of Analysis: Affected environment includes recent past actions and historic actions that 

have impacted the existing condition. Past activities recorded in Forest databases were 

considered and displayed on map A-7 in appendix A, and described in appendix E. 

Direct and indirect effects analyses consider the treatments associated with the no action 

alternative and the treatment areas in the action alternatives, along with the project design 

features. Implementation of the Hi-Grouse Project is anticipated to start in 2010. The estimated 

duration of the harvest activities is approximately 7 years. It is likely that some pile burning and 

underburning could begin a few years after the last thinning units are completed (i.e., 9 or 10 

years after project start). 

Cumulative effects considers current and future foreseeable similar actions (other fuel reduction 

and vegetation management projects) noted in the Forest's SOPA that overlap the analysis area in 

time. The cumulative effects analysis area is the entire Hi-Grouse Project area. The analysis 

timeframe is 10 years. Past, ongoing and foreseeable future projects recorded in Forest databases 

were considered in the cumulative effects and displayed on maps A-7 and A-8 in appendix A, 

and described in appendix E.

Affected Environment

Goosenest travelways and lookouts support scenery and wildlife viewing plus easy access to 

fishable lakes and high-elevation meadows accented by wildflowers, streams, aspen, and wildlife 

(Recreation NICHE Narrative 2007, page 1). 

Roads 15 and 77 are the main routes through the project area and receive the most use by 

visitors. During the winter months these routes, and others, are used as snowmobile routes. The 

project area provides mostly dispersed recreation opportunities. Most popular dispersed 

recreational activities within the project area include snowmobiling, dispersed camping at 

primitive sites, hunting, viewing scenery, natural features and wildlife, and driving for pleasure.
Hi-Grouse Project

116

Small dispersed campsites are located within the project area. “Dispersed recreation is outdoor 

recreation that involves relatively low density use and occurs over broad expanses of land and 

water. Dispersed recreational activity accounts for 80 percent of Forest recreational use. Most 

dispersed activity occurs during the summer and fall months. All dispersed areas are currently 

managed at low standard levels.” (Forest Plan, page 3-12) Few improvements exist within the 

area; the Four Corners trailhead facility is located north of the project boundary. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Existing conditions and trends would be perpetuated. There are no direct effects on recreation 

and the potential for indirect effects based on changes in vegetation is remote. 

Cumulative Effects

There are no cumulative effects from no action. 

Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 (Modified Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Neither action alternative would result in measurable impacts to recreation. The proposed 

thinning and underburning treatments would not create openings large enough to stand-out along 

the snowmobile trails.

The operational impacts of the projects such as traffic, noise, and dust will be temporary. There 

is no reason to expect recreation use to measurably increase or decrease because of the proposed 

project. No recreation user conflicts have been identified.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of this project are limited to the planning area into the foreseeable future. The 

only other similar actions that may occur would be related to fire events and suppression 

activities. Since there are no direct and indirect effects from this project or other similar actions 

within the project area, there are no anticipated cumulative effects on recreation resources.

3.4.5 Cultural Resources

Methodology

Archaeological field inventories were conducted in the project area and are recorded in 

Archeological Reconnaissance Reports (ARRs) #05-05-933, -933A, -1100, -1100A, -1100B, -

1100C, -1100D, -1100E, -1278, -1357, -1358A and -1425. In compliance with the Region 5 

Programmatic Agreement for Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA (Provision III. D. (2)), 

relevant archaeological sites have been identified and will be protected by applying standard 

resource protection measures in or adjacent to the area of potential effect.

Affected Environment

No designated cultural areas (MA-8) are within or near the project area. A portion of the project 

area does fall within the Central Highlands (Assessment Area) of The Medicine Lake Highlands 

Historic Properties Management Program: Including a Cultural Assessment and Guidelines for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

117

Management (USDA Forest Service 2007a). This management tool was used as a guide in 

planning this project.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

No ground-disturbing activities would occur under the no action alternative; hence, there would 

be no direct or indirect effects on cultural resources.

Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative effects on cultural resources

Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 (Modified Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

The treatments, as proposed under the action alternatives would have no direct or indirect effects 

on cultural resources because all archaeological and historic sites would be protected using 

standard design criteria.

Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative effects on cultural resources because all archaeological and 

historic sites would be protected using standard design criteria.

3.4.6 Air Quality

Air quality is managed through a complex series of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations 

designed to assure compliance with the Clean Air Act. The project area is located within the 

Northeast Plateau Air Basin. The Northeast Plateau Air Basin is comprised of Siskiyou, Modoc,

and Lassen counties. Within Siskiyou County, the air quality regulating authority is the Siskiyou 

County Air Pollution Control District (SCAPCD) in Yreka, California. The SCAPCD monitors 

air quality at three sites throughout the county, and has the responsibility of enforcement to both 

the Federal and State air quality regulations at the local level.

Pollutants that will be released from project-related activities are the criteria pollutants, i.e., 

particulate matter smaller than 10 microns or 2.5 microns (PM10 or PM2.5), carbon monoxide 

(CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic carbons (VOCs) and minute quantities of noncriteria air toxics. These pollutants and air toxics are considered unhealthy for the public. In 

addition, green house gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4

Methodology

) are also emitted. 

These gases are known to impact climate change.

Emissions estimates for burning were quantified through the First Order Fire Effects Model, 

version 5.0 (FOFEM). FOFEM is recognized by the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region 

(Region 5) as being the most current and accurate analysis tool available for emissions prediction 

(Reinhardt et al. 1997). The model is based on extensive research in Western forest ecosystems. 

Due to the use of whole-tree yarding and biomass to remove tops of trees, minimal activity fuels

would be created under any alternative. Machine and hand pile units were considered for the 

estimated actual acres of burning. Wildfires burning on the same affected acres would result in 

the similar levels of emissions as noted for the acres burned under each of the action alternatives.
Hi-Grouse Project

118

Scope of Analysis: Affected environment includes recent past actions and historic actions that 

have impacted the existing condition. Past activities recorded in Forest databases were 

considered and displayed on map A-7 in appendix A, and described in appendix E.

Direct and indirect effects analyses consider the treatments associated with the no action 

alternative and the treatment areas in the action alternatives, along with the project design 

features. Implementation of the Hi-Grouse project is anticipated to start in 2010. This project can 

be divided into two phases in terms of air quality impacts. First phase will be the timber sale that 

will take 3 to 5 years for completion involving mechanized equipment and hauling. The second 

phase includes prescribed fires (understory and pile burns) that will also be spread over 5 to 10 

years following harvest activities. 

Cumulative effects considers current and future foreseeable similar actions (other fuel reduction 

and vegetation management projects) noted in the Forest's SOPA that overlap the analysis area in 

time. The cumulative effects analysis area is the project area, and how it would contribute to air 

quality in Siskiyou County. The analysis timeframe is 10 years. Ongoing and foreseeable future 

projects recorded in Forest databases were considered in the cumulative effects and displayed on 

maps A-7 and A-8 in appendix A, and described in appendix E.

Affected Environment

The project vicinity is forested, federally managed lands with no substantial emission sources 

other than fugitive dust from logging and recreation. Other contributions would be smoke and 

haze from seasonal wildland and prescribed fires from both within and outside the basin. The 

area is located approximately 15 miles southeast of Macdoel, California, in Siskiyou County.

The project lies in the Northeast Plateau Air Basin and is managed by the Siskiyou County Air 

Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

According to CARB website (www.arb.ca.gov) the ambient air in portions of the SCAQMD 

exceeds the State PM10 standard during many of the winter months. Siskiyou County is 

identified as attainment for PM10 and PM2.5 for Federal standards. Therefore the project is 

exempt from conformity determination. For state PM10/PM2.5 standards Siskiyou County is 

designated as “attainment” area for PM10 and “unclassified” for PM2.5

In Siskiyou County, PM

.

10

According to the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1995a, page 3-4), air quality on the Forest 

has been considered very good, and complies with all NAAQS standards set by the EPA.

generally comes from motor vehicles, wood burning stoves, dust from 

construction and logging operations, wildfires, and slash burning. Siskiyou County is in “nonattainment” status for ozone, a product of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides; and is 

considered “unclassified” for CO. See the Air Quality Report, table 2, for detailed existing 

estimated emissions for Siskiyou County.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct or indirect effects on air quality from no action.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

119

Cumulative Effects

This alternative would lead to increased accumulation of ground fuels which could lead to 

increased high-intensity wildfires in the future. If a wildfire were to occur, the potential indirect 

effects include degraded air quality and reduced visibility. Consumption of the increased fuel 

loads and understory biomass would increase the amount of smoke emissions. These emissions 

would occur over a period of a few days to several weeks.

Alternatives 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Forest air pollutant sources with the greatest impact are wildfire and prescribed burns. Other 

lesser pollutant sources are fugitive dust and vehicle exhaust emissions. Logging operations will 

produce some dust, primarily from tractor skidding of log bundles and hauling over earth surface 

roads. Dust from hauling will be minimized by requiring abatement with either water or an 

acceptable alternative. Logging operations are generally done over several years and localized 

dust from skidding and hauling dissipates rapidly. Vehicle exhaust emissions would be generated 

by logging equipment, pickup trucks, water trucks, chipper engines, and transport vehicles.

Due to the use of whole-tree yarding and biomass to remove tops of trees, minimal activity fuels

would be created under any alternative. Machine and hand pile units were considered for the 

estimated actual acres of burning. Wildfires burning on the same affected acres would result in 

similar levels of emissions when compared to prescribe burning.

Burn emissions would occur over 3 to 5 years under approved burn plans. Hand pile burning will 

occur during the fall after significant moisture that prevents the spread of fire from the piles.

Estimated 24-hour emissions are very unlikely to exceed the 24-hour standard (California) for 

PM10 and PM2.5

Alternative 4 would generate slightly higher amounts of vehicle emissions and dust than 

alternative 3 over the life of timber sale. Logging operations will produce vehicle emissions and 

some dust, primarily from tractor skidding of log bundles and hauling over dirt and gravel roads. 

Dust from hauling will be minimized by requiring abatement with either water or an acceptable 

alternative. Logging operations are generally done over several years and localized dust from 

skidding and hauling dissipates rapidly.

. Emissions at the project site (burn location) are not expected to exceed annual 

State or Federal standards, and would not degrade air quality or attainment status. See the Air 

Quality Report (Pfeffer 2009), tables 4, 5, and 6, for detailed estimated emissions by alternative 

for burning and vehicle emissions.

The burning of slash piles, concentrations, and prescribed burning will produce smoke and ash 

from partially burned plant matter. Smoke from proposed burning would remain in the area for 

about 1 to 2 days each time burning occurs. Permissive burn days are determined by the 

SCAQMD. The project area is in attainment for all criteria pollutants for Federal standards so no 

conformity determination is required.

The action alternatives will reduce the overall fuel loading on approximately 3,568 acres for 

alternative 3, and 3,847 acres for alternative 4. Treatments would remove biomass and would 

decrease the expected emissions from a wildland fire if it occurs in the project area.

Cumulative Effects 

There has been pile burning over the past 10 years within the project area. Compliance with burn 

day designations and permits from the SCAPCD has minimized the effects of burning so that 
Hi-Grouse Project

120

Federal and State air quality standards have not been exceeded. Because impacts to air quality in 

regards to smoke from past wildfires and prescribed fire activities are short-lived, past activities 

do not contribute to cumulative effects. Past harvest activities reduced the amount and size of 

available material available for consumption in the event of a future wildfire.

Proposed management activities under alternatives 3 and 4, combined with present and 

foreseeable activities, would contribute to the emissions that affect air quality. These alternatives 

and their impacts on air quality are difficult to address in terms of cumulative effects. Large fires 

have occurred near the project over the past century as described in the fire/fuels analysis 

(Helmbrecht and Kurth 2009); however, those effects on air quality are gone and cannot be 

viewed cumulatively. If a wildfire occurred, there is a potential for the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) to be exceeded depending on the size and duration of wildfire.

Gaseous pollutants and airborne particulate matter (e.g., smoke and dust) would continue to be 

present into the future. Primary emissions sources contributing would include wood burning 

stoves, motor vehicle exhaust, emissions from recreational campfires, emission associated with 

development of private lands, prescribed fire, fugitive dust, and wildfires within or adjacent to 

the project area. Multiple prescribed burn activities, occurring at the same time, could 

cumulatively increase particulate levels. Generally, the effects of one burn activity are completed 

before another burn activity begins. Impacts to air quality would generally be confined to no 

more than a few hours, or at most a few days. The cumulative effect of prescribed fire on air 

quality is rather short-lived, because once the burn is over and the smoke has dissipated, the 

effect is over. However, it is more likely that the current projects will be completed before the 

Hi-Grouse Project treatments would be implemented.

Future wildfire frequency is expected to continue as it has in the past. If wildfire occurs in the 

future these effects could lead to negative cumulative effects. These negative cumulative effects 

are dependent upon the size and intensity of the wildfire. Visibility impairment and hazardous 

health impacts, due to sudden and dramatic releases, are likely with a large wildfire event. These 

events may temporarily reduce visibility and air quality. These events lead to production of high 

amounts of GHGs and reduced carbon sequestration from the burnt area for next few years 

following the fires. The cumulative effects are unknown, because the intensity and size of a 

wildfire is unknown. Research has indicated that wildfires can produce nearly twice the amount 

of smoke as prescribed fire (Huff et al. 1995). 

One objective of the project is to prevent the occurrence of large, uncontrolled wildfires burning 

into the designated late-succession stands. Wildfires present a risk to the public and result in 

damage to both the environment (e.g., increased erosion, air quality degradation) and property. 

Wildfires are known to result in high levels of including GHGs and associated NAAQS violation 

and worst visibility. Vegetation management treatments provide the opportunity on a long-term 

basis to reduce the magnitude of wildfire air quality problems.

The SCAQMD regulates permissible burn days for prescribed fire use within their district. A 

smoke management plan (contained in all prescribed burn plans) will be submitted and approved 

by the SCAQMD prior to using prescribed fire on Federal lands. The improved wildfire 

suppression characteristics created by prescribed burning and thinning should lead to a reduction 

in size and intensity of wildfires in the treated areas. In the long term, the emissions from 

wildfires are expected to be reduced as a result of reduced fuel loading. Overall cumulative 

emissions are expected to be similar to the past years and are not expected to exceed Federal or 

State air quality standards. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

121

3.5 Climate Change

Increasingly, the relationships between human-caused emissions, climate change, and the role of 

forests as carbon sinks are being documented (IPCC 2007). Although uncertainty exists in 

quantifying the impact of emissions on climate, a global warming of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees C is 

projected by 2100 (USDA Forest Service 2007l). Adapting to climate change and its potential 

impacts poses challenges and opportunities for managing resources, infrastructure, and the 

economy (ibid). Forests and rangelands are seen as part of the solution to reducing atmospheric 

carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases; however, the magnitude of the opportunity for 

carbon storage and carbon trading is not well quantified or thoroughly understood (USDA Forest 

Service 20071; IPCC 2007).

The use of future climate scenarios and ecological models suggests that the impact of climate 

change on US ecosystems could include increases in ecosystem productivity in the short term 

and shifts in the distribution of plants and animals in the long term (Joyce and Birdsey 2000). As 

climate changes advance, there are some indications that there would be increases in 

disturbances such as forest fires, drought, and insects (USDA Forest Service 2007l).

Based on the best available science, it is too speculative to factor any specific ecological trends 

or substantial changes in climate into the analysis of environmental impacts of individual 

projects. For example, changes in wildlife ranges and habitat in forested environments due to 

climate change are not well understood; therefore, such issues are outside the scope of the HiGrouse Project analysis. Currently, the best available science concerning climate change is not 

adequate to support reliable predictions about ecological interactions and trends at the local (sitespecific) scale.

In general, based on predictions of a warming climate and increases in disturbances such as 

insects and wildfire, it is expected that treatments proposed in the Hi-Grouse Project would 

benefit forests through thinning and fuels treatments designed to reduce stress on trees, increase 

growth, promote species diversity, favor fire resilient species, and reduce risk of loss due to 

wildfire. 

Managing forests for carbon sequestration is a poorly understood science but utilization of 

durable wood products and active forest management is believed to be an effective method of 

carbon sequestration (IPCC 2007). Thinning and treatments will not likely eliminate fire from 

the project area but can help change fire behavior from more consumptive crown fires to less 

consumptive surface fires, thereby likely reducing carbon dioxide emissions resulting from 

wildfire.

For more information on the status and trends of the nation's resources and climate change, go to 

the Research and Development Resources Planning Act Assessment website at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/research/rpa/.

3.6 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As 

declared by Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial 

and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to 

create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and 
Hi-Grouse Project

122

fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of 

Americans (NEPA, section 101).

Short-term use includes consumptive activities such as logging, hunting, and non-consumptive 

activities such as sightseeing and photography, which can affect the landscape in the short term. 

These uses can be sustained in the long term if the productivity of the land is not impaired. It is 

believed that maintaining the productivity of the land is realized by maintaining ecosystem 

structure and function.

All action alternatives proposed in this draft EIS protect the productivity of the land to one extent 

or another through the application of:

• Standards and guidelines for resource management

• Best management practices

• Design criteria incorporated into alternative development

Productivity may be affected as a result of some management activities. A short-term loss of 

productivity from soil compaction is expected from harvest activities, but would be alleviated 

with de-compaction after activities are completed.

3.7 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Implementing any alternative would result in some degree of environmental effect that cannot be 

avoided. Management direction from Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management 

practices, project design criteria, and mitigation measures are intended to keep the extent and 

duration of these effects within acceptable levels; but effects cannot be completely eliminated. 

Even with design criteria in place, ground-disturbing activities may produce temporary effects 

that cannot be avoided, such as a temporary effect to air quality from burning slash.

3.8 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction 

of a species or the removal of mined ore. No irreversible commitments of resources were 

identified for the project.

Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss 

of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a powerline right-of-way or 

road. For the action alternatives, there are irretrievable commitments of the growth of forest 

vegetation from the creation of temporary roads, new landings, and new skid trails. This loss is 

not irreversible. Upon project completion, the temporary roads will be closed and seeded.

Landings, necessary for logging operations, have a low probability of maintaining long-term soil 

productivity. The type of vegetation growing on these sites will likely be grass and brush. The 

amount of areas in landings is small and meets the Regional and Forest guidelines. Skid trails are 

expected to recover and are expected to show little to no negative effects.

3.9 Other Required Disclosures

The DEIS fulfilled the requirements for environmental analysis found in NEPA and in the 

Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations at 40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508. NEPA 

at 40 CFR 1502.25 (a) directs, “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with...other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.”
Final Environmental Impact Statement

123

The action alternatives would be located entirely on national forest system lands. The action 

alternatives are not in conflict with planning objectives for Siskiyou County.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires projects to be consistent with minimum 

specific management requirements as provided in the implementing regulations at 36 CFR 

219.12 and described in Forest Service Manual 1921.12a. NFMA also requires projects to be 

consistent with the intent of the Forest Plan. The action alternatives are consistent with the Forest 

Plan’s long-term goals (Forest Plan, pages 4-4 through 4-9). 

The project was designed to conform to Forest Plan goals, move toward desired conditions, and 

comply with standards and guidelines for Forest-wide management direction (Forest Plan, pages 

4-3 through 4-66) and the following management areas: Special Habitat Late-Succession 

Reserve (Forest Plan, pages 4-84 through 4-89), Special Interest Area (Forest Plan, pages 4-97 

through 4-100), Partial Retention Visual Quality (Forest Plan, pages 4-126 through 45-127), and 

General Forest (Forest Plan, pages 4-177 through 4-180). Consistency with Forest Plan goals, 

desired conditions, and standards and guidelines is addressed throughout the FEIS and 

supporting documents.

The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 

Act, and the National Forest Management Act direct the national forests to supply goods and 

services and to be managed for a broad array of resources. Consistent with these guiding laws, 

the Forest Plan established land allocations and management direction for the Forest. This 

project does not propose changes in the management of the Forest, but rather is a mechanism for 

implementing management direction. Therefore, the social effects of this single proposal are 

limited in scope. Forest Service Manual 1973 requires a social effects analysis if the potential 

social effects of Forest Service actions are important to the decision (USDA Forest Service 

2008). Social effects are important; however, social effects were not identified as a significant 

issue in the FEIS, therefore an extensive analysis was not completed nor required (USDA Forest 

Service 1988). 

All alternatives are in accordance with the Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1827 for 

prime farmland, rangeland, and forestland. “Prime” forestland is a term used only for nonFederal land, which would not be affected by proposed activities under any alternative. 

There are no anadromous fish species or their habitat within the analysis area. There are no

streams within the project area. The project activities will have no direct or indirect effect on 

anadromous fish species or their habitat. 

All project activities including prescribed burning would be implemented in full compliance with 

the Siskiyou County Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and California Air Resource 

Board (CARB) air programs and the KNF LRMP standards and guidelines. The project is 

consistent with the Clean Air Act.

The project would not have adverse impacts on water quality and is consistent with the Clean 

Water Act, the California Porter Cologne Water Quality Act, and the North Coast Regional Water 

Quality Control Board Basin Plan.

Thorough analyses of federally listed species and consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service has been completed fulfilling section 7 of Endangered Species Act consultation 

requirements (19 U.S.C. 1536(c )).
Hi-Grouse Project

124

Federally recognized Tribes were contacted early in project planning and consulted at various 

phases of this project in accordance with the Region 5 Programmatic Agreement, National 

Historic Preservation Act, and other laws and regulations (see section 1.7, “Public Involvement,” 

in chapter 1. This project is in compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act. The action alternatives will not result in any negative impacts to cultural resource sites.

Executive Order 12898 relating to Environmental Justice requires an assessment of whether 

minorities or low-income populations will be disproportionately affected by proposed actions. 

Proposed actions, including the road closures proposed in alternative 4, were reviewed in section 

3.4.2, the action alternatives would have no adverse effects on human health or the environment 

that are significant, unacceptable, or above generally accepted norms and; therefore, there will be 

no disproportionate effects on minorities or low income populations. Since there are no 

amendments to the Forest Plan associated with the action alternatives and a Civil Rights Impact 

Analysis review was included as part of environmental justice (section 3.4.2), no further Civil 

Rights Impact analysis is required (FSM 1730 and FSH 1709.11).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

125

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination

4.1 Preparers, Contributors, and Distribution

4.1.1 ID Team Members 

Laura Allen: District Ranger, Goosenest Ranger District.

Blaze O. Baker: 19 years’ experience in botany; B.S. Botany and B.S. Environmental Biology; 

responsible for botany and noxious weed analysis for the project.

Rochelle Desser: 30 years’ experience in forestry, including National Environmental Policy Act 

analysis and compliance documentation; A.S. Geo-technology; responsible for NEPA and related 

assistance to the ID team leader.

Jeanne Goetz: 12 years’ experience in cultural resource management; MA Anthropology, 

Archaeology emphasis; expertise in archaeology; responsible for archaeological reconnaissance 

report and heritage input into the EIS.

Cass Klee: 12 years’ experience in GIS with the Forest Service as GIS analyst supporting 

National Environmental Policy Act analysis and Forest Plan revision, and GIS program 

management for 4 years; B.S. Natural Resource Planning, Graduate Studies GIS and 

Environmental Planning; responsible for project spatial data, support to resource specialist 

spatial analysis needs, and map production. 

Laurie Kurth: 23 years’ experience in plant ecology and fire behavior; MS Biology, Plant 

Ecology emphasis; expertise in geospatial fire behavior analysis; responsible for fuels and fire 

behavior report and input into the EIS.

Tom Laurent: 31 years’ experience in soil and geologic analysis and assessment; BS Geology 

and MS in Soils; responsible for soil and geology field work.

Donna M. Mattson: 20 years’ experience in scenery management, and landscape architecture; 

Bachelor of Landscape Architecture; responsible for scenery resource analysis for this project. 

Michael McNamara: 22 years’ experience in hydrology and soils analysis and assessment; B.S. 

Geology, M.S. Forest Hydrology; responsible for hydrology and soils input for the EIS.

Marynell Oechsner: 34 years’ experience in wildlife management and analysis; B.S. Wildlife 

Management; responsible for wildlife analysis input for the EIS.

Lois Pfeffer: 23 years’ experience in National Environmental Policy Act analysis and 

compliance documentation and forestry; B.S. Forest Resources with Soil Science Minor; 

responsible for ID team leading, writing and editing the EIS, environmental justice information, 

response to comments, and preparing air quality analysis.

Rob Schantz: 22 years’ experience in silviculture and forest operations; M.F. Silviculture, B.S.

Forest Management; responsible for stand diagnosis and prescriptions, unit design, silvicultural 

analysis, stand modeling, forest products volumes.

Maple Taylor: 20 years’ experience editing technical documents; M.S. Wildlife Management, 

B.S. Wildlife Science; responsible for editing the EIS.
Hi-Grouse Project

126

4.1.2 Forest Reviewers

Angie Bell, Forest Geologist

Dan Blessing, Forest Silviculturist

Christy Cheyne, Wildlife Biologist

Jim Davis, Forest Engineer

Wendy Coats, Coordinator and KNF Project Manager

Ben Haupt, District Timber Management Officer

Jeffery Keiser, Assistant Forest Engineer

Marla Knight, Forest Botanist

Greg Laurie, Forest Hydrologist

Jerry Mosier, Forest Landscape Architect

Mike Powell, Fuels

Mike Reed, Silviculturist

Jim Stout, District Resource Officer

Sue Stresser, Forest Wildlife Biologist

4.1.3 Consultation 

Karen West and Elizabeth Willy, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

4.1.4 Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Sent Notice of the

Availability of the DEIS Documents

Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors

Siskiyou County Fish and Game Commission

Mt. Shasta Sno-Mobilers

Klamath Basin Snowdrifters

Christine Ambrose, American Lands Alliance

Marcia Armstrong, Siskiyou County Supervisor

Kimberly Baker, Environmental Protection Information Center

Michelle Berditschevsky, Pit River Tribe Environmental Coordinator

Fred Blatt, California Water Quality Control Board

Donnabelle Boomgarden, Shasta Tribe, Inc.

Floyd Buckskin

Athena Calico, Shasta Nation, Inc.

Mary Carpelan, Shasta Tribe, Inc.

Perry Chocktoot, The Klamath Tribes, Culture & Heritage Department

Jim Cook, Siskiyou County Supervisor

Phil Detrich, USDI Fish & Wildlife Service

Larry Doke, Shasta Nation, Inc.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

Vincent Mammano, Federal Highway Administration
Final Environmental Impact Statement

127

Scott Greacen, Environmental Protection Information Center

Kyle Haines, Klamath Forest Alliance

Roy Hall, Jr., Shasta Tribe, Inc.

Pete Harrison, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics

Robert Hoover, Sierra Pacific-Burney

Julia Jolley, Center for Biological Diversity

Joseph Kirk, The Klamath Tribes

Harold Bennett, Quartz Valley Indian Reservation

Jacque Murphy, Natural Resources Management Corporation

National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat, Conservationists Division, SW Region

Chris Pirosko, Pit River Tribe

Planning and Review Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Ida Riggins, Pit River Tribe

B.Sachau

Bob Schaffer, California Department of Fish and Game

George Sexton, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center

Brian Simmons, Northwest Timber Fallers, Inc.

Kayla Super, Quartz Valley Indian Reservation

Rick Svilich, AFRC, Northern California

U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Pacific

U.S. Coast Guard

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD

USDA National Agriculture Library

USDA National Resources Conservation Service

U.S. DOE Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USDI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

Western-Pacific Region Federal Aviation Administration

Andrew Whittome, Calpine Corporation

Tom Williams, California Regional Water Board
Hi-Grouse Project

128
Final Environmental Impact Statement

129

References

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington DC. 493 

p.

Anderson, D.E.; Galley, K.E.M.; DeStefano, S.; Goldstein, M.I.; Titus, K; Crocker-Beford, C.; 

Keane, J.J.; Anthony, R.G.; Rosenfield, R.N.. 2004. The status of northern goshawks in the 

western United States. Bethesda, MD: Wildlife Society, 24 p. Technical Review; 04-01.

Angwin, P. 2008. Biological Evaluation of Insect and Disease Conditions in the Hi-Grouse 

Project Area, Goosenest Ranger District. FHP Report No. N09-02.

Baker, B. 2009a. Hi-Grouse Project Biological Assessment/Evaluation for Threatened, 

Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Plant Species. USDA Forest Service. 

Baker, B. 2009b. Hi-Grouse Project Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species. 

USDA Forest Service.

Baker, B. 2009c. and Hi-Grouse Project Noxious Weed Assessment. USDA Forest Service.

Beuttner, P. 2009. Personal communication. Regarding planned projects. Wildlife Biologist, 

USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Modoc National Forest.

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

California Department of Fish and Game. Excerpts from two letters sent to the Goosenest 

Ranger District in response to planned timber sales.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1997. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 

California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, Townsend’s Big-eared Bat. Available at: 

http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/reports/stanriver/sr448.asp. Accessed: 8/28/2009.

Carter, T.C.; Ford, M.W.; Menzel, M.A. 2000. Fire and Bats in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic: 

More Questions Than Answers? In: The Role of Fire in Nongame Wildlife Management and 

Community Restoration: Traditional Uses and New Directions. W.M. Ford, K.R. Russell, 

and C. Moorman, (eds.), Proceedings of a Special Workshop, Nashville, TN. September 15, 

2000. General Technical Report NE-288, USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research 

Station. 145 p.

Cheyne, C. 2009. Personal communication. Regarding past and planned projects. Wildlife 

Biologist, USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Klamath National Forest.

Cheyne, C. 2010a. Personal communication. Update on planned project. Wildlife Biologist, 

USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Klamath National Forest.

Cheyne, C. Goosenest Ranger District Wildlife Biologist; Willy, E. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Wildlife Biologist. 2009. Personal communication regarding NSO habitat.

Cochran, P.H. 1983. Stocking Levels for East-Side White or Grand Fir. In: Biology and 

Management of True Fir in the Pacific Northwest. Oliver and Kenaday, eds.; Proceedings of 

a symposium, February 24–26, 1981, Seattle, WA. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. p. 186–189. 
Hi-Grouse Project

130

Cochran, P.H. 1998. Examples of Mortality and Reduced Annual Increments of White Fir 

Induced by Drought, Insects, and Disease at Different Stand Densities. Research Note PNWRN-525, USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Creasy, M.; Safford, H.; Schmidt, D. 2007. Fire Regime Condition Class Report, Hi-Grouse 

Project, Goosenest Ranger District, Klamath National Forest.

Derby, D.K. 2009. Personal communication regarding planned projects. Wildlife Biologist, 

USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

Desser, R. 2009. Recreation Report for the Hi-Grouse Project. USDA Forest Service, TEAMS 

Enterprise Unit.

Dixon, G. 2005. South Central Oregon/Northeast California Variant of the Forest Vegetation 

Simulator. USDA Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO.

Dost, F.N.; Logan, N.; Glassman, C. 1996. Assessment of Human Health and Environmental 

Risks Associated with the Use of Borax for Cut Stump Treatment. Unpublished, prepared for 

USDA Forest Service Regions 5 and 6.

Fellers, G.M.; Pierson, E.D. 2002. Habitat Use and Foraging Vehavior of Townsend’s Big-Eared 

Bat (Corynorhinus Townsendii) in Coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy 83(1): 167–

177.

Fettig, C.J.; Klepzig, K.D.; Billings, R.F.; [and others]. 2006. The Effectiveness of Vegetation 

Management Practices for Prevention and Control of Bark Beetle Infestations in Coniferous 

Forests of the Western and Southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 238: 

24–53.

Finney, M.A., 2006. An Overview of Flammap Fire Modeling Capabilities. In: Andrews, P.L.; 

Butler, B.W., comps.; Fuels Management-How to Measure Success: Conference 

Proceedings; March 28-30, Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station Proceedings RMRS-P-41. p. 213–220.

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.

Goetz, J. 2009.Cultural Resource Input for the Hi-Grouse Project. USDA Forest Service.

Gruver, J.C.; Keinath, D.A. 2006. Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat (Corynorhinus Townsendii): A 

Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigeardbat.pdf.

Hayes, J.; Loeb, P. 2007. The Influences of Forest Management on Bats in North America. In:

Bats in Forests. p. 207–235.

Helmbrecht, D.; Kurth, L. 2009. Hi-Grouse Fire and Fuels Report. Fire and Fuel Specialists, Fire 

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

p.

Huff, Mark H.; Ottmar, Roger D.; Alvarado, Ernesto; Vihnanek, Robert E.; Lehmkuhl, John F.; 

Hessburg, Paul F.; Everett, Richard L. 1995. Historical and current forest landscapes in 

eastern Oregon and Washington. Part II: Linking vegetation characteristics to potential fire 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

131

behavior and related smoke production. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-355. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 43 p. 

(Everett, Richard L., team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, 

Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment.)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis 

Report. Information from all Working Groups: WG I, The Physical Science Basis; WG II, 

Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability; WG III, Mitigation of Climate Change. Download 

from: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

Jacoby, K. 2008. Personal communication regarding fire weather in the Hi-Grouse Planning 

Area.

Joyce, L.A.; Birdsey, R. technical editors. 2000. The impact of climate change on America’s 

forests: A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-59. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 133 p.

Koehler, G.M.; Hornocker, M.G. 1977. Fire Effects on Marten Habitat in the Selway-Bitterroot 

Wildernes. Journal of Wildlife Management 41(3): 500–505.

Laurent, T. 2006a. Effects of Ground-Based Forest Harvesting on Soil Disturbance, Bulk Density 

and Total Porosity on the Klamath National Forest. On file at Klamath National Forest, 1312 

Fairlane Rd., Yreka, CA 96097.

Laurent, T. 2006b. Soil Monitoring Data from 1998−2005, Klamath National Forest. On file at 

Klamath National Forest, 1312 Fairlane Rd., Yreka, CA 96097. 6 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.

Livingston, R.L. 1979. The Pine Engraver, Ips pini (Say), in Idaho: Life History, Habits, and 

Management Recommendations. Report 79-3, Idaho Department of Lands, Forest Insect and 

Disease Control, P.O. Box 670, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83814.

Loeb, S.C.; Waldrop, T.A. 2007. Bat Activity in Relation to Fire and Fire Surrogate Treatments 

in Southern Pine Stands. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 3185–3192.

Long, J.N. 1985. A Practical Approach to Density Management. Forestry Chronicles 61: 23–2.

Mattson, D. 2009. Scenery Report for the Hi-Grouse Project. USDA Forest Service.

McNamara, M. 2009. Watershed Report for the Hi-Grouse Project. USDA Forest Service, 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit. 88 p.

NatureServe. 2008a. Accipiter gentili–Northern Goshawk. NatureServe Explorer: An Online 

Encyclopedia of Life [web application], Version 7.0 (1 February 2008). Arlington, VA. 

Online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 12/12/2008).
Hi-Grouse Project

132

NatureServe. 2008b. Antrozous pallidus–Pallid Bat. NatureServe Explorer: An Online 

Encyclopedia of Life [web application], Version 7.0 (1 February 2008). Arlington, VA. 

Online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 3/17/2008).

North, M. 2009a. Social-Economic Report for the Hi-Grouse Project. USDA Forest Service, 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

North, M. 2009b. Transportation Report for the Hi-Grouse Project. USDA Forest Service, 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

Oechsner, M. 2009. Survey and Manage Report for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project.

USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

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

USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

Oechsner, M. 2010b. Northern Spotted Owl Biological Assessment of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 for 

the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project. USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

Oechsner, M. 2010c. Biological Evaluation for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project.

USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

Oechsner, M. 2010d. Hi-Grouse Management Indicator Species, Part I Checklist. USDA Forest 

Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

Oechsner, M. 2010e. Management Indicator Species Report, Part II for the Hi-Grouse Forest 

Management Project. USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

Oechsner, M. 2010f. Migratory Bird and Deer Report for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management 

Project. USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

Oliver, W.W. 1995. Is Self-Thinning in Ponderosa Pine Ruled by Dendroctonus Bark Beetles? 

In: Proceedings of the 1995 National Silviculture Workshop, Mescalero, NM, May 8-11, 

1995. General Technical Report RM-GTR-267, USDA-Forest Service.

Pfeffer, L. 2009. Air Quality Report for the Hi-Grouse Project. USDA Forest Service, TEAMS 

Enterprise Unit. 34 p.

Pfeffer, L. 2010. Environmental Justice Input for the Hi-Grouse Project. USDA Forest Service, 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit. 

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.

Reichert, M. 2008. Hi-Grouse WUI Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Cumulative Watershed 

Effects Analysis Specialist Report. January 30, 2006 version. On file at the Goosenest 

Ranger Districts and Forest’s Supervisors Office, 1312 Fairlane Rd., Yreka, CA 96097.

Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a Stand-Density Index for Even-Aged Forests. Journal 

Agricultural Research 46: 627–638.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

133

Reinhardt, E.D.; R.E. Keane; J.K. Brown. 1997. First Order Fire Effects Model, FOFEM Users 

Guide. GTR IMT-GTR-344. USFS Intermountain Station, Missoula, MT.

Reinhardt, E.; Crookston, N.L.; technical editors. 2003. The Fire and Fuels Extension to the 

Forest Vegetation Simulator. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-116, USDA-Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 209 p.

Reinhardt, E.D.; Keane, R.E.; Calkin, D.E.; Cohen, J.D. 2008. Objectives and Considerations for 

Wildland Fuel Treatment in Forested Ecosystems of the Interior Western United States. 

Forest Ecology and Management 256: 1997–2006.

Ritchie, M.W. 2005. Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in 

Northeastern California. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-192, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 125 p.

Ritchie, M.W.; Wing, B.M.; Hamilton, T.A. 2008. Stability of the Large Tree Component in 

Treated and Untreated Late-Seral Interior Ponderosa Pine Stands. Canada Journal of Forestry 

Research 38: 919–923.

Schantz, R. 2009a. Silviculture Report for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project. USDA 

Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

Scott, J.H.; Burgan, R.E. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for 

Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR153, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 72 p.

Slauson, K. 2009. Personal communication regarding marten research habitat mapping. Wildlife 

Biologist. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences 

Lab.

Smith, J.K., ed. 2000. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna. General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,

Ogden, UT. 83 p.

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.; editor. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests; The Blue Mountains of 

Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 553. 512 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.

USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Forest Service Manual 2080, Noxious Weed Management. 

Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Goosenest Adaptive Management Area Ecosystem Analysis. Pacific 

Southwest Region, Klamath National Forest, Goosenest Ranger District.
Hi-Grouse Project

134

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Forest Service Handbook 1909.17 – Economic and social analysis 

handbook. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Noxious and Invasive Weeds Program Strategy, Northern Province. 

Coop, K.; Yost, A.; preparers. Shasta-Trinity and Klamath National Forests, Redding and 

Yreka, CA. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Klamath National Forest. Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis 

Process Paper: Quantitative Models for Surface Erosion, Mass Wasting and ERA/TOC. 

Developed by the Klamath NF’s watershed staff. On file at Klamath National Forest, 1312 

Fairlane Rd., Yreka, CA. 96097. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Medicine Lake Highlands Aesthetic Evaluation. Klamath National 

Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Social Science to Improve Fuels Management: A Synthesis of 

Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management. Ryan, R.L., University of Massachusetts, 

Amherst. (http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/viewpub.asp?key=3514) 

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC), Vegetation Structure and 

Fire Return Interval. Generated by Stafford, H., and others. Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. 2670: Sensitive Plant Species. October, Klamath National Forest, 

Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. The Medicine Lake Highlands Historic Properties Management 

Program: Including a Cultural Assessment and Guidelines for Management. Klamath 

National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. 2670: Sensitive Plant Survey Reports, Hi-Grouse Project. 

Unpublished notes on file, Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2007c. Klamath National Forest Recreation Facility Analysis NICHE 

Statement. Klamath National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007d. Appendix J – Recommended SMS Refinements, Appendix to 

Landscape Aesthetics, Handbook For Scenery Management, USDA Handbook 701.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Forest Service Manual Chapter 1970 – Economic and social 

evaluation. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Quicksilver Economic Analysis program.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. Region 1, 

Portland, OR.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Threatened and Endangered Species Lists, By 

Quadrangle [online]. March 9, 2009. 

http://www.fws.gov/arcata/specieslist/speciesreport.asp.

van Mantgem, P.J.; Stephenson, N.L. 2009. Widespread Increase of Tree Mortality Rates in the 

Western United States. Science 323: 521–524.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

135

Wells, C.G.; Jorgensen, J.R. 1979. Effects of Intensive Harvesting on Nutrient Supply and 

Sustained Productivity. Pp. 212-230. In: Impact of Intensive Harvesting on Forest Nutrient 

Cycling. State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 

Syracuse, NY, August 13−16, 1979.

Western Bat Working Group. 2005. Species Accounts: Antrozous pallidus, Pallid Bat. 4 p.
Hi-Grouse Project

136
Final Environmental Impact Statement

137

Index

Activity Center, S-6, 28, 29, 60, 61, 63, 64, 

66, 67

Annosus, S-1, 2, 3, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 

40, 41, 46, 49, 112, 113

Bat, 19, 56, 58, 75, 76, 77, 129, 130, 131, 

132, 135

Best Management Practices (BMPs), 23, 24, 

94, 122

Burn Probability, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 

54

Critical Habitat, S-2, S-6, 13, 16, 21, 25, 26,

28, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67,

68

Cumulative Watershed Effects, 92, 93, 95, 

96, 103, 132, 134

Deer, 55, 56, 58, 83, 84, 85, 132

Degraded (habitat), S-6, 29, 59, 64, 67

Desired Condition, S-1, S-4, 3 4, 5, 6, 85, 

104, 115

Dispersal, S-6, 16, 20, 29, 59, 60, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 130

(Dwarf) Mistletoe, S-3, 12, 15, 26, 35, 38, 

39, 40, 56

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC), 2, 

107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 130, 134

Forage, 43, 76, 79, 83, 84, 85

Forest Plan, S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, S-6, S-8, 2, 

3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, 24, 25, 26, 29, 33, 

35, 55, 56, 60, 65, 70, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 

91, 94, 95, 97, 99, 102, 104, 113, 114, 

116, 118, 122, 123, 124, 125

Fuels, S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, S-6, S-7, S-8, 2, 4, 

5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 

20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 34, 35, 

36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 

50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 

70, 71, 74, 75, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 90, 

91, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 101, 104, 108,

109, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 

130, 132, 133, 134

Goosenest Adaptive Management Area

(AMA), S-1, 2, 3, 6, 25, 35, 40, 42, 51, 

83, 133

Issue, S-2, S-3, S-5, S-7, 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 25, 

26, 28, 31, 40, 43, 69, 75, 97, 99, 103, 

121, 123

Late-Succession, S-1, S-2, S-5, 3, 6, 9, 12, 

13, 15, 20, 26, 28, 39, 40, 42, 45, 48, 49,

50, 52, 53, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 80, 81, 82, 

120, 123

Lodgepole Pine, S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, S-7, S8, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 26, 27, 

31, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 46, 47, 53, 66, 

70, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 105, 107, 108, 109, 

114

Machine Piling, S-3, S-4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 

14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 27, 68, 91

Management Area, S-1, 2, 3, 35, 123, Map 

A-2

Management Indicator Species (MIS), S-5, 

55, 56, 57, 58, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 132

Marten, 22, 58, 69, 70, 71, 131, 133

Mixed Conifer, S-1, S-2, 4, 6, 7, 15, 26, 39, 

41, 43, 46, 68, 69, 78, 109, 114

Mowing, S-4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23, 

27, 68, 77, 80, 91, 98

Northern Goshawk (NGH), S-2, S-3, S-5, S6, S-7, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 22, 25, 

26, 28, 29, 30, 37, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50,

51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 81, 

82, 129, 131

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO), S-2, S-5, S-6, 

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21, 22, 25, 

26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 39, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50, 

51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 81, 82, 129, 

130, 131, 132, 133, 134

Ponderosa Pine, S-1, S-2, S-3, S-5, S-8, 2, 

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 25, 26, 

28, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 

51, 58, 68, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 105, 108, 

109, 113, 114, 132, 133

Primary Nest Zone, S-7, 22, 30, 71, 72, 74

Project Design Features, S-3, S-5, 1, 11, 12, 

13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 35, 

44, 55, 65, 73, 77, 82, 83, 86, 89, 92, 96, 

100, 104, 115, 118

Red Fir, S-2, S-5, 15, 28, 36, 37, 41, 43, 46, 

69, 78, 105, 109

Road Maintenance, S-4, 17, 18, 27, 34

Roads,S-3, S-4, S-5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 35, 56, 
Hi-Grouse Project

138

65, 67, 68, 82, 85, 89, 93, 94, 97, 98, 103, 

104, 106, 115, 119, 122

Scoping, S-1, S-2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 25, 34

Sensitive Species, S-5, 6, 19, 21,55, 56, 57, 

58, 68, 71, 75, 81, 86, 87, 88

Survey and Manage, 55, 57, 87, 132

System Road, S-4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 19, 26, 27, 

65, 86

Thinning, S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-6, S-8, 

6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 

26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 

43, 44, 46, 55, 56, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 

70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 

86, 90, 92, 96, 98, 100, 101, 104, 115, 

116, 120, 121, 132 

Underburning, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-6, 4, 5, 6, 7, 

12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 

36, 41, 43, 44, 55, 65, 68, 74, 75, 79, 85, 

86, 90, 92, 96, 100, 104, 115, 116

White Fir, S-1, S-2, S-5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 20, 

26, 28, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 

47, 51, 64, 67, 69, 78, 105, 109, 130
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hi-Grouse Project—Appendices

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix - i 

Table of Contents 

Appendix A: Maps.......................................................................................................................... 1

Map A-1. Project area and vicinity ............................................................................................ 3

Map A-2. Hi-Grouse Project area management areas ................................................................ 5

Map A-3. Vegetation communities and stand types ................................................................... 7

Map A-4. Initial Proposed action from scoping (alternative 2) .................................................. 9

Map A-5. Alternative 3 proposed silviculture treatments ........................................................ 11

Map A-6. Alternative 4 (modified proposed action) proposed silviculture treatments ............ 13

Map A-7. Management activities considered in effects analysis ............................................. 15

Map A-8. Travel management analysis roads in Hi-Grouse Project Area ............................... 17

Appendix B: DEIS Comments and Responses ............................................................................. 19

Appendix C: Detailed Prescriptions ............................................................................................. 99

Appendix D: Hi-Grouse Best Management Practices (BMPs) ................................................... 113

Appendix E: Actions Considered for Cumulative Effects .......................................................... 125

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–1

Appendix A: Maps

Note: The USDA Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. GIS data 

and product accuracy may vary. Use of GIS products for purposes other than for which they 

were intended may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The USDA Forest Service reserves 

the right to correct, update, modify or replace GIS products without notification.

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–3

Map A-1. Project area and vicinity
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−4 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–5

Map A-2. Hi-Grouse Project area management areas
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−6 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–7

Map A-3. Vegetation communities and stand types
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−8 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–9

Map A-4. Initial Proposed action from scoping (alternative 2)

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–11

Map A-5. Alternative 3 proposed silviculture treatments

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–13

Map A-6. Alternative 4 (modified proposed action) proposed silviculture treatments

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–15

Map A-7. Management activities considered in effects analysis

 (see also Map A-8 and appendix E) 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−16
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–17

Map A-8. Travel management analysis roads in Hi-Grouse Project Area 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–19

Appendix B: DEIS Comments and 

Responses

Introduction

This appendix summarizes public and agency comments received on the Hi-Grouse Project Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The notice of availability for the DEIS was published 

in the Federal Register on May 28, 2010. All comments on the DEIS were received within the 

45-day comment period, which ended on July 12, 2010. 

Comment Summary

Seven comment documents were received during the comment period on the DEIS. Of the seven 

comment documents: 

• one was from a private individual; 

• two were submitted by industry (American Forest Resource Council and Sierra Pacific 

Industries); 

• two were from environmental groups (Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands, Environmental 

Protection Information Center Wild, Klamath Forest Alliance, and Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics); and 

• two were from regulatory agencies (United States Department of Interior Office of 

Environmental Policy and Compliance, and United States Environmental Protection 

Agency). 

Comments were read and categorized by subject in table B-1 (L# refers to the letter number, c# 

is the comment number). Comments are summarized with excerpts from the comment letters, 

and responded to appropriately. All comments on the DEIS have been considered in the 

production of this section. Where possible, the response includes a reference to the location in 

the analysis documents where the reader may find supporting information. Copies of the full 

comment documents follow table B-1. 

Two reviewers expressed support of the purpose and need, and proposed management activities 

(L3 c1, L7 c1). Reviewers expressed various alternative preferences; one reviewer expressed 

preference for no action (L1 c1), two reviewers preferred alternative 4 (L2 c1, L6 c1), one 

reviewer preferred alternative 3 (L3 c2, c9), and one reviewer expressed no concern with the 

DEIS (L4 c1). In addition one reviewer suggested a stronger non-native invasive species plan be 

adapted (L5 c12), and two reviewers requested consideration of alternatives to use of borax for 

control of Heterobasidion annosus (L3 c31, L5 c3). 

Comments received pertained to the following broad categories: air quality, borax, economic, 

fuels, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), non-native invasive species (NNIS), roads, 

scenery, soils, vegetation, and wildlife. 

The focus during the review of public and agency comments was to identify if there was a need 

to: 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−20

1. modify alternatives including the proposed action; 

2. develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious consideration by the 

agency;

3. supplement, improve, or modify its analyses;

4. make factual corrections; and

5. explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response, including reasons 

that support the agency’s position (40 CFR 1503.4). 

Comments that require substantial changes to the proposed action, identify significant new 

circumstances, or require significant new information will require preparation and recirculation 

of a supplemental EIS (40 CFR 1502.9). The analysis of comments indicates there are no 

comments that would trigger preparation of a supplemental draft EIS.

Table B-1 lists the comments and responses grouped by subject. The response includes a notation 

of the focus point [#] from the list (1 through 5) above.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–21

Table B-1. DEIS comments and responses 

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

Air Quality

L7 c2

EPA recommends full disclosure of information regarding air quality emissions. 

...The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) should quantify the 

emissions from the Hi-Grouse project, determine if they will exceed de minimus

thresholds for ozone precursors VOC and NOx, and whether a general 

conformity determination is needed that will demonstrate compliance with the 

SIP. 

[5] The air quality discussion at section 3.4.6 summarizes information from the 

Air Quality Report (Pfeffer 2009), which is incorporated by reference and 

available on the Forest Internet Web site at: www.fs.usda.gov/klamath.

See the Air Quality Report tables 2, 4, 5 and 6 for the estimated existing daily 

emissions for Siskiyou County and the low levels of estimated project- related 

emissions for the alternatives analyzed. 

L7 c3

The DEIS states that a smoke management plan will be submitted to Siskiyou 

County Air Pollution Control District (SCAPCD) prior to any prescribed burning. 

The FEIS should include details regarding the smoke management plan that 

sets forth how the project will comply with the SCAPCD regulations for pile 

burning and smoke management, an implementation schedule, the responsible 

parties, and monitoring and reporting requirements.

[5] Smoke management and burn plans are prepared prior to implementing 

prescribed burns. Burns will be coordinated with the State, and implemented

when conditions are appropriate. An implementation schedule is not available 

because it depends on variables such as weather and funding, which vary from 

year to year. The burning is slated to be completed within a 10- year period.

Borax 

L3 c8

[L3 page 1] [We are concerned about] ... and the widespread application of 

borax throughout the project area.

L3 c29

[L3 page 19] The DEIS gives no reasoning for the use of this herbicide, how 

much may be applied or site specific information regarding units that are 

proposed for application.

L3 c35

[L3 page 24] Borax: Other concerns – The agency must clarify annosus

infection potential in the DEIS before authorizing borax for stump treatments.

At a minimum, the U.S. Forest Service must develop safety protocols for mixing 

and staging areas. The protocols should include identification of areas suitable 

for staging and mixing that pose little threat to stream systems in the case of an 

accidental spill. Workers need to be sufficiently trained and experienced in

safety procedures for mixing and transporting borax, as well as first-aid 

response, in the event of accidental contact or exposure.

L5 c1

Our concerns about the project as it is currently proposed center around the use 

[5] Presence of the S-type annosus root disease was disclosed in section 1.3.1 

and appendix C. The potential for annosus infection spread was discussed in 

section 3.2.1, which summarizes information from the Silvicultural Report

(Schantz 2009) and the Forest Health Protection Report for Hi-Grouse (Angwin 

2008). Both reports are incorporated by reference and available on the Forest 

Internet Web site at: www.fs.usda.gov/klamath. 

The reason for borax application (as a fungicide) is noted in chapter 2 (section 

2.2.4.1) under the thinning-from-below treatment as follows: “Cut conifer stumps 

will be treated with borax to prevent colonization and spread of the conifer root 

disease Heterobasidion annosum.” Appendix C notes where borax would be 

used within the detailed prescription descriptions, and table C-2 lists the stands 

and treatments. Appendix D, Best Management Practices (BMP), notes the use 

of borax in BMP 5.8 through 5.11. The Silviculture Report gives the rationale for 

using borax, under Existing Condition – Insects and Disease. 

No mixing is involved with the borax application as a fungicide (Sporax®).

Workers applying borax would be instructed to use label-required personal 

protective equipment to minimize exposure (long-sleeved shirt and long pants, 

shoes, socks, and waterproof gloves). In addition, State of California 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−22

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

of sodium tetraborate decahydrate (borate) to control annosus root diseases 

and thinning and fuel reduction methods that will successively require herbicide 

use to control excessive regrowth of native plants and invasion by non 

indigenous plant species. ...It’s clear that similar or the same types of forest 

disturbance proposed for the current project have, when used in the past, led to 

the development of root disease for which borate use is now proposed. What is 

to prevent the current project from causing the spread of root rot? .... It is not 

apparent that the project has taken into consideration an alternative that will 

PREVENT the spread of root disease by limiting, altering, or changing the 

proposed management activities. This analysis is necessary to provide the 

basis for the development of alternatives for the project, but it is missing.

L7 c4

... EPA recommends clarification regarding possible use of herbicides or 

pesticides. The list of applicable BMPs for the Hi-Grouse Project is included in 

appendix D. BMPs 5.8-5.11 list potential best practices for use of pesticides 

and/or herbicides, but the DEIS does not indicate that pesticides may be used. 

If pesticide use is included in the scope of the project, this information and all 

environmental impacts associated should be disclosed in the FEIS.

Department of Pesticide Regulations requires the use of eye protection. The 

Pesticide Use Proposal and Spill Plan identify sensitive areas to be avoided and 

procedures to follow in the event of a spill. Contract applicators are responsible 

for following all safety procedures.

Previous management projects in the Hi-Grouse Project area did not treat 

stumps with borax to prevent infection with annosus, leading to some areas with 

high rates of infection as seen within this planning area. Borax has been shown 

to be effective in preventing infection in cut stumps. The no-action alternative 

would prevent any potential for introduction and spread through cut stumps, but 

does not address the purpose and need for the project.

See also responses to L3 c33.

L3 c30

[L3 page 19] Borax (sodium tetraborate decahydrate) is a fungicide that is being 

liberally applied by the US Forest Service (USFS) throughout our public 

forestlands to prevent the spread of Heterobasidion annosum (formerly known 

as Fomes annosus), a root rot disease. It also has insecticide and herbicide 

properties. Human health concerns include: it is an extreme eye irritant; can 

cause inhalation irritation; is easily absorbed through broken skin; can be lethal 

when digested; and may be a reproductive toxin. Borax acts as a nonselective 

herbicide that can persist unchanged in the soils for at least a year. It can leach 

rapidly during heavy rains. ...[L3 page 20] ... According to the US Forest 

Service, the borax used in forestry is identical to the material sold as a 

household-cleaning agent (Dost 1996).

L3 c32

[L3 page 20] Toxicology ... The US Forest Service (1995) reports that studies 

indicate chronic exposure to borax may cause reproductive damage and 

infertility. In the US EPA’s Toxicological Review of Boron and Compounds 

(2004) the developing fetus of mammals is considered one of the most sensitive 

targets. The other most sensitive target is the testes of males, and adverse 

effects include testicular degeneration (US EPA 2004; USFS 2003, Evaluation 

of Human and Ecological Risk For Borax Stump Treatments).

[5] Borate (Sporax) is an EPA-registered fungicide that will be applied in 

accordance with all label requirements and instructions (see Appendix D, BMP 

5.8). It will be applied directly to cut conifer stumps 14 inches diameter and 

larger at the rate of approximately one pound per 50 square feet of cut stump 

surface. This project will follow the pesticide use proposal and spill plan 

prepared for the Goosenest Ranger District. 

Sporax is not a herbicide formulation of borax. Its registered use is as a 

fungicide, with a lower concentration of borax. It is applied to tree stumps and 

not to living plants. Herbicide formulations for borate require much higher 

application rates. The only opportunity for Sporax to act as a herbicide is in the 

case of a spill. Spill instructions are to pick it up for reuse, thereby reducing its 

effectiveness as an herbicide.

Quotes from the executive summary of the Human Health and Ecological Risk 

Assessment for Borax (Sporax) Final Report (USDA Forest Service SERA Inc. 

2006) follow: 

“Except for the most extreme exposure scenario considered in this risk 

assessment - i.e., the direct consumption of Sporax from a tree stump by a 

child—the use of Sporax in Forest Service programs will not substantially 

contribute to boron exposures in humans. In addition, the use of Sporax in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–23

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

Forest Service programs will not typically or substantially contribute to 

concentrations of boron in water or soil.” 

“Borax can cause eye irritation. Quantitative risk assessments for irritation are 

not derived; however, from a practical perspective, eye irritation is likely to be 

the only overt effect as a consequence from mishandling Sporax. This effect 

can be minimized or avoided by prudent industrial hygiene practices during the 

handling of the compound.” 

“For terrestrial species, risk associated with the application of Sporax to tree 

stumps appears to be very low. ...There also does not appear to be a risk to 

terrestrial plants exposed to boron through runoff of Sporax applied to tree 

stumps; however, this assessment is based on relatively limited toxicity data. 

Since borax is used effectively in the control of fungi and insects, adverse 

effects of environmental exposures to non-target insects and microorganisms 

are possible. However, given the atypical application method for Sporax, 

widespread exposures are not likely.” 

“These results indicate that aquatic animals and plants are not at risk under the 

exposure scenarios considered; however, an accidental spill of large quantities 

of Sporax into a small pond may result in toxicity in amphibians and sensitive 

species of aquatic microorganisms.” 

There are no perennial water sources within the project area. 

L3 c31

[L3 page 19] Many annosus root disease prevention alternatives exist. These 

include limiting pre-commercial thinning activities; removing and burning 

infected stumps; seasonal cutting to avoid reproductive basidiospores; pre- and 

post-cut prescribed burns, and applying the competitive fungus Phlebiopsis 

gigantea to stumps as a biocontrol agent. Currently the USFS is failing to 

evaluate non-borax annosus prevention alternatives and failing to conduct 

project specific environmental effects analysis.

[L3 pages 22-24] Borax: Alternatives ... we are concerned that in Region 5 

(California) the U.S. Forest Service is not using a true integrated pest 

management (IPM) strategy while managing national forests and dealing with 

this fungus. The Forest Service is ignoring the cause of annosus spread and 

needs to focus on controlling the vectors that facilitate its movement. Region 5 

is reliant on borax for annosus disease prevention and has failed to develop 

non-toxic, non-borax treatment methods for protecting our forests.

[L3 page 23]...Changes to current thinning activities are necessary to control 

Heterobasidion annosum. Reducing the number of thinning operations by 

[5] The scoping packet noted the use of a fungicide (trade name Sporax) was 

proposed. Use of fungicides was not raised as an issue during scoping.

Alternative 1, no action, would avoid all areas infected with annosus. An 

alternative was considered to avoid all known areas of root disease (section 

2.4.2). 

Pre-commercial thinning is not expected to increase the potential for annosus

infection. Stumps less than 14 inches diameter are not recommended for 

treatment with borax in the project area (Angwin 2008) (appendix D, BMP 5.9). 

Tree scars from logging are potential infection sites for the fungus. These 

wounds are kept to a minimum through contract clauses that fine operators for 

tree damage and through proper contract administration.

No literature supports prescribed burning as a control of annosus in California 

ecosystems. In the western United States, annosus conks are most often found 

inside stumps or under the bark. In the southeastern United States, where the 

burning method was developed, conks are formed in the duff at the base of 

trees and could be killed by prescribed fire. Prescribed burning would not be 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−24

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

planting trees at wider spacing is recommended (Ammon and Patel 2000). It is 

also recommended to carry out thinning operations carefully to reduce 

incidence of tree wounds and thin only when reproductive basidiospore 

populations in the air are lowest (cold winter in the north, hot dry summer 

months in the south) (Schmitt et al. 2000; Ammon and Patel 2000; Flip and 

Morrison 1998). Removing injured trees in high-risk areas can also be effective 

(Schmitt et al. 2000).

... This pathogen can be eradicated or reduced by a couple of simple pre- and 

post harvest techniques. One is using prescribed burns. Two pre-thin burns 

(one at least six months before thinning) and one or more post-thin burns will 

destroy reproductive basidiocarps and eliminate litter and other favorable 

annosus habitat and basidiocarp development environments (Ammon and Patel 

2000, Flip and Morrison 1998). Prescribed fires can also start to return the 

forest to pre-historical natural conditions.

The second annosus eradication and reduction method is mechanically 

removing and burning stumps and attached roots in infested sites (Ammon and 

Patel 2000).

[L3 page24] ... Phlebiopsis gigantea, an aggressive, highly competitive fungus 

is recommended as a borax alternative, as it colonizes stumps to the exclusion 

of the annosum root rot fungus (Annesi et al. 2005; Pratt et al. 2000; Ammon 

and Patel 2000; Pratt 1999; Flip and Morrison 1998; Rishbeth 1963). 

Phlebiopsis gigantea is incapable of causing disease in standing trees and is 

not regarded as hazardous to human health (Pratt 1999).... This raises the 

question as to why we are not using this non-toxic protection method here in

California. 

... Streptomyces griseologalbus, an actinomycete isolated from the rhizoplane 

of the nitrogen-fixing nodules of a common California native, has been identified 

as a strong antagonist of annosus, and a possible biological control in the 

Pacific Northwest (Rose et al. 1980).

Stump treatment with borax is only recommended for sites with known annosus

root disease potential and where cultural control is not viable (Schmitt et al. 

2000). How much cultural control is occurring in national forests?

L5 c3 

...Valuable research about alternative management for annosus root disease 

was not included in the analysis as required. Rather than contrasting a relatively 

extreme alternative (2.4.2), the USFS should develop an alternative that 

incorporates other, non-borate methods of managing annosus. 

feasible as a control method for annosus because of the need to destroy the 

stumps. In the long term, re-introduction of surface fire such as proposed on a 

large scale in this project, would likely have a positive effect on control of 

annosus by removing old stumps with conks, but this hypothesis needs to be 

studied.

Stump removal could be effective on sites with no control alternatives, but it 

would require removing stumps in units as well as surrounding areas, be very 

costly, and cause substantial soil disturbance. Prevention using borax and 

thinning practices that increase resistant species is thought to be more effective 

on the types of sites found in the project area. Seasonal cutting, limiting stump 

creation to dry periods when spore production is lowest, may reduce stump 

infection, but no data or studies support the efficacy of this method. 

Treating with P. gigantea is not feasible because it is not registered as a 

biopesticide either with the EPA or California, and there are no efficacy 

data for California forest conditions. Data suggest that Phlebiopsis 

gigantea would not be efficacious in California because it is too dry in 

summer and fall (Rishbeth 1963, Blakeslee and Stambaugh 1974).

The EPA does not register Streptomyces griseologalbus as a biocontrol to 

prevent annosus infection.

Logging creates one of the main infection sites for annosus root disease. 

However, application of borax is an easy, safe, and effective way to meet the 

purpose and need for this project, while preventing infection with this fungus. 

Meeting the purpose and need will break the cycle of mortality associated with 

annosus found in many of the stands proposed for treatment, primarily by 

increasing tree species resistant to the S-type of the fungus.

Application of borax may also prevent colonization of antagonistic fungi, but 

these have not prevented the spread of annosus in the past, as evidenced by 

the high infection rates wherever old true fir stumps are found in the project 

area.Due to management practices such as logging of pines and fire exclusion 

in the eastside pine types, true fir has increased markedly. Cultural practices 

that favor the pines, which are resistant to the S-type of the fungus, are being 

widely practiced on the Goosenest Ranger District. The same practices are 

proposed in this project, but many sites are being managed to maintain a 

substantial component of true firs because of their current high numbers and 

because of the objectives for maintaining higher levels of canopy cover for 

northern spotted owls (NSOs) and and northern goshawks (NGHs). To maintain 

true fir while reducing stand density to more sustainable levels, it is necessary 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–25

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

...The agent, Phlebiopsis gigantean, is useful in an integrated pest 

management system that should be developed as an alternative for the current 

project. 

...One reason to consider a non-borate alternative is that borates are not 

necessarily successful in preventing or eliminating annosus. In a study 

conducted by a USFS Region 5 scientist, R.S. Smith Jr. concluded, “there is 

continuing concern that annosus can infect stumps via the roots rather than just 

through the stump surface, and that borax treatment may not be fully successful 

in preventing the disease” (1989). Additional research by Region 5 Forest 

Service scientists found that borax (aka borate) may be ineffective because it 

washes off stumps, and evaluation of forests two decades later revealed that 

stands with borax-treated stumps failed to have significantly lower infection than 

untreated stumps (Edmonds at al. 1989). 

[L5 page 5] CATs suggests that...further alternatives to Heterobasidium 

annosum be researched and integrated into the USFS [Final] Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

to control the spread of H. annosum spores to cut stumps created during 

thinning treatments.

The purpose and need (section 1.4) to promote restoration of historic forest 

composition and structure includes: decreasing stand density over most of the 

project area to reduce disease and insects to endemic levels, and providing for 

resilient stocking levels of desired species (p 6). Section 2.4.2 notes that 

avoiding all known areas of root disease would not address this purpose and 

need.

The no-action alternative would not treat known root diseased areas. Creating 

an action alternative that does not address the purpose and need identified for a 

project is outside the scope of this project.

Also see response to L3 c33.

L3 c33

[L3 page 21] Environmental Effects

Borax is generally active in soils and it remains unchanged in the soil for one 

year or more. High rainfall conditions can cause borax to leach rapidly and soil 

microorganisms do not break it down (USFS 1995).

...The Forest Service’s borax fact sheet (1995) warns “Borax may be a hazard 

to endangered plant species if it is applied to areas where they live” when 

applied as a forest fungicide on stumps. Also borax’s noncrop herbicidal use 

may harm endangered or threatened plants. Therefore, the U.S. EPA is 

requiring three phytotoxicity studies (regarding seed germination, seedling 

emergence, and vegetative vigor) to assess these risks (U.S. EPA 1993).

Borax is used as an insecticide and “relatively high concentrations of boron 

compounds are toxic to insects, even when used in forests (USFS 1995). What 

kinds of impacts are all these borax applications in our forests having on 

beneficial insects and overall ecosystem health?

Since we have found no studies investigating the impacts of borax on 

amphibians, we are concerned that this salt, which remains active for a year in 

soils, may be having major impacts on amphibian populations. Amphibians, 

while aquatic during reproductive and other times, also are terrestrial and travel 

across the land. Amphibians are especially sensitive to chemicals and are 

believed to be useful indicator species within forest ecosystems. What impact 

[5] The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Borax (Sporax) Final 

Report (USDA Forest Service SERA Inc. 2006) includes all the points that you 

mention. Sporax is not an herbicide formulation of borax. Its registered use is as 

a fungicide. It is applied to tree stumps and not to living plants. Herbicide 

formulations for borate require much higher application rates. The only 

opportunity for Sporax to act as an herbicide is in the case of a spill. Spill 

instructions are to pick it up for reuse, thereby reducing its effectiveness as an 

herbicide. See response L3 C30, which gives the summary risk statements 

associated with the concerns expressed here. 

The 1995 pesticide fact sheet states that the potential for borax leaching is low, 

because the mineral particles in the soil absorb the borax; however, it 

recognizes that leaching may occur under high rainfall conditions. The

Edmonds et al. (1989) study, upon which the statement in the Fact Sheet is 

based, involved coastal northwest Oregon and Washington where rainfall 

amounts and distribution are different than in most parts of California. In Chavez 

et al. (1980), which established plots in the same area, they described annual 

rainfall amounts as 250 cm (98 inches). Under such high rainfall 

conditions,[borax] must be applied carefully, which is what is stated in Edmonds 

et al. (1989): “[borax] may be effective if applied very carefully to stumps, 

especially those close to the remaining trees” and was demonstrated in Nelson 

and Li (1980). In California forest conditions, and if borax is applied correctly, 

leaching is not expected, especially within this project area where precipitation 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−26

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

on amphibian populations is occurring from the current application of borax in 

our public forests?

Porcupines (and many other species) are attracted to salt. Will porcupines 

ingest borax? If so what will the effects will result?

L5 c5

As stated in the DEIS: “the application of borax to freshly cut stumps is not 

expected to have adverse effects on wildlife or surrounding plants, 

invertebrates, or microorganisms.” (DEIS 66) However, CATs contends that 

this is a misleading statement that skews analysis of the alternatives to support 

the favored alternative. A closer examination than that provided reveals 

additional research indicating that the use of borate has both direct negative 

impacts and possible long-term adverse effects on non-target organisms.

According to a study on conifer forests conducted in Sweden in the summer of 

2000, “Both borate and urea [in separate tests] caused severe damage to most 

ground-vegetation species tested.” (Nohrstedt, Westland 2000) Borate as an 

herbicide interrupts photosynthesis in plants, and as an insecticide is abrasive 

to insects’ exoskeletons. (IPM of Alaska 2002) Borate remains in the topsoil 

unchanged for at least one year. High rainfall and/or groundwater can leach 

chemicals, and soil microorganisms cannot break it down (USFS 1995). 

Because the chemical is not natural in forest ecosystems there is a general 

concern about its long-term, indirect effects on soil nutrient cycling.

L5 c6

Has research been conducted to determine if the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) 

and Northern Goshawk (NGH)—as individual birds—are affected by borate? 

Borate is a pesticide with toxicological significance, and as such, an appropriate 

analysis of its effect on these species must be included in the development of 

the alternatives.

typically ranges from 8-12 inches per year.

The Fact Sheet (USDA Forest Service 1995) states that borax is relatively nontoxic to bees (LD50 > 362 ppm), while recognizing that high concentrations of 

boron compounds are toxic to insects, and borax is used for insect control in 

some cases. It is known that boron compounds have insecticidal properties. 

The EPA (1993) states that beneficial insects will not be at risk from the uses of 

boric acid compounds. Widespread insect exposure is unlikely because the 

Forest Service only applies Sporax to stumps and it is not broadcast sprayed. 

Exposure of insects on the treated stump surface may result in toxicity to the 

individual. 

Sections 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.4 summarize effects to the NSO and NGH from the 

biological assessment (Oechsner 2010a) and biological evaluation (Oechsner 

2010c) prepared for this project. These reports are incorporated by reference 

and available on the Forest Internet Web site at: www.fs.usda.gov/klamath. 

Also see response to L3 c30.

L5 c2

If thinning and commercial logging of true-fir and white-fir stands is to remain 

sustainable, a primary objective of the Region 5 Forest Service and with the 

current project must be to develop forest management alternatives that will 

prevent the use of borate by preventing the need for disease management.

L5 c4

To minimize annosus spread to stump wounds, thinning should be done at low 

risk seasons, and with specific regulations on tree age, and diameter at breast 

height (DBH) (Morrison and Johnson 1999). It is apparent that this critical 

information was not integrated into the analysis presented in the DEIS.

[5] Limiting thinning to small cut surfaces would not meet the purpose 

and need of the Hi-Grouse Project.

The Morrison and Johnson study is not applicable to this project area 

because it is based on pre-commercial thinning in stands up to 8 inches 

in diameter in the coastal zone of British Columbia (Douglas-fir, western 

hemlock, amabilis fir, and Sitka spruce). Their conclusion about 10 cm is 

not entirely supported by the data, as the relationship between d.b.h. 

and percent of surface area colonized is linear, and in the case of all but 

the amabilis fir, is not very steep (increasing stump diameter increases 

percent infected, but not by much). Age at time of thinning and season of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–27

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

thinning were not significant variables for percent of infection, although 

the data showed a response. 

The fact that annosum root disease is less likely to affect small stems is 

already incorporated in our regional direction on the use of Sporax 

(USDA Forest Service FSH 3409.11, chapter 60, February 2010). In Filip 

et al. 1992, results showed that the rate of infection of untreated true fir 

stumps 5 to 10 years after cutting was not related to stump diameter in 

the range sampled (12 to 23 inches+).

Cutting when annosus spores are lowest has been suggested, but no 

data or studies support the efficacy of such treatment in California. 

Morrison (1999) determined there was no significant difference in 

season of cutting in coastal British Columbia. Schmitt et al. (2000) state

that restricting cutting to summer months may reduce potential of stump 

and wound colonization, but give no data to evaluate, nor do they state 

that this would eliminate the need for Sporax. Ammon and Patel (2000) 

recommend thinning during dry, hot months in the southeastern United 

States or during winter months in the northeastern United States, but 

also give no data to evaluate, nor do they state that this would eliminate 

the need to treat the stumps otherwise. Phelps et al. (undated) 

demonstrated that in the southeastern United States, summer thinning 

only slightly reduced infection over controls and that borax treatment 

was much more effective. Filip and Morrison (1998) and Stambaugh 

(1989) report that cutting in the summer (April through August) in the

southeastern United States, south of latitude 34°N appears to reduce 

losses caused by annosus root disease. Filip and Morrison (1998) state 

that seasonal logging has not been demonstrated in the interior west to 

be effective. In Russell et al. (1973), monthly spore patterns in 

Washington and Oregon peaked in the fall, with a lesser peak in the 

spring, but airborne spores were present in large numbers nearly yearround. In James and Cobb (1984), spores are produced in the 

Stanislaus and San Bernardino National Forests throughout the year. In 

their summary, Filip and Morrison (1998) state that although many 

materials have been tested, in the western United States only borax is 

recommended and used operationally. Based on the data in James and 

Cobb (1984) and Russell et al. (1973), it is likely that in the relatively 

mild climate of California, where spores are produced throughout the 

year, restricting logging to a certain season would not be effective in 

reducing annosus root disease infection.
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−28

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

L3 c34

[L3 page 22] Effectiveness

The U.S. Forest Service has touted borax as highly effective and the only 

solution for preventing the spread of Heterobasidion annosum and annosus root 

rot disease. While the Forest Service has been liberally applying borax 

throughout public forestlands, there is some question as to whether or not it is 

as effective as believed.

In a study review of research on annosus root rot disease, US Forest Service 

Region 5 scientist R.S. Smith Jr. reported, “there is continuing concern that

annosus can infect stumps via the roots rather than just through the stump 

surface, and that borax treatment may not be fully successful in preventing the 

disease” (1989).

Another interesting study was done by Region 5 Forest Service scientists, 

which reviewed the efficacy of borax stump treatment in protecting trees from 

annosus root disease. The authors reported “borax may be ineffective because 

it washes off stumps and that high stump densities in pre-commercial thinnings 

make it difficult to apply.

[5] The review by Smith describes borax as not being completely 

successful in keeping annosus out of true fir stands because of other 

avenues of infection, notably through root contact. However, he does 

state that borax is effective in blocking stump infection of true fir (Smith 

1989, p 14). 

The study described as showing that high stump densities in thinning 

treatments make borax difficult to apply is not referenced, so that cannot 

be verified. Many projects in Region 5 have demonstrated the 

operational capability of applying borax in harvest and pre-commercial 

treatments where the stumps are not cut on an angle.

Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of using borax as a 

stump treatment in California. Graham (1971) demonstrated the efficacy 

of borax on Jeffrey and ponderosa pine. Smith (1970) demonstrated that 

borax prevented infection of white fir stumps. Kliejunas (1989) 

summarized the existing literature on borax effectiveness in the eastside 

pine type. Schmitt et al. (2000) state that stump treatment with borax is 

90 percent effective at preventing new infections.

Economic

L2 c8

The county is in dire financial condition and revenue needs to be derived from 

Forest Service projects and the public land base by funding through county 

payments. It is clearly displayed in the DEIS that Alternative 4 is more 

economically viable. Alternative 3 does nothing to assist with providing jobs, 

producing commodity products, and adds very little to county revenues.

[5] Thank you for your support of alternative 4. 

Fuels

L3 c7

[L3 page 1] [We are concerned about] ... the long lag time between harvest and 

treatment of activity fuels 

[L3 page 2] [We are concerned about] ...the impacts of delayed treatment of 

activity fuels and the proposed ...under Alternative 3 are extremely problematic. 

fuels 

[L3 pages 3-4]...The contention on pages 47 and 49 of the DEIS that harvest 

activities that dramatically reduce forested canopy cover and do not treat 

activity fuels for up to 10 years will reduce fire behavior is inaccurate. 

[5] Whole-tree yarding is proposed for this project as the primary method for 

minimizing thinning-generated slash (see section 2.2.5, VEG-8). Whole-tree 

yarding in addition to other proposed fuel reduction activities listed in section 

2.2.4.5 will reduce fuel loading and meet the purpose and need for this project 

to promote restoration of fuels-related historic fire regime (section 1.4). The 

effects to fuels summarized in section 3.2.2, from the fuels report (Helmbrecht 

and Kurth 2009), reflects the proposed project with whole tree yarding. The 

fuels report is incorporated by reference and available on the Forest Internet 

Web site at: www.fs.usda.gov/klamath. 

Machine piling of hazardous fuels outside landing areas is proposed in 

alternative 4, and is not included in alternative 3. Machine piling under 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–29

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

Our scoping comments of January 2008 contained extensive references to 

peer-reviewed science regarding the increased fire hazard and fire severity that 

often results from the removal of overstory forest canopy. None of that science 

was meaningfully responded to in the DEIS. Please see the “Fire Mitigation” 

section of these comments below.

We were particularly surprised by the agency’s decision to neither analyze nor 

disclose the impact of leaving activity fuels on the landscape for up to a decade. 

Similarly, the analysis of the No Action Alternative fails to disclose or analyze 

the fire hazard benefits of retaining closed canopy cover and not producing untreated activity fuels and slash.

In addition, mechanical thinning generates large quantities of slash by 

transferring branches, twigs and needles from the canopy to the ground (Allen 

et al. 2002, Graham et al. 2004, Stephens 1998, USDA 1994, van Wagtendonk 

1996, Weatherspoon 1996). 

...The DEIS (page 42) discloses that pile burning and underburning may not 

even start until up to a decade after commercial timber harvest commences. Yet 

the impacts of activity slash on fire hazard is not addressed anywhere in the 

DEIS. The KNF knows that both the Yellow fire (47,500 acres) and the 

Specimen fire (7,000 acres) originated in logging slash. Hence the widespread 

creation of untreated logging slash may directly inhibit the attainment of the 

project’s purpose and need. 

alternative 4 would be evaluated post-thinning to determine the need for this 

treatment and may be needed on up to 25 percent of the area of units where it 

is prescribed (see appendix C).

Information cited in the literature regarding slash was considered. However, as 

noted above, whole-tree yarding is anticipated to minimize thinning-generated 

slash and related effects to available fuels.
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−30

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

L3 c15

Time and Fire Severity

[L3 page 7] Fire severity may diminish in mixed evergreen forests as the 

duration of fire return increases. Odion and colleagues (2004) studied fire 

severity patterns in the 1987 Klamath fire complex and learned that structurally 

diverse mature forests with closed canopies overwhelmingly experienced low 

and moderate severity fire effects (up to 13 percent high severity – expressed 

as tree canopy mortality due to data limitations). That study is attached to these 

comments.

[L3 page 8] ... Unfortunately, the assumptions presented in the No Action 

Alternative simply ignore the all of the peer-reviewed literature referenced 

above.

[5] The fire behavior assessment for this project used the FlamMap fire 

modeling system to account for the role of fuel, weather, and topography 

specific to the project area (section 3.2.2). This information was summarized in 

section 3.2.2 from the fuels report (Helmbrecht and Kurth 2009). The fuels 

report is incorporated by reference and available on the Forest Internet Web 

site at: www.fs.usda.gov/klamath. FlamMap examines the spatial variability of 

fire behavior by performing fire behavior calculations independently for each cell 

in a gridded landscape (Finney 2006). Surface fuel models were adjusted to 

account for increases in understory Ceanothus based on the analysts’ 

experience and information in the Fire Effects Information System (Anderson 

2001). 

Forests with closed canopies due to long fire-free periods may exhibit less 

severe fire as observed by Odion et al. (2004) under certain conditions. Odion 

et al. (2004) also state that, although time since fire was found to be an 

important predictor of lower severity fire in their study, “further research in 

mixed-severity fire regimes is needed to answer questions about stand-age 

dependency and the role of fuel, weather, and topography.” 

L2 c3

We also continue to be perplexed as to why you and your employees continue 

to ignore findings and research completed that call for more aggressive 

treatments for the creation of safe and effective Fuel Management Zones 

(FMZ). 

L2 c10

[L3 page 4] ...FMZ

The goal for establishing an adequate FMZ is to treat major road corridors and 

certain access roads for fire control and fire fighter safety. ... 

We contend this type of treatment will not meet any of the objectives stated for 

creating an adequate FMZ. One of the primary objectives should be to reduce 

the susceptibility of a crown fire. You are not achieving this by leaving the 

overstory crown intact. By not being more aggressive in removing vegetation 

from all size classes there will be no long term effectiveness from this treatment. 

There are numerous research documents that highlight the need to more 

[5] Fuel management zones are discussed at section 2.2.4.4 as follows: “Fuel 

management zones (FMZs) will be created along major road corridors and 

certain access roads for fire control.” Approximately one-third of the fuel 

management zone areas fall within other proposed treatments. Fuel 

management zones areas that are located within the late successional reserve 

will maintain higher canopy levels to maintain habitat for NSOs and or NGH to 

comply with forest plan S&G 8-20. 

The fuel management zone treatments are anticipated to reduce wildfire flame 

lengths along the corridors which would contribute to reducing the fire behavior 

outside of the late-successional habitat and decrease the probability of fire 

spread into the habitat areas (see section 3.2.2, tables 3.2-9 and 3.2-11).

Stand susceptibility to crown fire is determined by the surface fire intensity, 

foliar moisture content, canopy base height, and canopy bulk density. Canopy 

closure influences surface fire intensity through its affect on surface fuel 

moisture and wind reduction. Initiation of crown fire is more likely when the 

surface fire intensity exceeds a critical threshold that is defined by foliar 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–31

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

aggressively treat stands in order to meet the FMZ objectives. These 

documents highlight the need to reduce canopy closure levels along with 

treating ground and ladder fuels to effectively offset the threat of a crown fire. 

We will highlight four. The four documents include; Fites-Kaufman, 2008; PNW 

Research Paper 117, 2009; Agee and Skinner, 2005; Peterson, Johnson, Agee, 

Jain. McKenzie, and Reinhardt, 2005. The District has previously received 

copies of these documents so they will not be attached to these comments.

The Fites document clearly highlights the need to open up crowns in order to 

reduce the threat of a crown fire and detrimental fire effects. It states; “Further, it 

is my view that there is insufficient science behind existing fire behavior models 

to support choice of canopy cover thresholds for reduced crown fire threat—

such as 40% or 50% cover. In fact, based on my observations and research on 

fires and that of very experienced Fire Behavior Analysts working for me, 

canopy cover should be reduced to less than 40% if the likelihood of crown fires 

is to be substantially reduced. This does not mean that I advocate forests with 

less than 40% canopy cover everywhere--but certainly more areas in fuel 

treatment locations at this level, and in particular around communities at risk.”

In order to meet the established objectives, all size classes need to be removed 

during implementation. The PNW Research Paper 117 (Bioenergy From Trees: 

Using Cost-Effective Thinning To Reduce Forest Fire Hazards) highlights the 

need to aggressively treat stands in order to reduce the likelihood of large, 

damaging high-severity wildfires and to promote ecologically resilient 

conditions. The following are important statements for consideration:

•“They concluded that removing significant quantities of merchantable trees 

would be necessary to maximize treatment effectiveness based on the torching 

hazard.” (Page 3)

•“Fried was surprised by this finding. “It seemed plausible that removing small 

trees would take care of the problem,” he says. “But it turns out that in most 

stands, you have to remove a significant fraction of trees that are 10 to 21 

inches in diameter if you’re going to be effective as measured by improvement 

in the torching and crowning indices.” (Page 3)

•“When you pick the treatment that minimizes the removal of merchantable 

wood, it tends to be a lot less effective—in fact, sometimes not effective at all.” 

(Page 3)

Agee and Skinner identify key principals of fire resistance of dry forests. They 

include; 1) reduce surface fuels, 2) increase height to live crown, 3) decrease 

crown density, and 4) keep big trees of resistant species. The current proposal 

moisture content and canopy base height and results in torching or passive 

crown fire. Active crown fire, where fire spreads through the entire fuel complex 

(surface and canopy), begins as passive crown fire and is sustained by the 

canopy bulk density and crown fire rate of spread. The required reduction of 

stand density and basal area will vary considerably between stands, depending 

on the initial stand density and structure (Agee and Skinner 2005). The 

combination of reduced surface fuels, increased canopy base height, and 

decreased canopy bulk density, as proposed for the fire management zones, 

decrease the potential for crown fire. 

Literature cited was reviewed and considered for this analysis.

•Fites-Kaufman 2008: The author notes “canopy cover should be reduced to 

less than 40 percent if the likelihood of crown fires is to be substantially 

reduced.” Even holding the other variables relating to crown fire susceptibility 

constant, reducing canopy cover to 40 percent is probably not necessary and 

perhaps counterproductive due to increased surface fuel drying and wind 

speed. Reeves and others (2009) saw that for canopy cover of 50 percent and 

stand heights between 15 and 30 meters, canopy bulk density was slightly 

under 0.1 kg/m3, which Agee (1996) identified as a rough threshold for active 

crown fire spread. For comparison, Agee also shows canopy bulk density 

values under this threshold for Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and grand fir with a 

mean diameter of 8 inches at a 1,000 trees/acre density.

Treatments were designed to promote conditions for an effective fuels 

management zones based on modeling and expert opinions of experienced Fire 

Behavior Analysts, and research (Agee and Skinner 2005). The proposed 

treatments would reduce surface fuels, increase canopy base height, and 

reduce canopy bulk density.

Stand susceptibility to crown fire is determined by the surface fire intensity, 

foliar moisture content, canopy base height, and canopy bulk density. Canopy 

closure influences surface fire intensity through its affect on surface fuel 

moisture and wind reduction. Initiation of crown fire is more likely when the 

surface fire intensity exceeds a critical threshold that is defined by foliar 

moisture content and canopy base height and results in torching or passive 

crown fire. Active crown fire, where fire spreads through the entire fuel complex 

(surface and canopy), begins as passive crown fire and is sustained by the 

canopy bulk density and crown fire rate of spread. The required reduction of 

stand density and basal area will vary considerably between stands but is 

dependent on the initial stand density and structure (Agee and Skinner 2005). 

The combination of reduced surface fuels, increased canopy base height, and 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−32

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

only achieves three of these four principals. Ignoring adequate treatment of 

crown density, one of the key components of fire resistance, won’t achieve the 

desired objectives.

The Peterson document also highlights the same four principals. It goes on to 

state “In forest stands that have not experienced fire or thinning for several 

decades, heavy thinning combined with (often multiple) prescribed-fire or other 

surface fuel treatments, or both, is necessary to effectively reduce potential fire 

behavior and crown-fire hazard.”

It also emphasizes that “effective fuel treatments in forest stands with high fuel 

accumulations will typically require thinning to increase canopy base height, 

reduce canopy bulk density, reduce canopy continuity, and require a substantial 

reduction in surface fuel through prescribed fire or mechanical treatment or 

both.” Ignoring effective crown closure treatment will not reduce the canopy bulk 

density or canopy continuity enough to provide any protection for fire 

suppression crews.

During my 30 plus year career I had the opportunity to be involved with 

hundreds of wildfire suppression operations. Based on observation during that 

time I would never feel comfortable putting me or a crew in a location 

considered an FMZ with the conditions and lack of treatment proposed in this 

project.

...We currently believe this project as proposed will not meet the stated purpose 

and need identified. A fully functional FMZ needs more aggressive treatments 

than those proposed.

decreased canopy bulk density, as proposed for the fuel management zones, 

decrease the potential for crown fire. 

•The PNW Research Paper 117 (Bioenergy From Trees: Using Cost-Effective 

Thinning To Reduce Forest Fire Hazards)(USDA Forest Service 2009: is based 

on one specific study at one specific site. Canopy reduction will vary 

considerably based on the initial site conditions (Agee and Skinner 2005). This 

paper states that “removing significant quantities of merchantable trees would 

be necessary to maximize treatment effectiveness based on the torching 

hazard.” However, torching hazard is driven by surface fire intensity, foliar 

moisture, and canopy base height. Agee and Skinner (2005) state that 

removing merchantable trees does little to affect torching.

The references for this paper also defined success as increasing the wind 

speed required for torching (torching index) or crowning (crowning index) to 

levels that would be extremely rare occurrences. While removing a substantial 

number of merchantable trees is needed to be effective at these levels, it is not 

needed to be successful at the critical conditions modeled for this project 

(modeled at the 97th percentile).

•Agee and Skinner 2005: This paper states that treatment of surface fuel, 

reduces potential surface fire intensity, and raising of the canopy base height 

reduces the potential for crown fire and that “low thinning will be more effective 

than crown or selection thinning, and management of surface fuels will increase 

the likelihood that the stand will survive a wildfire.”

Removal of dominant and codominant trees is not required to reduce canopy 

bulk density. Removal of any material within the canopy (generally over 6 feet in 

height) reduces canopy bulk density. As recommended within the above paper , 

this project would reduce surface fuels, increase canopy base height, and 

reduce canopy bulk density. 

•Peterson et al. (2005) note “Management of thinning residues affects the post 

thinning combustion environment, with an almost certain increase in fine fuel if 

stems and foliage are left on site (Carey and Schumann 2003). Ground-based 

equipment (e.g., a feller buncher) typically changes the spatial distribution of 

fuel. Equipment that removes large stems from the stand prior to further 

processing typically increases the fuel load less than felling and processing 

within the stand.”

Whole-tree yarding is proposed for this project (see section 2.2.5, VEG-8). 

Whole-tree yarding in addition to other proposed fuel reduction activities will 

reduce fuel loading and meet the purpose and need for this project to promote 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–33

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

restoration of fuels-related historic fire regime (section 1.4). The proposed 

actions include various fuel abatement activities (see section 2.2.4.5). Effects to 

fuels are summarized in section 3.2.2 from the fuels report (Helmbrecht and 

Kurth 2009), incorporated by reference and available on the Forest Internet 

Web site at: www.fs.usda.gov/klamath. 

NEPA

L3 c23 

[L3 page 15] Cumulative Impacts

The future, present and the past management actions need to be considered in 

a comprehensive cumulative effects analysis. The project area has been heavily 

impacted by past management activities.

We remain surprised that rather than disclosing the cumulative impacts of 

proposed actions and past activities, the Forest Service continues to rely upon 

on the illegal 2005 guidance of the CEQ to ignore 9th Circuit case law by 

obfuscating the collective impacts of multiple actions over time.

[5, 3] The affected environment describes the current conditions for the various 

resources, which factor in past activities. Past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions were considered (see Map A-7) for the appropriate 

cumulative effects boundary by resource; see the related specialist report 

posted on the Forest web page. For clarity, appendix E has been added to 

supplement the information displayed in Map A-7. 

NNIS

L5 c10

...misplaced under the cumulative effects of Action 1 (no action), the 

assessment reads: “Short- term reductions of canopy closure and bare soil from 

landings and burn piles could increase available habitat for weeds.” (DEIS 86) It 

is our understanding that short-term canopy reduction and fuels abatement are 

the results of Alternatives 3, and the USFS preferred Alternative 4. Being such 

an important component of responsible silvicultural practice, the noxious weed 

assessment for the Hi-Grouse project skews the overall analysis and integrity of 

the proposed environmental impact statement.

[4] The sentence was inadvertently misplaced and has been corrected for the 

FEIS. 

L5 c11

As stated in the DEIS, “Monitoring for the introduction and subsequent spread 

of weeds introduced as a result of project implementation may be conducted as 

time and funding allow”; this implies that no post-monitoring is possible but not 

assured. Both alternatives appear highly undesirable for the land and biotic 

community because it does not aim to perform any post-treatment evaluations. 

This does not help assess the effects of borate, and seems redundant in the 

promotion of re-growth and renewable forest stands. It is likely that NNIS will be 

established without the oversight required in proper forest management.

Within the proposed 3,850 acres to be treated for healthier forest generation are 

two roads (44N80a and 44N52a) that will be further closed and removed from 

[5] Monitoring is noted in section 2.3. Monitoring for NNIS will be in conjunction 

with other forest monitoring efforts, as well as day-to-day observation by 

employees in the field as weeds are observed. 

Monitoring is planned for establishment of native vegetation to prevent erosion; 

weeds would be monitored at that time. 

Knowledge about weeds is widespread across the Forest Service and 

education is ongoing (posters, office information, seasonal refresher training, 

etc.). Reports on weed observations come from employees across many 

resource backgrounds. 

Additional information has been added to section 2.3 Monitoring, of the FEIS to 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−34

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

the forest system. The management plan put forth by the USFS to restore 

these areas is to seed and replant with native, non-invasive grasses and/ or 

shrubs; there is roughly 1.5 miles of road to restore, with an additional 1.3 miles 

of additional contemporary road construction. It is a legitimate concern that this 

area could be infested with NNIS, particularly without the monitoring required to 

ensure that it does not. 

clarify that the Northern Province Strategy for Monitoring (i.e., inventorying) 

areas for weeds will be followed. 

L5 c7

The policy statement outlined in Forest Service Manual 2080 Noxious Weed 

Management (USDA 1995) as referenced in the noxious weed assessment 

cannot be used as a substitute for the missing analysis of the potential for 

invasion and spread of non-native, invasive species plants (NNIS). Nor does the 

Klamath National Forest Noxious Weed List September, 2008 or other 

documents cited in the assessment. 

The noxious weed assessment as it stands for the proposed project is 

inadequate, particularly for what it fails to mention (3.2.5.2). It finds the project 

area to currently be at low-risk to spreading weeds based on the “...weed-free 

nature of the area, low levels of disturbed areas, [and] high vegetative cover...” 

(DEIS 86) Although these are the current conditions, the opening of the canopy, 

thinning of up to 90% of particular stands and subsequent prescribed burning 

will inevitably alter the landscape, forest floor, and succession of plant species. 

... The results of both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 will directly create habitat 

for noxious weeds; indirect, long-term effects of this project are not analyzed 

adequately for NNIS for when they are introduced and established as a result of 

the project, either within or beyond its immediate activities. 

No data supports the contention that the season is too short or nearby weed 

species too small to support the spread of invasive weeds as a result of the 

project as claimed in the noxious weed assessment.

The analysis fails to address the range of possible means of introduction of 

invasive species. Evidence suggests that one means of spread is likely to be 

birds, with ingested seeds deposited locally and seeds carried in plumage 

deposited further. For example, the common North American bird the Yellowrumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata) was reported by bird watchers to feed on 

the invasive Chinese tallow, glossy privet and European olive plants in 

California; researchers later confirmed these accounts through field 

observations. (Aslan et al. 2010). 

L5 c9

The noxious weed assessment does not provide criteria for determining when 

[5] Region 5 of the Forest Service developed a noxious weed management 

strategy (USDA Forest Service 2000) that outlines prevention and education 

objectives, including incorporation of noxious weed prevention and preparation 

of noxious weed risk assessments as part of project planning. The project 

design incorporates measures to prevent the potential spread of weeds from 

project activities (see table 2.2-3, items NNIS-1 through NNIS-3). 

Section 3.2.5.2 summarizes noxious weed effects information from the noxious 

weed risk assessment (Baker 2009c), which is incorporated by reference and is 

available on the Forest Web site at: www.fs.usda.gov/klamath. 

The points of consideration for weed risk used for this project are widely 

accepted in developing a risk assessment. Those points include proximity to 

known infestations, background and/or elevated amounts of vectors, level of 

disturbance, etc. Forest Service botanists and range scientists include new 

science of site-specific information in analyzing what may or may not increase 

weed risk as it becomes available. 

Non-project-related weed vectors (such as birds, wind, and recreational activity) 

have been present and would continue to be present after project 

implementation. Areas of bare soil are present in the project area in the form of 

native surface roads. Roads are often the first place weeds colonize because of 

the exposed soil and the proximity to vectors (vehicles, wildlife, etc.). All of 

these areas are weed-free within the project area. This indicates a few factors in 

the resistance to weed infestation from this project area such as limited vectors, 

long distance to existing infestations, and a short growing season (due to high 

elevation, weather patterns, and deep snows). Nothing indicates that this 

project would change that condition after project implementation in the long 

term. 

In addition, nothing indicates that non-implementation would prevent weeds 

from becoming established. The effects of a large disturbance such as wildfire 

or wind blow-down event in timber could provide weed habitat—potentially 

without the management oversight of a controlled project that would limit the 

potential for weed effects.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–35

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

tools for weed control would be utilized. For herbicides, it determines that the 

chemicals are not currently used by Klamath National Forest, which we 

commend, but this statement does not replace the analysis of the potential for 

weed control with herbicides that could be undertaken with a change of 

management. 

L5 c12

CATs suggests that a stronger non-native, invasive species plan be adapted.

The noxious weed risk assessment (Baker 2009c) discloses control methods in 

appendix B. A review of effects would take place if a change in management 

happens at some future date. Addressing potential changes in management, 

not known at this time, is speculative and outside the scope of this analysis.

L5 c8

Invasive species, or as the project inappropriately identifies as “noxious weeds” 

are also adapting to climate change and may be more likely to infest the project 

area than has been the case historically, a potential that must be considered 

when the potential for NNIS is analyzed (Bradley 2010). 

[5] Climate change is briefly discussed at section 3.5, including a notation that it 

is too speculative to factor specific ecological trends or substantial climate 

changes into the analysis of environmental impacts of individual projects. 

Noxious weeds are plants listed by the State of California Department of Food 

and Agriculture as Category A-B-C. The Forest Service cooperates with the 

State of California and the terminology carries over. NNIS (non native invasive 

species) is a general catch-all term used to describe other plant species not 

listed as “noxious.”

Roads

L3 c10

[L3 page 2] Also, please note that our organizations support the 

decommissioning of two road segments in NSO critical habitat that are 

proposed in Alternative 4. 

[L3 page 3]...One aspect of Alternative 4 that we would like to see implemented 

is the proposal to decommission two segments of closed Forest Service roads 

within NSO critical habitat. It is unclear to us why this action item was not 

included in Alternative 3. We support the request of the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service to decommission these road segments in order to benefit spotted owls 

and their critical habitat. 

L3 c25

[L3 page 17] Northern Spotted Owls

Why does only one action alternative call for decommissioning the two, (closed) 

roads in NSO critical habitat identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service?

[5] Thank you for your support of the proposed road closures.

Alternative 3 was developed to address public comments received during the 

scoping period. In consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, two road 

segments in NSO critical habitat were identified as a concern for latesuccessional habitat and determined not needed for long-term management. 

Decommissioning the two roads is included in alternative 4, and evaluated in 

the Wildlife Biological Assessment (Oechsner 2010a) and Biological Evaluation 

(Oechsner 2010c), these reports are incorporated by reference and available on 

the Forest Internet Web site at: www.fs.usda.gov/klamath.. 

L3 c3

[We are concerned about]...the proposed new road construction activities 

L3 c20

[L3 page 13] Nevertheless, the existing road density is far too high, and the 

agency must start looking for opportunities to reduce its road maintenance 

[5] Road maintenance and temporary roads are discussed in section 2.2.4.6. No 

new system road is proposed with this project. Temporary road construction is 

limited to the minimum amount necessary to support the proposed actions and 

address the project’s purpose and need. Most of the temporary roads are on 

existing non-system roadbeds. The new temporary roads will be constructed to 

design standards to minimize ground disturbance, protect resources, and 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−36

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

overhead.

[L3 page 14] ... We have been told by the Klamath Forest Supervisor’s office

that needed reductions in road density will be accomplished on a project-byproject basis. We see no evidence of that in the Hi-Grouse proposed action 

despite the severe ecological and economic need to reduce road densities in 

the planning area.

[L3 page 15] ... We know that the forthcoming Travel Management Decision will 

further increase the amount of system roads in the Goosenest District. Why is 

the agency continuing to refuse to identify a sustainable transportation system 

as required by the Travel Rule and NFMA?

provide safe transportation at the least possible cost. Project design features 

and best management practices listed in appendix C will be followed.

Reducing existing road density and overall road maintenance costs are not part 

of the purpose and need for this project, and are outside the scope of the

project. 

At the time of alternative development, known district information regarding 

roads under review was considered. Alternative 4 incorporates the removal of 

two system road segments identified as a concern for late-successional habitat 

and determined not needed for long-term management. 

The Motorized Travel Management decision, decision published on August 13, 

2010, may be implemented beginning November 29, 2010. The Motorized 

Travel Management selected alternative identified 5.5 miles of closed nonsystem roads in the project area (USDA Forest Service 2010b). Of that, one 

existing non-system road is being administratively added to the Forest System 

Roads; it is 0.84-mile long and runs between 44N84 and 44N79. Road 44N03 

(Badger Loop) is going from Highway Legal Only, to Open to All Vehicles. See 

map A-8 showing the Hi-Grouse Project Area and the Motorized Travel 

Management decision.

Scenery

L3 c28

Scenery

The scenery analysis in the DEIS is lacking. Rather than disclosing and 

analyzing the impacts of logging, roads, landings and forest canopy openings 

on important and culturally sensitive high elevation viewpoints, the analysis is 

largely limited to claiming that the proposal will increase forest resiliency. Forest 

resiliency is a worthy goal, but it cannot be used as an excuse not to analyze or 

disclose the impacts of the project on scenic resources.

Indeed, most of the scenery analysis consists of contending that the No Action 

Alternative will not produce resilient forested conditions and that logging will. 

Yet the impacts of logging on scenic resources is not disclosed or analyzed. 

NEPA does not permit this approach.

[5] Section 3.4.3 summarizes scenery information from the Hi-Grouse Project 

Scenery Report (Mattson 2009). Table 3.4-5 displays summary information; all 

alternatives meet forest plan visual quality objectives. The full report is 

incorporated by reference and available on the Forest Internet Web site at: 

www.fs.usda.gov/klamath.

See the Scenery Report pages 22 through 28 for more detailed discussion 

regarding specific impacts by treatment. Direct and indirect effects to scenic 

integrity describe the impacts of ground-based tree removal, silvicultural 

treatments, ponderosa pine/mixed conifer restoration, lodgepole pine 

thinning/fuels reduction, fuels prescription, and fuels treatment. The disclosed 

effects include skid trails, small openings, stumps, slash piles, mowing 

(manicured look), and scorching/blackened understory. The time frames of 

these effects were disclosed, along with the area where the effects would be 

visible, the distance, and therefore, the visual impact to scenes from highly 

visible areas and those areas known to be of value for tribal uses. Were 

landings and roads to be visible from the culturally sensitive high points, those 

locations and impacts would have been disclosed. It is expected that the 

distance from these elements and the oblique angle of the view would, in effect, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–37

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

provide screening via the remaining timber stands. Upon disclosure of these 

effects, the project was evaluated in terms of what scenic integrity level would 

be met by alternative. 

Soils

L2 c5

We also believe there is no reason to eliminate the option of machine piling. 

The DEIS displays no significant difference in environmental effects between 

alternatives 3 and 4 for the soil resource. Machine piling can drastically reduce 

costs and can be very effective in treating heavy fuel loading and site 

preparation. It has been used for decades on the Goosenest Ranger District 

with very successful results.

L3 c4

[We are concerned about]...in-unit tractor piling

L3 c24

[L3 page 16] Soils and Tractor Piling

We are very concerned about the potential impacts of ground-based slash piling 

on soil health and productivity.

Mechanical piling is universally recognized as an outdated practice that has 

disproportionately harmful impacts on watershed and soil resources.

Please further note that the proposed machine piling violates NFMA 

requirements that a given logging system cannot be chosen because of dollar 

value alone. There is no other justification for using the proposed machine piling 

provided in the record other than economic considerations and many reasons 

why using such systems is not appropriate. 36 C.F.R. 219.27(b)(3). Here the 

Forest Service has offered no justification for the proposed machine piling (as 

opposed to manual piling), despite the widely acknowledged impacts to soil 

resources.

[5] Effects to soils are summarized in section 3.3.1, from the Watershed Report 

(McNamara 2009), incorporated by reference and available on the Forest 

Internet Web site at: www.fs.usda.gov/klamath.. The proposed alternatives 

would not exceed the forest plan and soil quality analysis standards and 

guidelines of 15 percent.

Project design feature VEG-8, in section 2.2.5, incorporates whole tree yarding 

as the primary method for minimizing thinning-generated slash. Machine piling 

of hazardous fuels outside landing areas is proposed in alternative 4, and is not 

included in alternative 3. Machine piling under alternative 4 would be evaluated 

post-thinning to determine the need for this treatment and may be needed on up 

to 25 percent of the area of units where it is prescribed. 

[1] 36 CFR 219.27 (b) (CFR 2010) pertains to wilderness area reviews under 

special designations. Changes to special designation areas are not proposed 

with this project and are outside the scope of this analysis. 

L3 c19

[L3 page 13] Roads 

...We are very concerned about the long-term impacts to soil health and 

hydrology from the construction of new (temporary) logging roads in the project 

area. We do appreciate that the Forest Service has identified non-system roads 

for 3 miles of the 3.75 miles of proposed road construction. 

[5] Effects to soils are summarized in section 3.3.1, from the Watershed Report 

(McNamara 2009), which is incorporated by reference and available on the 

Forest Internet Web site. The proposed alternatives would not exceed the forest 

plan and soil quality analysis standards and guidelines of 15 percent.

Project design features and best management practices are incorporated to 

meet forest plan direction and minimize effects to soils and hydrology (see table 

2.2-3, items WS-2 through WS-18, and appendix D).

L3 c36 [4] Clarification: Bulldozers or small tracked or wheeled equipment assist with 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−38

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

Bull Dozer Fire Lines?

Page 32 of the Appendix to the DEIS makes reference to the use of dozers to 

create fire lines. We see no other reference to this practice in the DEIS. Is the 

Forest Service proposing to bulldoze fire line in the project? If so, why are the 

impacts to soils, wildlife, and botanical resources not analyzed and disclosed?

fire control line construction. The machinery may be used to mow/masticate 

material near control lines and/or plow control lines to mineral soil. Wherever 

possible, existing roads and skid trails would be used for prescribed fire control 

lines prior to the fall burns. 

Effects to soils from fire line activities would be temporary ground cover removal 

and soil disturbance, similar to the effects anticipated with temporary roads. 

Effects would last until vegetation re-establishes; this is anticipated during the 

following growing season. Prescribed fire line effects on soils are expected to 

be minimal. Fire lines are a linear feature where bare mineral soil is exposed to 

breakup surface fuels. Typically they will not be built downhill, are narrow in 

width, and as a result, will not contribute to hillslope erosion. 

Wildlife effects associated with fire lines include temporary removal of ground 

cover that may alter small mammal and bird habitat use and movement and/or 

increase their vulnerability to predation, similar to the effects anticipated with 

temporary roads. Effects would last until vegetation re-establishes; this is 

anticipated during the following growing season. 

No known sensitive plant locations are in the proposed treatment areas. Project 

design features (table 2.2-3) NNIS-1 through NNIS-3 would be followed to 

reduce potential for introduction and spread of non-native invasive species. 

Effects would last until vegetation re-establishes; this is anticipated during the 

following growing season.

Vegetation

L2 c8

Our issues raised are not about increasing merchantable volume. It is about 

doing the right thing and fully meeting the objectives stated for the project. As a 

forest industry and being professional foresters, we are very concerned that 

good forestry be practiced on the Forest Service land base. We ask you to 

develop prescriptions that truly meet the particular needs of the stands and land 

base.

[5] The project silviculturist developed and field verified the prescriptions (see 

section 3.2.1, methodology). All prescriptions appropriate for the stands that 

would address the purpose and need were considered. Some prescription 

options were not the included in the final alternatives due to the need to 

maintain NSO Critical Habitat and to comply with NGH forest plan S&G 8-20. 

Detailed prescription descriptions are located in appendix C.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–39

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

L3 c11

[L3 page 3] Please note that alternative 4 (DEIS page 41) proposed logging 

Ponderosa Pine sites down to as little as 22 percent canopy. Such aggressive 

canopy removal has significant unanalyzed potential to influence both wildlife 

connectivity and fire hazard. 

[5] One of the purpose and needs of the project is to promote restoration of 

historic forest composition and structure by increasing proportion of pines on 

suitable sites to mimic historical stand conditions (see purpose and need 

section 1.4).

Under alternative 4, three stands (totaling 212 acres) are prescribed for heavy 

thinning of ponderosa pine (appendix C, descriptions and table C-2). These 

stands are heavily infected with annosus root disease, and dwarf mistletoe in 

associate with cytospora canker. Projected canopy cover is displayed in section 

3.2.1, table 3.2-4. The effects of these proposed treatments on NSO and NGH

territories were analyzed and disclosed in sections 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.4. Burn 

probability is decreased with alternative 4 when compared to the other analyzed 

alternatives (see table 3.2-12 and figure 3.2-1). 

L3 c12

Fir Encroachment

While we support thinning from below so-as to reduce white-fir encroachment, 

please note that harvest aimed at reducing various tree diseases and parasites 

has been shown to have the opposite effect in many instances. Indeed, 

disturbance agents that create small patches of dead trees are important for a 

myriad of species and ecological processes. This is how ecologically beneficial 

variability is introduced in these forests, particularly in the absence of fire.

The Hi Grouse project should differentiate between areas where mixed conifer 

forests make up the reference condition and where pine forests are the natural 

vegetation. There should be consideration for the natural presence of white fir 

and large white fir trees should be retained in the mixed conifer settings. 

Generally, the agency can accomplish forest health and fuels reduction goals 

without removing the boles of large white fir from a forest stand

[5] The existing condition and need for change within the white fir/ponderosa 

pine community is discussed in section 1.3.1, with additional discussion in 

section 3.2.1 under affected environment. Detailed prescriptions are located in 

appendix C, Large white fir and red fir trees are retained in all treatments. 

Reductions in white fir are proposed where ponderosa pine was historically the 

dominant species, and where root disease is prevalent. White fir and red fir 

would be thinned where it is healthy—the objective is not to eliminate these 

species, but to increase the proportion of pines that have been reduced through 

logging and blister rust infection. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−40

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

L3 c14

Red Fir Mortality and Forest Health/Fuel Loadings

Patch-scale tree mortality observed in the analysis area is consistent with 

historical stand development patterns recorded in other Abies magnifica forests 

unaffected by fire suppression or other silvicultural management. Stand 

development in red fir forest occurs both through episodic and continuous 

seedling recruitment, which is a function of periodic disturbance and the ability 

of red fir to colonize small gaps in the forest (Taylor and Halpern 1991). Red fir 

can establish in the partial shade of small canopy gaps or in the more severe 

microclimates of larger gaps (Selter et al. 1986). According to Agee (1993), the 

most important small-scale disturbances that promote red fir regeneration or the 

release of understory saplings include Indian paint fungus (Echinodontium 

tinctorium) or fir engraver beetle (Scolytus ventralis). Old-growth stands at 

Castle Point near Crater Lake featured red firs of various ages up to 525 years 

with a pronounced 30-to-60-year-old cohort that probably established in a group 

release after canopy gap creation by one or more such disturbance agents 

(Agee 1993). Thus, disease and beetle kill are intrinsic to the adapted gap 

dynamics of red fir forests.

The DEIS should address the findings contained in Chappell and Agee, 1996, 

Fire Severity and Tree Seedling Establishments in Abies Magnifica Forests, 

Southern Cascades, Oregon. Ecological Applications, Vol. 6, No. 2 (May 1996), 

628. A copy of this study accompanied our scoping comments of January 2008, 

but was not addressed in the text of the DEIS.

[5] Appendix C, table C-2 lists all stands identified for treatment, along with 

stand species composition information. Relatively little treatment is proposed in 

red fir stands, and all treatments would leave most of the existing stocking. 

Units that had been previously logged are infected with annosus root disease, 

and most of the original pine stocking has been removed by logging and blister 

rust. 

The Silvicultural Report (Schantz 2009) considered information from Chappell 

and Agee (1996) regarding fire regimes. The findings of Chappell and Agee 

(1996) support the conclusion that these forests had a mixed-severity fire 

regime with fire return intervals ranging from 16 to 65 years, which maintained 

the pine species as a component of this type.

Wildlife
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–41

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

L2 c8

The excuse of portions of the project being in an LSR, critical habitat 

designation, and nesting/roosting habitat is not valid reason to reduce 

treatments. The following highlights direction/guidance from the NWFP 

concerning treatments within LSR’s. These statements are applicable to the 

East of the Cascades and in the Oregon and California Provinces. They are 

found on Page C-13 of the NWFP.

“In some Late-Successional Reserves in these provinces, management that 

goes beyond these guidelines may be considered. Levels of risk in those LateSuccessional Reserves are particularly high and may require additional 

measures. Consequently, management activities designed to reduce risk levels 

are encouraged in those Late-Successional Reserves even if a portion of the 

activities must take place in currently late-successional habitat. While riskreduction efforts should generally be focused on young stands, activities in 

older stands may be appropriate if: (1) the proposed management activities will 

clearly result in greater assurance of long-term maintenance of habitat, (2) the 

activities are clearly needed to reduce risks, and (3) the activities will not 

prevent the Late-Successional reserves from playing an effective role in the 

objectives for which they were established.”

Analysis of NSO and NGH, species associated with the late successional 

habitats located in the project area are found at sections 2.6, 3.2.3.2, and 

3.2.3.7. The Late-Successional Reserve (#5297) within the project area was 

identified as part of the NSO critical habitat subunit 67. Management of the 

NSO critical habitat was developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (section 3.9). 

L3 c22

[L3 page 15] Neotropical Migratory Birds

The DEIS for this project failed to fully analyze and disclose the potential 

impacts of conifer thinning operations on neotropical bird population trends. The 

DEIS lacks qualitative or quantitative numbers and analysis needed for the 

public to make informed comments or the decision maker to make an informed 

decision regarding the impacts of the proposed logging on neotropical bird 

species.

[5] Information about anticipated effects to migratory birds was summarized in 

section 3.2.3.7 from the Management Indicator Species Report part II

(Oechsner 2010e) and the Migratory Bird and Deer Report (Oechsner 2010f). 

These reports are incorporated by reference and available on the Forest 

Internet Web site at: www.fs.usda.gov/klamath. 

Habitat information applicable to neotropical migratory birds was considered 

from the Management Indicator Species Report part II; specifically tables 11 

and 12 provide supporting habitat information applicable to black-backed 

woodpeckers and mature ponderosa pine associates. A summary of the 

anticipated effects appears in section 3.2.3.7. 

No detectable adverse impacts to migratory birds are anticipated and the 

project will have several future beneficial effects on migratory bird populations.

See the Management Indicator Species Report and the Migratory Bird and Deer

Report for additional details. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−42

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

L3 c13

[L3 page 4] Please also consider future snag/large woody debris requirements 

when determining when and where you would cut larger diameter trees (>16” 

DBH). The Forest Service should consider snag creation (girdling, hot burns, 

etc) and leaving large logs on site, instead removing large wood from the stand 

identified in the DEIS. This is particularly important given that “thinning and fuel 

reduction treatments would result in short-term impacts to some important 

northern spotted owl habitat elements such as canopy cover and down woody 

debris.” (Hi Grouse Scoping Notice page 9.)

[5] Snags and down woody debris are discussed under migratory birds in 

sections 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.7. Project design features include WL-9 to retain 

snags to meet forest plan direction (see section 2.2.5). 

L3 c17

[L3 pages 10-12] Management Indicator Species (MIS) And Sensitive Species

[L3 page10] The DEIS establishes that the Forest Service is relying on MIS 

habitat modeling and not conducting any surveys or population monitoring as 

required by NFMA. Indeed, the DEIS contains no actual analysis of the current 

status or potential impacts of the project on MIS populations.

L3 page 12] ... The Klamath Land Resource Management Plan requires that 

“Project areas should be surveyed for the presence of sensitive species before 

project implementation.” ROD Standards and Guidelines p. 6-8; LRMP p. 4-23. 

“If surveys cannot be conducted, project areas should be assessed for the 

presence and conditions of sensitive species habitat . . .”ROD Standards and 

Guidelines p. 6-8.

Nowhere in DEIS or project file in general, is there an explanation for why these 

surveys cannot be conducted for sensitive and MIS species such as Red 

Breasted Sapsuckers, White-headed woodpeckers, Vaux’s swifts, Pileated 

woodpeckers or Black-backed woodpeckers. These “snag-associated” MIS 

species will lose habitat due to proposed logging of dead and dying trees in 

logging units, in proposed road locations, in landings, and along haul routes. 

Population numbers and trends have not been analyzed by the agency.

L3 page 12] ... Population treads for these species were not disclosed. Indeed, 

the agency has made no effort to determine whether these species are present 

in the planning area, let alone the trend of their populations. (See DEIS page 

73).

The agency does not provide any analysis or data on current populations of MIS 

to support its conclusion that the viability of these species is not likely to be 

threatened by the snag removal and road construction proposed in the timber 

sale.

[5] Monitoring requirements in chapter 5 of the Klamath National Forest LRMP 

do not require population monitoring or surveys on any management indicator 

species except for steelhead and rainbow trout. For management indicator 

species listed in the LRMP (pp 4-38 to 4-41), project-level management 

indicator species effects analyses are informed by project- and landscape-scale 

habitat analysis. Project-level effects on management indicator species are 

analyzed and disclosed as part of environmental analysis under NEPA. This 

involves examining impacts of the proposed project alternatives on 

management indicator species habitat by discussing how direct, indirect, and 

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

landscape and project area (LRMP, p 4-39). 

Effects to sensitive species and management indicator species are summarized 

in section 3.2.3. Habitat effects were evaluated in the Biological Evaluation

(Oechsner 2010c) and Management Indicator Species Report parts I and II 

(Oechsner 2010d, e). These reports are incorporated by reference and 

available on the Forest Web site. 

Project design features at section 2.2.5 include items to maintain snags (VEG-2,

WL-9, WL-10, and WL-13).Available survey information was analyzed for NSO,, 

NGH, and American marten. Species were assessed based on the presence 

and conditions of sensitive species habitat. Survey or research information 

considered was briefly discussed at section 3.2.3.2 for northern spotted owl, 

section 3.2.3.3 for American marten, and section 3.2.3.4 for NGH. 

The management indicator species report part II considered additional 

information including the Klamath Bird Observatory, Redwood Sciences 

Laboratory, and Klamath National Forest Bird Monitoring Efforts at Antelope 

Creek 1994–2007 (Alexander et al. 2009). Andersen et al. (2004) noted that 

there are no reliable population trend data on NGH in the eastern United States.

Salvage of dead trees is only proposed in the lodgepole pine thinning/fuels 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–43

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

[L3 page 17] ... Northern Goshawk

Page 69 of the DEIS indicates that the Forest Service has not collected reliable 

population trend data for NGH. Why is this? This data-gap, combined with 

proposed habitat loss (via Alternative 4) threatens violations of NEPA and 

NFMA.

reduction. In all other treatments, dead trees would only be cut for safety 

reasons. No permanent road construction is proposed with this project.

L3 c18

[L3 pages 10-11] Page 77 of the DEIS states that “removing insect infected 

dead and dying trees affects the amount of available foraging and nesting 

habitat of black-backed woodpeckers over the long term,” yet makes no attempt 

to quantify or qualify the impacts of the project on this MIS species. This lack of 

analysis and disclosure is present of the snag associate and mature ponderosa 

pine associate MIS species in the planning area (see DEIS page 76).

[L3 page 11] ... Throughout the Wildlife BA/BE, and DEIS the Forest Service 

makes conclusory statements regarding the cumulative effects on management 

indicator and sensitive species not based on adequate quantitative data.

The Forest Service fails to address past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions effecting MIS in the project area.

The USFS fails to substantively address the cumulative watershed effects of all 

actions in the affected watersheds and the impact on MIS and instead discounts 

cumulative impacts as individually minor impacts without examining their 

collective significance. 

[L3 page 12] ... The DEIS not only fails to provide monitoring information for all 

MIS species, but also fails to adequately analyze cumulative and direct impacts 

to pallid and Townsend’s big-eared bats are not fully disclosed and analyzed.

[5] Forest plan standards and guidelines were developed to provide adequate 

habitat for species present. The project design features presented in table 2.2-

3, incorporate item WL-9 to meet forest plan direction for snags (Forest Plan p 

4-30). 

Effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were 

considered for all species. Cumulative effects are discussed under each 

species noted in section 3.2.3.1. 

Section 3.2.3.6 includes summary information from the Management Indicator 

Species Report Parts I and II (Oechsner 2010d, e). The report’s summary 

tables 11 and 12 provide supporting habitat information applicable to blackbacked woodpeckers and mature ponderosa pine associates. Section 3.2.3.7 

includes summary information from the Migratory Bird and Deer Report

(Oechsner 2010f). These reports are incorporated by reference and available 

on the Forest Internet Web site at: www.fs.usda.gov/klamath.

L3 c26

[L3 page 17] Please note that page 28 of the DEIS indicates that Alternative 4 

would remove 129 acres of NSO foraging habitat. However, page 65 of the 

DEIS indicates that Alternative 4 would remove 1,704 acres of foraging habitat. 

We hope that page 65 is in error. Either way, implementation of Alternative 4 

would directly inhibit the stated purpose of the project to improve and maintain 

late-successional suitable habitat. The removal of foraging habitat under 

Alternative 4 can be contrasted with Alternative 3 in which fuels concerns would 

be addressed via “light thinning from below treatments [that] would maintain 

NSO habitat in treated stands for the short and long term.” Clearly Alternative 3 

is preferable to Alternative 4 is this regard.

As stated on page 65 of the DEIS, “within the [NSO] home range the amount of 

[5] Table 2.6-1 displays the effects of alternatives on northern spotted owl

habitat within the KL-3201 Activity Center spatial analysis areas of 0.5 mile core 

and 1.3 mile home range. The analysis discussion under 3.2.3.2 notes effects 

across the project area spatial area, as well as the effects of the alternatives 

within the KL-3201 Activity Center spatial areas. These are different spatial 

scales and the information is correct. 

Effects to the northern spotted owl are discussed in section 3.2.3.2. Section 3.9 

notes that thorough analyses of federally listed species and consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been completed.
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−44

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

foraging habitat would decrease and the amount of non-habitat would increase 

after treatments due to stand density reductions.”

L3 c21

[L3 page 14] ... Attached to our January 2008 scoping comments was a peerreviewed article by Trombulack and Frissell (2000) detailing some of the 

negative impacts of road construction and use on Terrestrial and Aquatic 

ecosystems. The DEIS did not fully address and avoid the harmful impacts 

detailed in this study.

[L3 page 14] ... Please note that page 81 of the DEIS indicates that the project 

is located within the Goosenest AMA “critical deer fawning area.” Page 82 of the 

DEIS indicates that the east fawning area has an extreme road density of 4.3 

miles of road per square mile of forest. Yet neither action alternative proposes 

any road density reduction to address the needs of the critical deer fawning 

area.

[5] No new permanent road construction is proposed with this project. The 

majority of the temporary roads proposed are on previously disturbed areas. 

Temporary roads would not be placed remain on the transportation system. 

The overall effects to wildlife from the proposed project were summarized in 

section 3.2.3.1. The biological evaluation prepared for this project (Oechsner 

2010c) analyzed road impacts at pages 18, 31, 34-36, 51 and 79. The biological 

evaluation and migratory birds and deer analysis (Oechsner 2010f) discusses 

road impacts at pages 7, 11, 12, and 15. The migratory bird and deer analysis 

also notes the cover to forage ratio within the project area at page 7 of the 

report. “The project area is densely timbered with little foraging habitat existing 

beneath the canopy. Use of the project area and fawning habitat by deer is 

likely limited by the amount of forage and water available.” The biological 

evaluation and the migratory bird and deer reports are incorporated by 

reference. 

Effects to soils from disturbances, including roads, were analyzed and 

discussed in section 3.3.1, and noted to be within forest plan and SQAS 

standards and guidelines of 15 percent (USDA Forest service 2004). See also 

response to L3 c3 under roads. 

The Motorized Travel Management FEIS considered the Trombulak and Frissel 

(2000) paper within the effects discussions. The road effects discussed in the 

following excerpts from Motorized Travel Management FEIS (pages 261, 

295,391, 392, and 393) (USDA Forest Service 2010b) are applicable to the HiGrouse project area and are incorporated by reference. 

Wildlife and Fisheries

Management decisions related to motor vehicle travel can affect terrestrial 

species by increasing human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to 

disturbance, and modifying habitat (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulak and Frissell 

2000). 

It is Forest Service policy to minimize damage to vegetation, minimize 

harassment to wildlife, and minimize significant disruption of wildlife habitat 

while providing for motor vehicle use on NFS lands. 

Therefore, management decisions related to motor vehicle travel on NFS lands 

must consider effects to fish and their habitat. For purposes of this discussion, 

the term ―fish is used to include species as well as habitat. Habitat is 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–45

Comment/Letter # comment #, [Letter # page#] [Focus Point #] Response

considered to include both the stream environment and the associated riparian 

habitat. Therefore, management decisions related to motor vehicle travel on 

NFS lands must consider effects to wildlife and their habitat. 

In October 2006, Region 5 developed route designation project design criteria 

for threatened and endangered species and critical habitat to achieve ―no 

effect‖ or ―may affect not likely to adversely affect‖ determinations on a 

programmatic level. The Klamath National Forest was included in the 

programmatic consultation completed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on 

December 27, 2006, whereby the Service concurred that by following the 

criteria described, route designation activities would have no adverse affects.

Plants

Direct effects to plants include, but are not limited to: death or injury to plants 

and habitat modification, habitat fragmentation, decrease in habitat quality, 

including increased risk of weed introduction and spread, change in hydrology, 

increased erosion, compaction, and sediment, risk to pollinators, loss of 

vegetation, over collection, or other factors reducing or eliminating plant growth 

and reproduction (Trombulak and Frissell 2000).

Indirectly, vehicle impacts to soils can also contribute to roadside invasions of 

exotic plant species by reducing native plant vigor and creating areas of 

competition-free space that are open to invasion (Ouren et al. 2007; Trombulak 

and Frissell 2000). Any of these changes in soil properties can create conditions 

unsuitable for seedling development such that the sustainability or expansion of 

plant populations could be affected. This would be especially problematic with 

rare plant populations that are, by definition, limited in size or distribution. 

Dust from motor vehicle use has also been shown to decrease native plant 

cover and vigor by reducing rates of photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration 

(Spellerberg and Morrison 1998, in Ouren et al. 2007), and in some cases to 

alter community structure (Trombulak and Frissell 2000).

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–47

References for Public Comment Section

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington, DC. 493 

p. 

Agee, J.K. 1996. Influence of Forest Structure on Fire Behavior. Proceedings 17th Forest 

Vegetation Management Conference. p. 52−68. 

Agee, J.K.; Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic Principles of Forest Fuel Reduction Treatments. Forest 

Ecology and Management 211: 83–96. 

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

Laboratory and Klamath National Forest Bird Monitoring Efforts at Antelope Creek, 

1994−2007. Report Number KBO-2009-0011. Klamath Bird Observatory, Ashland, Oregon. 

Allen C.D.; Savage M.; Falk, D.A. [and others]. 2002. Ecological Restoration of Southwestern 

Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems: A Broad Perspective. Ecological Applications 12: 1418–1433. 

Ammon, V.; Patel, M.V. 2000. Annosum Root Rot. Ornamental and Tree Diseases, Plant Disease 

Dispatch Sheets. M-416. [http://msucares.com/lawn/tree_diseases/416annosum.html] 

Andersen, D.E.; Galley, K.E.M.; Crocker-Bedford, C.; [and others]. 2004. The Status of 

Northern Goshawks in the western United States. Technical Review 04-01, The Wildlife 

Society, Bethesda, MD. 24 p.

Angwin, P. 2008. Biological Evaluation of Insect and Disease Conditions in the Hi-Grouse 

Project Area, Goosenest Ranger District. FHP Report No. N09-02. 

Annesi, T., G. Curcio, L. D’Amico and E. Motta. 2005. Biological control of Heterobasidion

annosum on Pinus pinea by Phlebiopsis gigantea. Forest Pathology. 35(2): 127-134. 

Aslan, C.E.; Rejmánek, M. 2010. Avian Use of Introduced Plants: Ornithologist Records 

Illuminate Interspecific Associations and Research Needs. Ecological Applications 20(4): 

1005−1020. 

Baker, B. 2009c. Hi-Grouse Project Noxious Weed Assessment. USDA Forest Service.

Blakeslee, G.M.; Stambaugh, W.J. 1974. The Influence of Environment Upon the Physiology of 

Peniophora gigantea on Pinus taeda. Pages 266−274, In: Proceedings of the Fourth 

International Conference on Fomes annosus, Athens, Georgia, September 17−22, 1973. 

IUFRO, Section 24: Forest Protection. USDA Forest Service.

Bradley, B.A.; Blumenthal, D.M.; Wilcove, D.S.; Ziska, L.H. 2010. Predicting Plant Invasions in 

an Era of Global Change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25(5): 310−318. 

Chappell, C.B.; Agee, J.K. 1996. Fire Severity and Tree Seedling Establishment in Abies 

magnifica Forests, Southern Cascades, Oregon. Ecological Applications 6(2): 628–640. 

Chavez, T.D.; Edmonds, R.L.; Driver, C.H. 1980. Young-Growth Western Hemlock Stand 

Infection by Heterobasidion annosum 11 Years After Precommercial Thinning. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research 10: 389−394. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−48

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.

Edmonds, R.L.; Shaw, D.C.; Hsiang, T.; Driver, C.H. 1989. Impact of Precommercial Thinning 

on Development of Heterobasidion annosum in Western Hemlock. Pg. 85−94 In:

Proceedings of the Symposium on Research and Management of Annosus Root Disease in 

Western North America. General Technical Report GTR-PSW-116, USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Filip, G.M.; Schmitt, C.L.; Hosman, K.P. 1992. Effects of Harvesting Season and Stump Size on 

Incidence of Annosus Root Disease of True Fir. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 7: 

54−56. 

Filip, G.M.; Morrison, D.J. 1998. Chapter 23: North America. Pg. 405−427 In: Heterobasidion 

annosum: Biology, Ecology, Impact and Control. Woodward, J.; Stenlid, R.; [and others] eds.

CAB International.

Fites-Kaufman, J. 2008. Remarks at Summit on Wildfire Prevention, California State Rural 

Legislative Caucus, California State Capitol, August 13, 2008. 

Gaines, W.L.; Singleton, P.H.; Ross, R.C. 2003. Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Linear 

Recreation Routes on Wildlife Habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-586, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. Portland, OR. 79 p. 

Graham, D.A. 1971. Evaluation of Borax for Prevention of Annosus Root Rot in California. 

Plant Disease Reporter 55(6): 490−494.

Graham, R.T.; McCaffrey, S.; Jain, T.B. (tech. eds.). 2004. Science Basis for Changing Forest 

Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity. General Technical Report RMS-120, 

USDA Forest Service, Ft. Collins, CO.

Helmbrecht, D.; Kurth, L. 2009. Hi-Grouse Fire and Fuels Report. Fire and Fuel Specialists, Fire 

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

p. 

IPM of Alaska. 2002. Borax; Boric Acid, and Borates. Wasilla, Alaska. 

[http://www.homestead.com/ipmofalaska/files/Borates.html; site disabled]

James, R.L.; Cobb, F.W., Jr. 1984. Spore Deposition by Heterobasidion annosum in Forests of 

California. Plant Disease Reporter 68(3): 246−248. 

Kliejunas, J. T. 1989. Borax Stump Treatment for Control of Annosus Root Disease in the 

Eastside Pine Type Forests of Northeastern California. Pg. 159−166 In: Proceedings of the 

Symposium on Research and Management of Annosus Root Disease in Western North 

America. General Technical Report GTR-PSW-116, USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Mattson, D. 2009. Scenery Report for the Hi-Grouse Project. USDA Forest Service. 31 p. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–49

McNamara, M. 2009. Watershed Report for the Hi-Grouse Project. USDA Forest Service, 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit. 88 p. 

Morrison, D.J.; Johnson, A.L.S. 1999. Incidence of Heterobasidion annosum in Precommercial 

Thinning Stumps in Coastal British Columbia. European Journal of Forest Pathology 29: 

1−16. 

Nelson, E.E.; Li, C.Y. 1980. Preliminary Test of Two Stump Surface Protectants Against Fomes 

annosus. Research Note PNW-363, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and 

Range Experiment station. 6 p. 

Nohrstedt, H.; Westulund, A. 2000. Effects of Stump-treatment Substances for Root-rot Control 

on Ground Vegetation and Soil Properties in a Picea abies Forest in Sweden. Scandinavian 

Journal of Forest Research (Abstract). 

Odion, D.C.; Frost, E.J.; Strittholdt, J.R.; [and others]. 2004. Patterns of Fire Severity in the 

Western Klamath Mountains, California. Conservation Biology 18(4): 927−936. 

Oechsner, M. 2009. Survey and Manage Report for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project. 

USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

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

USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

Oechsner, M. 2010b. Northern Spotted Owl Biological Assessment of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 for 

the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project. USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

Oechsner, M. 2010c. Biological Evaluation for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project. 

USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

Oechsner, M. 2010d. Hi-Grouse Management Indicator Species, Part I Checklist. USDA Forest 

Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

Oechsner, M. 2010e. Management Indicator Species Report, Part II for the Hi-Grouse Forest 

Management Project. USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

Oechsner, M. 2010f. Migratory Bird and Deer Report for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management 

Project. USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

Office of the Federal Register. 2010. 36 CFR 219. National Archives and Record Administration, 

Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC. 

Ouren, D.S.; Haas, C.; Melcher, C.P.; [and others]. 2007. Environmental Effects of Off-Highway 

Vehicles on Bureau of Land Management Lands: A Literature Synthesis, Annotated 

Bibliographies, Extensive Bibliographies, and Internet Resources. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Open-File Report 2007-1353. 225 p. 

Peterson, D.L.; Johnson, M.C.; Agee, J.K.; [and others]. 2005. Forest Structure and Fire Hazard 

in Dry Forests of the Western United States. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-628, 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Pfeffer, L. 2009. Air Quality Report for the Hi-Grouse Project. USDA Forest Service, TEAMS 

Enterprise Unit. 34 p. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−50

Phelps, W.R.; Hodges, C.S., Jr., Russel, T.V. Undated. Background Document for Borax. 

Unpublished, USDA Forest Service document.

Phelps, W.R.; Wolfe, R.D.; Laird, P.P. Undated. Pilot Test: Evaluation of Fomes annosus Stump 

Treatments. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 13 p.

Pratt, J.E. 1999. PG Suspension for the Control of Fomes Root Rot of Pine. Forestry 

Commission. Edinburgh. Accessed on-line at 

[http://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/fcin18.pdf/$FILE/fcin18.pdf; on August 2, 2005] 

Pratt, J.E.; Niemi, M.; Sierota, Z.H. 2000. Comparison of Three Products Based on Phlebiopsis 

gigantea for the Control of Heterobasidion annosum in Europe. Biocontrol Science and 

Technology 10(4): 467−477. 

Reeves, M.C.; Ryan, K.C.; Rollins, M.G.; Thompson, T.G. 2009. Spatial Fuel Data Products of 

the LANDFIRE Project. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18: 250−267. 

Rishbeth, J. 1963. Stump Protection Against Fomes annosus. Inoculation with Peniophora 

gigantea. Annals of Applied Biology 52: 63−77. 

Rose, S.L.; Li, C.Y.; Hutchins, A.S. 1980. A Streptomycete Antagonist to Phellinus weirii, 

Fomes annosus, and Phytophthora cinnamomi. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 26(5): 

583−587. 

Russell, K.W.; Thompson, J.H.; Stewart, J.L.; Driver, C.H. 1973. Evaluation of Chemicals to 

Control Infection of Stumps by Fomes annosus in Precommercially Thinned Western 

Hemlock Stands. State of Washington Department of Natural Resources, DNR Report No. 

33. 16 p. 

Schantz, R. 2009. Silviculture Report for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project. USDA 

Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit.

Schmitt, C.L.; Parmeter, J.R.; Kliejunas, J.T. 2000. Annosus Root Disease of Western Conifers. 

Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 172, USDA Forest Service. 

Selter, C. M.; Pitts, W.D.; Barbour, M.G. 1986. Site Microenvironment and Seedling Survival of 

Shasta Red Fir. American Midland Naturalist 115: 288−300 p. 

Smith, R.S., Jr. 1970. Borax to Control Fomes annosus Infection of White Fir Stumps. Plant 

Disease Reporter 54: 872−875. 

Smith, R.S., Jr. 1989. History of Heterobasidion annosum in Western United States. Pg. 10−16 

In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Research and Management of Annosus Root Disease 

in Western North America. General Technical Report GTR-PSW-116, USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Stambaugh, W.J. 1989. Annosus Root Disease in Europe and the Southeastern United States: 

Occurrence, Research, and Historical Perspective. Pg. 3−9 In: Proceedings of the 

Symposium on Research and Management of Annosus Root Disease in Western North 

America. General Technical Report GTR-PSW-116, USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–51

Stephens, S.C. 1998. Evaluation of the Effects of Silvicultural and Fuels Treatments on Potential 

Fire Behaviour in Sierra Nevada Mixed-Conifer Forests. Forest Ecology and Management 

105(1): 21−35. 

Taylor, A.H.; Halpern, C.B. 1991. The Structure and Dynamics of Abies magnifica Forests in the 

Southern Cascade Range, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science 2: 189−200. 

Trombulack, S.C.; Frissell, C.A.. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14(1): 18−30. 

US EPA. 1993. R.E.D. Facts. Boric Acid. EPA-738-F-93_006. Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 

Substances. Accessed on-line at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0024fact.pdf.

US EPA. 2004. Toxicological Review of Boron Compounds. CAS No. 7440-42-8. Accessed online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0410-tr.pdf. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Borax, Pesticide Fact Sheet. November 1995. Prepared for USFS 

by Information Ventures, Inc. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Forest Service Manual 2080: Noxious Weed Management.

USDA Forest Service. 1995c. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as 

amended. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Noxious Weed Management Strategy. Pacific Southwest Region, 

Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis Process Paper: Quantitative 

Models for Surface Erosion, Mass Wasting and ERA/TOC. Developed by the Klamath 

National Forest watershed staff; on file at Klamath National Forest, 1312 Fairlane Rd., 

Yreka, CA. 96097. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Final Evaluation of Human and Ecological Risk For Borax Stump 

Treatments Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Borax (Sporax). 

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Bioenergy from Trees: Using Cost Effective Thinning to Reduce 

Forest Fuels Hazards. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Science Findings No. 117. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Region 5. FSH 3409.11, chapter 60. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Record of Decision Motorized Travel Management (formerly 

Motorized Route Designation). R5-MB-205b, Pacific Southwest Region, Klamath National 

Forest, California and Oregon. 33 p. + appendices.

van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1996. Use of a Deterministic Fire Growth Model to Test Fuel Treatments. 

Pp. 1155−1165 In: Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final 

Report to Congress, Volume II. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37, Center for Water 

and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis. 

Weatherspoon, C.P. 1996. Fire-Silviculture Relationships in Sierra Forests. In: Sierra Nevada 

Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, Volume II, chap. 44. Centers for Water and 

Wildland Resources, University of California.
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−52
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–53

Comment Letters

The seven comment letters appear in their entirety as follows. “L#” refers to the letter number, 

“c#” is the comment number. Comments were categorized by subject and responded to in table 

B-1 (previous). 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−54
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–55
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−56
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–57
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−58
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–59
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−60
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–61
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−62
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–63
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−64
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–65
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−66
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–67
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−68
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–69
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−70
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–71
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−72
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–73
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−74
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–75
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−76
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–77
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−78
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–79
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−80
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–81
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−82
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–83
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−84
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–85
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−86
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–87
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−88
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–89
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−90
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–91
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−92
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–93
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−94
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–95
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−96
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–97
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix−98
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–99

Appendix C: Detailed Prescriptions

The following prescriptions were used for the development of the proposed action and other 

alternatives, and are assigned to the GIS layer of potential units. The ID 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 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 were field verified. A field trip 

to the site with Forest Health Protection staff from Redding, California, confirmed the presence 

of suspected insect and disease agents, most notably annosus root disease, dwarf mistletoes, and 

mountain and western pine beetle (Angwin 2008). In many stands, an intermediate treatment is 

not an option due to the almost exclusive dominance of white fir on what were historically pinedominated sites—the removal of the pine and larger white fir has left diseased stands that would 

not respond to thinning- these stands were not included in the modified proposed action. 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. 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 pre-dominant true fir, widely spaced true fir, and no-treatment clumps. 

Unit numbers refer to the units in the modified proposed action, which became alternative 4. 

Some prescriptions are specific to alternative 3 and are noted as such. 

Silvicultural Prescriptions—Terms

HTH ~ thinning from below in stands consisting mostly of trees 9 to 24 in. dbh. Sawlogs and 

fiber would be removed and in most cases these treatments are 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. 

NSO ~ northern spotted owl.

Annosus root disease (Heterbasidion annosum) ~ S-type of disease affects white fir but not 

ponderosa pine. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–100

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 one acre in size where most trees are removed 

to provide biodiversity. These will not be clearcuts. 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. These 

openings will not be planted. 

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

provide nesting structure and biodiversity. 

Table C-1. Summary of treatment groupings

Treatments Prescriptions Terms

Thinning from Below HTH (all variations with-WF-PP-RF-MC), PCT2* 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuels 

Reduction

HTH-LP, LPFR

Plantation Thinning PCT

Overall Fuels Abatement WTY, BMR, HP, MP, M, Bundle/LS

Underburning Only UB

HTH-PP: Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11

This prescription will be applied to stands in the white fir/pine type with current stocking 

averages of at least 80 (square feet of) basal area per acre of ponderosa pine. The objective is to 

leave on average 80 basal area of ponderosa pine, ranging from 40 to 100 basal area. These 

stands would be dominated by the largest, healthiest ponderosa pine, with older white fir where 

they provide decadent-tree habitat. More open areas of pine will be thinned to 40 to 60 basal 

area, while denser areas will be thinned to 80 to 100 basal area to re-create structural patchiness. 

Disease-free white fir groups will be thinned to 100 to 140 basal area 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 of predominant fir and pines. 

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. Borax will be applied to ponderosa cut pine stumps in 

accordance with regional guidelines. Underburning will happen after fuels treatments are 

completed. HTH-PP-lite- alternative 3 only- Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 45a

This prescription modifies the units with the HTH-PP prescription in the modified proposed 

action to leave approximately 130 basal area (120 to 140 basal area) 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 15 to 25 foot spacing where they exist. 

HTH-WF-PP: Units 19, 21a, 22 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–101

White fir groups will be thinned to 120 to 140 basal area; 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 objectives are to reduce density, promote the remaining 

pine, and increase spatial variability.

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. 

Underburning will take place after mechanical fuels treatments are completed in unit 21a only. 

The fuels emphasis will be on whole-tree yarding (removing tops) in all units, and piling and 

burning of natural fuels accumulations where necessary. Borax will be applied to cut white fir 

and ponderosa pine stumps in accordance with regional guidelines. 

HTH-WF-PP-lite- Alternative 3 only- Units 19, 21a, 22, 23, 24, 25b, 29 

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

180 basal area (160 to 200 basal area) 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 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 basal area

(160 to 200 basal area) 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.

Trees removed will generally be 12 inch dbh and smaller. The primary objectives of this 

treatment are to reduce stand density to help maintain ponderosa pine, reduce ladder fuels, and 

provide future goshawk nesting habitat structure in the stand. 

The fuels emphasis will be removing tops and piling and burning of natural fuels accumulations 

where needed. Borax will be applied to cut white fir and ponderosa pine stumps in accordance 

with regional guidelines.

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO: Unit 24

This prescription modifies the HTH-WF-PP prescription to leave approximately 180 basal area

(160 to 200 basal area) 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 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 ponderosa pine, reduce ladder fuels, and maintain habitat 

structure in the stand. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–102

The fuels emphasis will be whole-tree yarding (removing tops) and piling and burning of natural 

fuels accumulations where needed. Borax will be applied to cut white fir and ponderosa pine 

stumps in accordance with regional guidelines.

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

This prescription will be applied to heavily-diseased stands of white fir/pine with current 

stocking averages at least 50 basal area ponderosa pine. 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 dense areas where pines would be thinned 

down to 80 basal area. The target stand will have a residual 40 to 80 basal area of ponderosa 

pine. These stands would be dominated by the largest, healthiest ponderosa pine with older white 

fir where they provide characteristics that mimic old-growth habitat. 

Clumps of white fir will be left in areas without pines to retain a high short-term canopy cover 

and coarse woody debris on up to 15 percent of unit. Outside the clumps, other patches of white 

fir will be thinned to 40 to 60 basal area 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 of the dominant trees. Openings of 1⁄4 to 1 acre will be created in white fir disease centers in 

up to 15 percent of the unit area. Units will be evaluated post-treatment for planting. Pine 

generally will not be planted in the gaps created by this prescription in order to encourage open 

“clumpy” structure. After mechanical fuels treatments are completed, the stand will be 

underburned. Borax will be applied to cut ponderosa pine stumps in accordance with regional 

guidelines. 

HTH-RF-lite

This prescription would leave approximately 180 basal area (160 to 200 basal area) and 60 

percent canopy cover where that amount or more currently exists in stands dominated by Shasta 

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

to 25 foot spacing where they exist, leaving ponderosa pine, red fir, and lodgepole. There will be 

no created openings. Red fir, ponderosa pine, and younger age classes of lodgepole pine would 

compose the residual stand. No-treatment clumps will be left in up to 10 percent of the unit, with 

emphasis on areas dominated by true fir. Borax will be applied to cut true fir stumps in 

accordance with regional guidelines.

HTH-MC-Hvy: Units 18, 28 

Thinning to a target basal area of 80 basal area, but may be as low as 50 basal area 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 leave trees. 

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

and coarse wood on up to 15 percent of unit where amount exists. Outside the clumps, other 

patches of true fir will be thinned to 40 to 60 basal area to allow pine regeneration. Openings of 

1⁄4 to 1 acres will be created in true fir/lodgepole disease centers in up to 15 percent of the unit 

area. Pine will not be planted in the gaps. Areas of thinned true fir without residual pine will be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–103

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

treatments. Borax will be applied to cut true fir stumps in accordance with regional guidelines. 

HTH-MC-lite: Alternative 3 only- Units 18, 28, 30

This prescription modifies the HTH-MC-HVY prescription to leave approximately 140 basal 

area (120 to 160 basal area) 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 15 to 

25 foot spacing where they exist, leaving ponderosa pine, red fir, and lodgepole. 

PCT2-MC: Units 44, 55, 58 

Thinning/removal of trees generally less than 12 inches dbh to 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. 

Borax will be applied to cut true fir stumps in accordance with regional guidelines. 

PCT2-NGH: Unit 30

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. The objective here is to thin the understory to 

maintain and promote goshawk nesting/foraging habitat over time. Borax will be applied to cut 

true fir stumps in accordance with regional guidelines. 

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

Thinning 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. Objectives are to reduce fire hazard, manage stand density, 

reduce dwarf mistletoes, and promote pines and red fir in the species composition. Borax will 

not be applied due to the small cut tree diameters.

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

Small tree thinning in the understory of old-growth red fir-sugar pine-ponderosa pine stands with 

a dense red fir understory. Objectives are to reduce fire hazard and stress on overstory trees to 

maintain these legacy stands. Treatment will consist of hand piling of cut trees 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 

alternatives 2 and 3, underburning to re-introduce fire into a mixed-severity fire regime will

occur after hand-piling and burning treatments. Borax will not be applied due to the small cut 

tree diameters.

HTH-LP: Units 12a, 13 

Useable timber from dead and diseased green trees will be removed. Grapple piling of large 

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

white fir and ponderosa pine will occur. The end result would be an open pole-sized stand with a 

few 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. Borax will not be 

applied due to the small cut tree diameters, and cutting primarily of lodgepole. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–104

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 will be done as 

needed. Under alternative 4 machine piling outside of landing areas may occur 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.

Whole-tree yarding (WTY) ~ Tree tops will be moved to the landing for treatment (reoffer as 

forest by-products or burning) through whole-tree yarding. This would reduce fuel levels 

resulting from thinning operations. 

Biomass removal (BMR) ~ 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. 

Piling and burning (HP, MP) ~ 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 allsurface vehicle) 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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–105

Lopping and scattering (LS) ~ 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.

Mowing (M) ~ 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. 

Underburning (UB) ~ Prescribed fire will be used in varying intensities either as a stand-alone

treatment 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. 

Fuel Management Zones (FMZ) ~ 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 and burning of fuels concentrations. Under 

alternative 4 machine piling may occur outside of landing areas. Treatments will extend up to 

150 feet either side of the road. 

Due to critical habitat designation and nesting/roosting NSO habitat along FR 77 only trees less 

than 8 inches dbh will be removed and leave trees will be variably spaced except where openings 

exist. Some areas will be left clumpy for dispersal and habitat needs, while other areas can be 

more open. Trees less than 10 inches dbh will be removed/spaced along the other FMZ roads in 

the project area. 

Table C-2 lists treatments by unit under all alternatives.
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–106

Table C-2. Stand treatments by alternative

Unit_

No

Unit_

Subdiv Silv_Rx Fuels_Rx Spp_Comp Acres Applicable Project Design Features from Table 2-5

Alternative 3

1 1 HTH-PP-lite WTY/M/UB PP 31 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

2 2 HTH-PP-lite WTY/M/UB PP-WF 129 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

3 3 HTH-PP-lite WTY/PCT2 PP-WF-LP 58 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10;

VIS8-12; WL 2-3, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

4 4 HTH-PP-lite WTY/M/UB PP 57 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2-3, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

5 5 UB UB PP-WF-LP 92 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

6 6 HTH-PP-lite WTY/UB WF-PP-LP 78 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

7 7 HTH-PP-lite WTY/UB WF-PP 175 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

9 9 PCT2 HP PP-WF-LP 16 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

10 10 UB UB WF-PP 42 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; 

VEG10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

11 11 UB UB WF-PP 193 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; 

VEG10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

12 12a HTH-LP WTY/PCT2/M LP-WF-PP 245 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS1-12; WL 2-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

12 12b LPFR WTY/PCT2 LP 256 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

13 13 HTH-LP WTY/PCT2/M LP-WF-RF 183 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12;WL 2-10,12,13; WS1-17

17 17 PCT2 HP LP-WF-PP 29 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; WL 

2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–107

Unit_

No

Unit_

Subdiv Silv_Rx Fuels_Rx Spp_Comp Acres Applicable Project Design Features from Table 2-5

18 18 HTH-MC-lite WTY/PCT2 PP-WF-LP 204 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3;REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

19 19 HTH-WF-PP-lite WTY/BMR WF-PP 154 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; 

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

20 20 UB UB WF-PP 109 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3;VEG10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

21 21a HTH-WF-PP-lite WTY/BMR WF-PP 188 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

21 21b PCT2 WTY WF-PP 44 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3;REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

22 22 HTH-WF-PP-lite WTY/BMR WF-PP 211 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

23 23 HTH-WF-PP-lite WTY/BMR WF-PP 32 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; 

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

24 24 HTH-WF-PP-lite WTY/BMR WF-PP 72 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

25 25b HTH-WF-PP-lite WTY/BMR WF-PP 25 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

28 28 HTH-MC-lite WTY/PCT2/UB WF-PP 35 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

29 29 HTH-WF-PP-lite WTY/BMR WF-PP 37 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 1-2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

30 30 HTH-MC-lite WTY WF-RF-LP-PP 56 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; W-2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

32 32 PCT Bundle/LS LP-WF-PP 25 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

35 35b HTH-RF-lite WTY WF-PP-LP-RF 86 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

37 37 PCT2-OG-RF HP/UB RF-WF-LP 116 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

41 41 PCT2-OG-RF HP/UB RF-PP-SP 64 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–108

Unit_

No

Unit_

Subdiv Silv_Rx Fuels_Rx Spp_Comp Acres Applicable Project Design Features from Table 2-5

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL1- 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

44 44 PCT2-MC WTY RF-WF 45 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

45 45a HTH-PP-lite WTY/UB WF-PP-RF 61 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3;REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

46 46 PCT Bundle/LS LP-PP 28 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

48 48 PCT Bundle/LS PP-LP 30 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

52 52 PCT Bundle/LS LP-WF-PP 15 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

53 53a UB UB PP-WF 42 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

53 53b PCT2 WTY/UB WF-PP 37 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

55 55 PCT2-MC WTY/M RF-WF-LP-PP 37 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12;WL 2,4-10,12,13; WS1-17

58 58 PCT2-MC WTY RF-LP-PP 10 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

59 59 PCT2 HP/UB PP-WF 6 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

Alternative 4

1 1 HTH-PP WTY/M/UB PP 31 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

2 2 HTH-PP WTY/M/UB PP-WF 129 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

3 3 HTH-PP WTY/PCT2/MP/UB PP-WF-LP 58 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2-3, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

4 4 HTH-PP WTY/M/UB PP 57 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2-3, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

5 5 HTH-PP WTY/PCT2/M/UB PP-WF-LP 92 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–109

Unit_

No

Unit_

Subdiv Silv_Rx Fuels_Rx Spp_Comp Acres Applicable Project Design Features from Table 2-5

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

6 6 HTH-PP WTY/MP/UB WF-PP-LP 78 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

7 7 HTH-PP WTY/MP/UB WF-PP 175 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

9 9 PCT2 HP PP-WF-LP 16 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

10 10 HTH-PP-Hvy WTY/MP/UB WF-PP 42 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

11 11 HTH-PP WTY/MP/UB WF-PP 116 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

12 12a HTH-LP WTY/PCT2/MP/M LP-WF-PP 545 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS1-12; WL 2-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

12 12b LPFR WTY/PCT2/MP LP 256 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS1-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

13 13 HTH-LP WTY/PCT2/MP/M LP-WF-RF 183 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

17 17 PCT2 HP/MP LP-WF-PP 29 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

18 18 HTH-MC-Hvy WTY/PCT2/MP/UB PP-WF-LP 204 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

19 19 HTH-WF-PP WTY/BMR/MP WF-PP 154 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

20 20 HTH-PP-Hvy WTY/PCT2/MP/UB WF-PP 109 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

21 21a HTH-WF-PP WTY/BMR/MP/UB WF-PP 188 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

21 21b PCT2 WTY/MP WF-PP 44 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

22 22 HTH-WF-PP WTY/BMR/MP WF-PP 211 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–110

Unit_

No

Unit_

Subdiv Silv_Rx Fuels_Rx Spp_Comp Acres Applicable Project Design Features from Table 2-5

23 23 HTH-WF-PP-liteNGHWTY/BMR/MP WF-PP 32 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

24 24 HTH-WF-PP-liteNSOWTY/BMR/MP WF-PP 72 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

25 25b HTH-WF-PP-liteNGHWTY/BMR/MP WF-PP 25 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

28 28 HTH-MC-Hvy WTY/PCT2/MP/UB WF-PP 35 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

29 29 HTH-WF-PP-liteNGHWTY/BMR/MP WF-PP 37 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 1-2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

30 30 PCT2-NGH WTY/MP WF-RF-LP-PP 56 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 1-2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

32 32 PCT Bundle/LS LP-WF-PP 25 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

35 35b HTH-RF-lite WTY WF-PP-LP-RF 86 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

37 37 PCT2-OG-RF HP RF-WF-LP 116 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

41 41 PCT2-OG-RF HP RF-PP-SP 64 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 1-2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

44 44 PCT2-MC WTY/MP RF-WF 45 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

45 45a HTH-PP-Hvy WTY/MP/UB WF-PP-RF 61 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

46 46 PCT Bundle/LS LP-PP 28 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

48 48 PCT Bundle/LS PP-LP 30 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

52 52 PCT Bundle/LS LP-WF-PP 15 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

53 53a UB UB PP-WF 42 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG10; 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–111

Unit_

No

Unit_

Subdiv Silv_Rx Fuels_Rx Spp_Comp Acres Applicable Project Design Features from Table 2-5

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

53 53b PCT2 WTY/MP/UB WF-PP 37 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

55 55 PCT2-MC WTY/MP/M RF-WF-LP-PP 37 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

58 58 PCT2-MC WTY/MP RF-LP-PP 10 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

59 59 PCT2 HP/UB PP-WF 6 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–113

Appendix D: Hi-Grouse Best Management 

Practices (BMPs)

Best management practices (BMPs) are measures certified by the State Water Quality Board and 

approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the most effective way of protecting 

water quality from impacts stemming from non-point sources of pollution. Effective application 

of the Region 5 U.S. Forest Service BMPs has been found to maintain water quality in 

conformance with the Water Quality Objectives in the North Coast Regional Water Quality 

Control Board Basin Plan. These practices have been applied in timber sales and road 

construction projects across the KNF over the last 25 years and have been found to be effective 

in protecting water quality. 

The Region 5 Forest Service BMPs have been monitored and modified since their original 

implementation in 1979 to make them more effective. Numerous onsite evaluations by the North 

Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board have found the practices to be successful in 

maintaining water quality and protecting beneficial uses. 

The Forest monitors the implementation and effectiveness of BMPs on randomly selected 

projects each year. BMP effectiveness requirements were met on 90–100 percent of the sites 

sampled in 2000–2008. The success rate for effectiveness has been in the high 80s and 90s each 

year since 1993. Results of this monitoring can be found on the KNF webpage.

The complete list of BMPs was evaluated and the following BMPs were determined applicable 

to the Hi-Grouse Project. These BMPs would be implemented as part of the Hi-Grouse Project 

during implementation of the proposed action. A description of the objective of each BMP is 

included, as well as how this practice would be implemented in this project. These BMPs assist 

the timber sale administrator in implementing the specifications, BT and CT provisions of the 

timber sale contract. Where applicable, BT provisions of the timber sale contract (April 2008 

issue) are referenced under the BMP description. In addition, the EIS contains a detailed 

description of specific measures—project design features—that would be implemented to 

prevent resource damage. There are no perennial waterways in the project area and no fisheries 

would be impacted from project activities. Watershed specialists in hydrology, soils, and 

geology, along with the ID team, developed the BMPs for this project.

BMP 1.1 – Timber Sale Planning Process: Requires the ID team to incorporate water quality 

and hydrologic considerations into the timber sale planning process. 

• A hydrologist and soil scientist were assigned to the project and participated in the 

interdisciplinary process for this project.

• Project-wide as well as site-specific water quality protection measures were developed 

and incorporated into the project as part of the project design features.

• These project design features are incorporated into the timber sale contract and sale area 

map.

• The following are overall guiding principles that were used to formulate the more sitespecific project design features:

o Skidding equipment and tractor piling would be generally restricted to slopes <35 

percent. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–114

o Track mounted masticators/mowers can operate on slopes up to 35 percent. 

o Existing landings and skid trails would be reused whenever practical.

o Tractor skidding would be restricted to designated skid trails.

o Temporary roads would be blocked and hydrologically restored after use, but prior 

to first winter after use. Hydrologically restored includes reshaping road prism to be 

self-maintaining (for example, leaving no structures that move water and could fail, 

outsloping, ripping of the roadbed, seeding, straw mulching, etc.). The amount of 

work to be done is site-specific and would be included in the roads contract package 

for this project.

BMP 1.2 – Timber Harvest Unit Design: Requires the ID team to consider methods of reducing 

water quality impacts, maintaining desirable stream channel characteristics and watershed 

conditions that are incorporated into the design of harvest units. 

• Project soil scientist and hydrologist field inspected and verified existing conditions 

within the project area and adjacent areas as necessary per their resource. Unit design 

parameters were developed from these onsite field inspections.

• No new constructed (full bench) skid trails would be built. 

BMP 1.3 – Determination of Surface Erosion Hazard for Timber Harvest Unit Design: 

Identify high erosion hazard areas in order to adjust resource protection measures to prevent 

downstream water quality degradation. 

Surface soil erosion hazard is determined by evaluating four site factors: soil erodibility, runoff 

production, runoff energy, and percent soil cover. Based on field review, the Forest soil scientist 

determined the surface erosion hazard for each treatment unit and prescribed logging systems 

and soil cover recommendations based upon the soil’s erosion hazard. 

• Post-treatment soil cover to be met before the fall rainy season is prescribed by unit in 

the project soils report (Laurent 2006). 

BMP 1.4 – Use of Sale Area Maps (SAM) and Project Maps for Designating Water Quality 

Protection: This ensures that areas with watershed concerns (streams, wetlands, unstable land) 

would be identified as part of the timber sale contract to assist the purchaser and timber sale 

administrator in applying protection methods. The following items are identified on the SAM. 

• Harvest unit boundaries. 

• All protected stream courses identified as stream management zones, would be 

illustrated on the sale area map (SAM). The width of the SMZ protection zone would be 

prescribed for each stream. 

• Water drafting sites would be located on the SAM at Forest Service designated sites 

where water quality impacts can be controlled and minimized. 

• Sources of rock for road aggregate riprap and borrow material. 

The following items may be identified on a separate project map and/or harvest activity cards for 

use by the TSA: 

• Specified temporary roads and landings. 

BMP 1.5 – Limiting Operating Period of Timber Sale: To ensure that the purchasers conduct 

their operations, including erosion control work and road maintenance work, in a timely manner 

within the time specified in the timber sale contract. There is no specific limited operating 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–115

period specified for watershed protection, although there are several limiting operating periods

for wildlife. 

• When stormy weather is predicted, TSAs would be onsite to insure that winterization 

procedures are implemented in a timely fashion and to initiate shutdown or resume 

operations. Operations would not resume until suitable weather, soil, and forecast 

conditions exist.

• The timber sale contract would be used to guide operations, especially haul, during 

periods of wet weather. Earth scientists would be available upon request by the TSA to 

examine field conditions to determine when the soil and/or roads have dried out enough 

to enable operations to resume without risk of watershed impacts. The earth scientist 

would make recommendations to the TSA who would provide direction to the timber 

sale contractor as to when operations may resume.

• Landings and roads may be rocked and graded as necessary to prevent off-site erosion, 

and to disperse water. 

BMP 1.8 – Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) Designation: Designates zones along 

riparian areas, streams, and wetlands that would minimize potential for adverse effects from 

adjacent management activities. 

• This BMP only applies to the water drafting site along Antelope Creek located on private 

land outside of the project area. 

• There are no SMZs within the project area. 

• The SMZ as the drafting site includes the stream channel, stream banks (bank full flow), 

riparian vegetation and extends from 20 to 50 feet beyond the riparian vegetation and/or 

bank full flow zone. 

BMP 1.9 – Determining Tractor Loggable Ground: To minimize erosion and sedimentation 

resulting from ground disturbance of tractor and ground-based logging systems. 

• The erosion hazard rating, percent slope distribution, and soil displacement rating were 

all used to evaluate tractor units for their response to using ground-based mechanical 

logging systems. The Forest soil scientist field reviewed each tractor log unit in order to 

verify that they were reasonable to tractor log from a soil resource perspective. The 

erosion hazard rating was also a factor in determining the reasonableness of tractor use.

• Skidding equipment (track or rubber tired) and tractor piling would be generally 

restricted to slopes <35 percent. 

• Track-mounted masticators or mowers can operate on slopes up to 45 percent. 

BMP 1.10 – Tractor Skidding Design: Designs tractor skid patterns to best fit the terrain to 

better control potential runoff by avoiding over-steepened areas, designating tractor crossings, 

and minimizes skid patterns in sensitive areas to reduce erosion and sedimentation. 

• The purchaser and timber sale administrator (TSA) would locate skid trails jointly or the 

purchaser would identify skid trails subject to the TSA’s approval prior to use. 

• The 35 percent slope limitation, the general topography within the unit, riparian areas, 

and presence of existing skid trails are all factors that are considered in laying out skid 

trails. 

• Reuse existing skid trails when ever practicable. 

• Refer to BMP 1.1 and 1.2 for skidding and skid trail practices. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–116

• All skid trails would be water-barred to minimize soil erosion following the guidelines in 

the timber Sale Administration Handbook (61.42d – Exhibit 01, R5 Supplement 

2409.15-94-3, p. 2). 

• Skid trails that intersect Forest roads would be obliterated at the intersection by 

reshaping the slope, mulching with weed-free straw or slash the first 25 feet of the skid 

trail (from the intersection).

BMP 1.11 – Suspended Log Yarding in Timber Harvesting: Protects the soil mantle from 

excessive disturbance and maintains the integrity of the streamside management zone and other 

sensitive watershed areas.

• Ground-based skidding will use one-end suspension (suspend the lead end of logs) to 

minimize soil disturbance.

BMP1.12 – Log Landing Location: To locate new landings or reuse old landings in such a way 

as to avoid watershed impacts and associated water quality degradation. 

• Existing landings would be reused whenever possible. 

• New and old landings would be selected for use that involves the least amount of 

excavation, and the least erosion potential. 

BMP 1.13 – Erosion Prevention and Control Measures during Timber Sale Operations: 

Ensures that the purchaser’s operations shall be conducted reasonably to minimize soil erosion. 

• Erosion control measures (BMPs) are discussed during the pre-operations meeting with 

the purchaser and the Forest Service. They are updated throughout the operations phase 

of the timber sale.

• Storms may temporarily suspend operations to insure BMP compliance and to avoid 

adverse impacts to beneficial uses (fisheries, wildlife habitat, and recreation, etc.).

• See BMP 1.5 for TSA responsibilities and measures when stormy weather is predicted.

BMP 1.16 – Log Landing Erosion Prevention and Control: The objective of this BMP is to 

reduce erosion and prevent subsequent sedimentation from log landings. The timber sale 

contract provides for erosion prevention and control measures on all landings. 

• See BMP 1.1 and 1.12. 

• Landings would be shaped to disperse drainage, eliminate ponding of water, and direct 

runoff away from watercourses/swales at the time of preparation for use. Rock armoring 

of fills, silt fences, straw bales, etc., may be used as necessary direct water to areas of 

suitable drainage and to capture sediment. 

• Any landings used during wet weather that have the potential to deposit sediment in 

channels/swales will use any of the above mentioned erosion control measures to 

minimize erosion and control runoff. 

BMP 1.17 – Erosion Control on Skid Trails: Employs preventative measures, during the 

operations phase of the project, such as water bars, mulching, spreading slash, or chipping to 

reduce water concentration and erosion. 

Erosion control measures on skid trails are two-fold: (1) prevent road or landing runoff from 

concentrating onto skid trails and (2) control potential runoff on skid trails. Erosion control 

measures such as aggregate surfacing, scarifying, road and road-edge reshaping, and 

construction of drainage ditches would be used to divert water away from skid trails. On skid 

trails, waterbars are used to disperse runoff from concentrating to a volume that will cause 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–117

rilling/gullying. Portions of skid trails over 35 percent slope would have organic materials 

spread on that portion as needed. 

• Waterbar spacing is based on the percent slope of the skid trail, soil texture, and erosion 

hazard rating for the unit. The spacing distances are located in the Sale Administrators 

Handbook. 

• Place water bar outlets, whenever possible, where concentrations of slash or other 

organic materials occur to disperse runoff and trap sediment before it can reach a 

drainage channel. 

• See BMP 1.1, 1.2 and 1.10 for skid trail measures. 

• Portions of skid trails over 35 percent slope would have organic materials spread on that 

portion where needed as determined by the timber sale administrator as needed. 

• Skid trails that may direct runoff onto roads or landings would have the first 25 feet 

covered with fine slash or weed-free straw (achieving 90 percent soil cover). 

• Application of BMP “yardsticks” to ensure compliance with BMPs. 

• Skid trails that intersect Forest roads would be obliterated at the intersection. 

• Road runoff would be prevented from draining onto skid trails or landings by either 

reshaping the road prism, constructing cross drains or dips, or constructing water bars. 

• Unless otherwise agreed, within the operating area, a minimum of 6 inches of machine 

compacted snow is required for over-the-snow logging or the soil should be frozen to a 

depth of 6 inches for logging operations to occur.

• Harvesting and skidding operations during wet conditions would follow the following 

guidelines: 

Cut-to-Length System—Processing of material on the designated skid trails by a 

harvester may occur when soils are dry to a depth of 4 inches. Limit harvester to one or 

two passes over the same piece of ground. The forwarder would stay on designated skid 

trails covered with a minimum of 6 inches of slash. 

Feller-Buncher System—Movement of material to the designated skid trails by a track 

laying feller-buncher may occur when the track does not create ruts >6 inches deep. A 

feller-buncher would be limited to one or two passes over the same piece of ground. 

Skidding equipment would stay on designated skid trails. Skidding would cease when 

>10 percent of a skid trail is rutted with ruts >6 inches deep.

Traditional Tractor Logging—Skidding may occur by conventional high-groundpressure equipment when soils are dry to a depth of 4 inches. Equipment is restricted to 

the designated skid trails. Endlining would be used to move material to the designated 

skid trails until soils are dry to a depth of 10 inches. Equipment may, by agreement, 

leave designated skid trails when soils are dry to a depth of 10 inches. 

BMP 1.19 – Streamcourse and Aquatic Protection: Protects the natural flow of streams and 

reduces the delivery of sediment and other pollutants into streams. Conduct management actions 

within these areas in a manner that maintains or improves riparian and aquatic values. 

• Service landings would be located away from stream courses. 

• Straw bales, rocking, and containment dikes would be used as needed at designated 

water drafting sites to capture any spilled water and prevent runoff and sedimentation 

into streams.
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–118

BMP 1.20 – Erosion Control Structure Maintenance: Requires periodic inspection of erosion 

control structures to assess maintenance needs and effectiveness. This is accomplished during 

the operations and post-operations phase of the project; this ensures the adequacy of erosion 

control measures. 

• Same as BMP 1.5.

• Identified temporary roads would be decommissioned after use, and the road takeoffs 

blocked to prevent vehicle traffic. See BMPs 2.24 and 2.26. 

BMP 1.21 – Acceptance of Erosion Control Measures before Timber Sale Closure: To ensure 

the adequacy of required erosion control work on timber sales. This is accomplished during the 

post-operations phase of the project during the contract final inspection. 

• Landings would be shaped for drainage. 

• At project completion, permanent water-bars would be installed as necessary on all skid 

and temporary roads. 

• Identified temporary roads would be decommissioned after use, and the road takeoffs 

blocked to prevent vehicle traffic. See BMPs 2.24 and 2.26. 

BMP 1.25 – Modification of the Timber Sale Contract (as needed): Allows contract language 

to be modified to add or increase protection of water quality not identified in the planning 

process.

• Modifications are not expected at this time, but this BMP is retained to illustrate that 

contract alteration would occur if needed to insure maintenance of water quality, 

especially if unforeseen circumstances and impacts occur.

BMP 2.1 – General Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads: To locate and design 

roads with minimal resource damage. 

• Temporary roads needing re-construction would be relocated on existing skid trails, skid 

roads, and existing openings to the greatest extent possible. 

BMP 2.2 – Erosion Control Plan: The objective is to limit and control sedimentation through 

effective planning prior to the initiation of construction activities and through effective contract 

administration. An erosion control plan would be agreed to during the pre-operations meeting 

between the Forest Service and the purchaser. The plan is implemented during the operations 

phase of the project. 

• Resource protection measures are incorporated into the proposed action by the ID team 

and these actions are then incorporated into the contract specifications and provisions. 

Examples of resource protection measures include such items as shaping landings, 

temporary and skid roads for drainage; and use of rock as necessary to obtain suitable 

haul bases on Forest Service roads.

• See BMPs 1.13 and 1.20 for erosion control measures during the project, maintenance of 

erosion control measures and operations control during periods of wet weather. 

BMP 2.3 – Timing of Construction Activities: The objective is to minimize erosion by 

conducting operations during minimal runoff periods. This is accomplished during the operation 

phase of the project by the contract administrator, engineer, and earth scientist. 

• See BMPs 1.13 and 1.20 for erosion control measures during the project, maintenance of 

erosion control measures and operations control during periods of wet weather. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–119

• All landing and temporary road construction and development work would be conducted 

during appropriate periods of weather and soil moisture to ensure BMPs are met and 

adverse impacts to beneficial uses are avoided. Forecast periods would also be of a 

suitable length to allow completion or winterization of the task undertaken before 

precipitation events occur. 

BMP 2.4 – Stabilization of Road Slope Surfaces and Spoil Disposal Areas (Preventative 

Practices): To improve road slope stabilization by applying mechanical and vegetative 

measures. This is accomplished during the operations phase of the project.

• See BMP 2.3 for measures pertaining to landing and road construction and development. 

• Landings would be shaped for drainage at the time of construction. Rock armoring and 

silt fences with straw bales would be used as necessary to direct water to suitable areas 

of drainage and to capture sediment. 

• Road construction, maintenance, and landing construction and enlargement generally is 

on gently sloping ground, so there would be no large cuts, fills, or spoil areas. Measures 

to control erosion from large fills and cuts during operations are not anticipated to be 

necessary.

• Roads would be rocked as necessary.

• See BMPs 1.13 and 1.20 for erosion control measures during the project, maintenance of 

erosion control measures and operations control during periods of wet weather. 

BMP 2.7 – Control of Road Drainage (Preventative Practices): To minimize erosive effects of 

water concentrated by road drainage features; to disperse runoff from disturbances within the 

road clearing limits; to lessen the sediment yield from roaded areas; to minimize erosion of the 

road prism by runoff from road surfaces and from uphill areas. See BMPs 2.5 and 2.6 for 

measures that would be applied. 

BMP 2.8 – Constraints Related to Pioneer Road Construction: To minimize sediment 

production. 

• The roads to be opened and constructed in this project are temporary roads that do not 

require a pioneer road. 

BMP 2.9 – Timely Erosion Control Measures on Incomplete Roads and Stream Crossing 

Projects: To minimize erosion and sedimentation from disturbed ground on incomplete projects. 

• The road and landing construction in this project is minor in scope. Individual temporary 

roads and landings would be completed in one season. If a temporary road includes a 

stream crossing, then the road would be used when the stream is dry. If a road or landing 

is needed for more than one season, then crossing, road and landing stabilization 

measures would occur before the nest rain season. See BMPs 1.13 and 1.20. 

BMP 2.10 – Construction of Stable Embankments (Fills): To construct embankments with 

materials and methods which minimize the possibility of failure and subsequent water quality 

degradation. In general, problems arise due to improper compaction, incorporation of slash or 

organic matter, or use of inappropriate placement methods. 

• Temporary road re-construction and landing construction and enlargement generally is 

on flat to gently sloping ground, so there would be no to minimal cuts, fills or spoil 

areas. Equipment compaction is anticipated to be adequate. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–120

BMP 2.11 – Minimization of Sidecast Material: The objective is to minimize sediment 

production originating from material sidecast during road construction or maintenance. This is 

accomplished during the design phase of the project by the contract inspector. 

• Minor blading would occur on temporary roads used by the project. Side-casting of soil 

during blading operations would be minimal due to the low gradient slopes on which the 

temporary roads are located.

• Sidecasting during road maintenance and clearing operations should not extend beyond 

the clearing limits of any road, or into any SMZ. 

• During road blading, loose material should be incorporated back into the road prism and 

utilized in the road subgrade to the maximum extent possible, or deposited at designated 

disposal sites. 

• Existing road berms should be removed and utilized in the road subgrade as part of 

outsloping, or placed at designated disposal sites. 

BMP 2.12 – Servicing and Refueling of Equipment: The objective is to prevent pollutants, 

such as fuels and lubricants, from being discharged into or near rivers, streams, impoundments, 

or natural and man-made channels which lead into them. This is accomplished through the use 

of designed and designated refueling areas. 

• Appropriate fuel containment systems would be in place at each service landing/site.

• Servicing and refueling areas would be outside of stream management zones. 

BMP 2.21 – Water Source Development Consistent with Water Quality Protection: The 

objective is to limit and mitigate the effects of water source development through the planning of 

impoundments and withdrawals. 

• One water drafting site has been specifically designated by the ID team. Water could be

pumped directly from the sources, or a fold-a-tank could be set up outside of SMZ and 

water could be pumped by hose to the tank, and from the tank to the truck. 

• Drafting sites are existing sites and rocking of approaches would be used as required; all 

boards and black plastic would be removed after use. Straw bales, rock surfacing, and 

containment dikes would be used at all locations where the possibility of water spill or 

overflow would result in sediment being moved toward the creek, ditch, or lake.

BMP 2.22 – Maintenance of Roads: The objective is to limit sedimentation and erosion by road 

drainage maintenance and road surface protection. This is accomplished during the operations 

phase of the project and the post-operations final inspection. 

• Spot rocking would be used as necessary if small and isolated portions of the road 

system do not adequately dry to allow haul when most of the road is capable of haul, 

provided haul over the newly rocked areas would not create adverse impacts, such as 

sediment moving off-site towards channels.

• Timber sale administrators would periodically inspect the contractor’s operations and 

condition of the roads. 

• See BMP 1.5, 1.13, 1.20, for measures relating to operations during wet or potential 

stormy conditions and when to resume operations. 

• Appropriate road watering would occur as roads dry to maintain road fines onsite; see 

BMP 2.23. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–121

BMP 2.23 – Road Surface Treatment to Prevent Loss of Materials: The objective is to reduce 

road-related erosion through treatment of the road surface, usually through spot rocking and dust 

abatement. This is accomplished during the operations phase of the project. 

• Appropriate road watering would occur as roads dry to maintain road fines onsite.

• Same as BMP 2.22. See also BMP 1.5, 1.13, 1.20, for measures relating to operations 

during wet or potential stormy conditions and when to resume operations. 

BMP 2.24 – Traffic Control during Wet Periods: The objective is to reduce damage to road 

drainage and limit sedimentation from roads during wet periods. This is generally achieved by 

increased surfacing and/or road closures during the operations phase of the project. 

• Spot rocking would used as necessary if small and isolated portions of the road system 

do not adequately dry to allow haul when most of the road is capable of haul, provided 

haul over the newly rocked areas would not create adverse impacts, such as sediment 

moving off-site towards channels.

• TSAs would periodically inspect the contractor’s operations and condition of the roads.

• See BMP 1.5, 1.13, 1.20, for measures relating to operations during wet or potential 

stormy conditions and when to resume operations. 

BMP 2.25 – Snow Removal Controls to Avoid Resource Damage: The objective is to 

minimize the impact of snowmelt runoff on road surfaces and embankments and to consequently 

reduce the probability of sediment production resulting from snow removal operations. 

• Snow would be removed in a manner that protects roads and adjacent resources.

• Snow berms would be removed where they result in accumulation or concentration of 

snowmelt runoff on the road and on erosive fill slopes. 

• Snow berms would be installed in locations that would preclude the concentration of 

snowmelt runoff and serve to rapidly dissipate melt water.

• Damage to the road surface from snow removal would be repaired by the purchaser, 

contractor, or other party responsible. This would include replacing lost surface material 

with similar quality material and repair of any damaged structures as soon as possible 

and as agreed to by the Forest Service.

BMP 2.26 – Obliteration or Decommissioning of Roads: The objective is to reduce sediment 

generated from temporary roads, unneeded system (classified) and non-system (unclassified) 

roads by obliterating or decommissioning them at the completion of the intended use. This is 

accomplished during the post-operations phase of the project. This BMP applies to all temporary 

roads, and other non-system (unclassified) roads proposed for decommissioning: 

• Crossings are removed and the natural drainage restored.

• Roads are to be drained by measures such as re-contouring or outsloping to return the 

road prism to near natural hydrologic function. 

• Roads and associated disturbed surfaces would be stabilized through appropriate 

treatment such as tillage, ripping, fertilization, and/or revegetation.

• Road take-offs would be obliterated or effectively blocked to vehicle access.

BMP 2.27 – Restoration of Borrow Pits and Quarries: The objective is to protect water 

quality by minimizing sediment production from borrow pits and quarry sites. This is 

accomplished during the operations and post-operations phase of the project. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–122

• Excavated areas would be sloped and graded to ensure proper drainage, and general 

borrow source areas smoothed and stabilized. 

• Seeding and/or mulching may be required as determined by an earth scientist.

BMP 5.2 – Slope Limitations Mechanical Equipment Operation: To minimize erosion and 

sedimentation resulting from ground disturbance of tractor logging systems and tractor piling 

operations. 

• Same as BMP 1.1 and 1.9 for slope limitations for ground-based logging, tractor piling, 

and fuel mastication.

BMP 5.4 – Revegetation of Surface Disturbed Areas: The objective is to protect water quality 

by minimizing soil erosion through the stabilizing influence of vegetation. This is accomplished 

during the operations and post-operations phase of the project. 

• All harvest openings would be promptly replanted.

BMP 5.5 – Disposal of Organic Debris: The objective is to prevent surface erosion with 

associated reduction in sediment production and turbidity when conducting slash and excessive 

fuel removal operations. 

• Project generated slash would be removed to landings as biomass chips. 

• Hand pile and pile burning, machine mowing/mastication, and underburning would be 

used to reduce the fine fuel component. Specified soil cover recommendations would be 

used to maintain sufficient soil cover for erosion prevention. 

• Machine mowing/mastication and machine piling are mechanical treatments that reduce 

slash. Slope limitations for mechanical equipment as well as specified soil cover 

recommendations would be used to maintain sufficient soil cover for erosion prevention. 

See BMPs 1.1 and 1.9 for slope limitations.

BMP 5.6 – Soil Moisture Limitations for Tractor Operations: The objective is to prevent soil 

compaction, rutting, and gulling that may result in increased sedimentation and turbidity. 

• This is accomplished during the operations phase of the project by monitoring performed 

by the project earth scientist as requested by the TSA.

• See BMP 1.17 for harvesting and skidding operations during wet or over snow 

conditions. 

• Same as BMPs 1.20 and 2.22 for measures to employ when wet weather is forecast, and 

following a period of stormy weather. 

BMP 5.8 – Pesticide Application According to Label directions and Applicable Legal 

Requirements: The objective is to avoid water contamination by complying with all label 

instructions and restrictions for use. 

• This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (borax) on cut stumps (14 

inches diameter or larger) within the project area.

• TSAs are responsible for ensuring timber sale contract specifications pertaining to 

treatment of stumps are met and would periodically inspect the contractor’s operations to 

ensure that label directions and legal requirements are followed.

BMP 5.9 – Pesticide Application Monitoring and Evaluation: The objectives are to monitor 

whether pesticides have been applied safely, restricted to intended target areas, and have not 

resulted in unexpected non-target effects. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–123

• This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (borax) on cut stumps (14 

inches diameter or larger) within the project area.

• TSAs are responsible for implementation monitoring of borax application, and would 

document and provide early warning of any accidental spills and potential water 

contamination. 

• The purchaser is responsible for notification and reporting of releases of reportable 

quantities of hazardous substances caused by employees or contractors, directly or 

indirectly as a result of operations in the sale area.

BMP 5.10 – Pesticide Spill Contingency Planning: The objective is to reduce contamination of 

water by accidental pesticide spills. 

• This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (borax) on cut stumps (14 

inches diameter or larger) within the project area.

• See BMP 5.9. 

BMP 5.11 – Cleaning and Disposal of Pesticide Containers and Equipment: The objective is 

to prevent water contamination from the cleaning or disposal of pesticide containers. 

• This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (borax) on cut stumps (14 

inches diameter or larger) within the project area.

• Cleanup and disposal of containers would follow directions on the manufacturer’s label. 

BMP 6.1 – Fire and Fuels Management Activities: The objective is to reduce the effects of 

wildfires on water quality by informing the public, and the development of access plans, fuel 

breaks, and fuel reduction programs. 

• The district fuels and fire specialists have determined acceptable levels of slash to retain 

on the site following harvest activities and also have identified areas and methods to 

remove standing slash of a sub-merchantable size, that otherwise would create an 

unacceptable fire risk.

• On-going fire management work maintains fire access plans and restricts public 

activities, such as woodcutting, on days when fire weather predictions indicate 

significant risk from such activities in the Hi-Grouse Project Area.

BMP 6.2 – Consideration of Water Quality in Formulating Fire Prescriptions: The objective 

is to provide for water quality while achieving management objectives of prescribed fire. This is 

done during the planning phase of the project. 

• Burn plans would incorporate appropriate burn parameters (such as fuel moisture, 

weather, etc.) into the burn prescriptions in order to meet the recommended cover 

amounts. 

BMP 6.3 – Protection of Water Quality from Prescribed Burning Effects: Minimize soil 

erosion, ash, sediment, nutrients, and debris from entering water bodies. 

• Hand and machine piles would burn under controlled settings to contain fire spread. 

• Waterbars would be installed on hand and machine-created fire lines where needed.

• Recommended levels of post-burn soil cover are designed to minimize potential 

sediment. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–125

Appendix E: Actions Considered for 

Cumulative Effects

Recent Past, Present, and Foreseeable Future Actions

This appendix lists recent past, present, and foreseeable future actions in the five 7th

Recent Past, Present, and Ongoing Actions for the Last 10 Years

-field 

watersheds (Antelope Well, Dock Well, Grouse Hill, Hill 22, and Tamarack Flat) that intersect 

the Hi-Grouse Project boundary (see map A-7). Actions are listed by timeframe (past, present, 

future) from about 10 years ago to 5 years in the future. Whether these projects would be 

included for cumulative effects depends on the relationship of these projects to the specific 

resource. The effects of the project must overlap in time and space. Some resource areas may 

have considerations not included below, and they would be listed in the individual specialist 

report. Cumulative effects of these actions are discussed below. For the complete cumulative 

effects analyses please see appropriate specialist reports located in the project record at the 

district office.

Private—Fruit Growers Harvesting (Tennant and 5 Miles Northeast): The legal locations 

are sections 29, 35, and 36 in T44N, R1E; and section 31 in T44N, R2E, Mt. Diablo Meridian, 

Siskiyou County, California. The sale was harvested with alternative (combination shelterwood 

removal and sanitation/salvage) and clearcut methods. Similar effects include opening up forest 

canopies. The recent private harvest is not expected to change deer cover because private land is 

already very open due to historic logging. Due to intensive management, bitterbrush has been 

replaced with rabbitbrush (which is not good forage) in some areas. Fruit Growers Supply 

Company (South Garner THP) clear cut about 94 acres and commercial thin/light sanitation 135 

acres west of the project area on the southeast flank of Garner Mountain.

Tamarack (Implementation Ongoing): The legal location of the project is all or portions of 

T44N, R1E, section 25 and 36; T44N, R2E, sections 19, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32; and T43N, R1E, 

section 6, Mt. Diablo Meridian, Siskiyou County, California. Vegetation treatments have been 

approved on a total of 1,615 acres including: Commercial thinning on 1,050 acres (including 

thinning/chipping of small trees and/or underburning, and creation of openings from 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 acre 

in size, up to a total of 10 acres); green tree retention (GTR) on 59 acres (including site 

preparation and tree planting on all acres, and gopher trapping on 34 acres); plantation thinning 

on 494 acres (including mechanical brush treatments on 41 acres and development of a fuelbreak 

along Tennant Road 77 of approximately 40 acres); and treatment of cut surfaces of stumps 14 

inches and greater with a borax fungicide over 1,109 acres of commercial thinned and GTR 

areas. 

Van Bremmer Project (Decision February 3, 2010): The legal location of the project is all or 

portions of T44N, R1E, sections 13, 14, 21−28, 33−36; T44N, R2E, sections 18−19, 30; and 

T43N, R1E, section 3, Mount Diablo Meridian. The Van Bremmer Project is a proposed 

hazardous fuels reduction and vegetation management project located within the Goosenest 

Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest. The project encompasses 5,970 acres of National 

Forest System lands northeast of Tennant, California, of which 4,970 acres are proposed for 

treatment. This EA considers the environmental consequences of one action (the proposed 

action, alternative 2) and one no action alternative (alternative 1). The intent of the proposed 

action is to reduce hazardous fuels, to increase the variety of age and size classes of desirable 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–126

browse and forage for big game, and to promote a diverse and resilient forest. The proposed 

action will include nine treatment types, including plantation thinning/mow, variable thinning 

from below, thin/chip, creation of a fuel management zone, jackpot burning, underburning, 

mowing and activities related to road access. 

Small Spot Fires Within the Watersheds: Similar effects include canopy/tree density 

reduction. In the short term, small fires reduce brush and potential fawning habitat if burn occurs 

in thickets. Short term (3 to 5 years) to long term (until canopy closes in and shades forest floor) 

the loss of cover may increase foraging habitat due to more open canopies, and beginning of 

early succession of plants.

Motorized Travel Management (Decision Published on August 13, 2010): May be 

implemented beginning November 29, 2010. The EIS analyzed designation of a system of roads, 

trails, and areas for public motorized vehicle use, prohibition of cross-country motorized vehicle 

travel, and non-significant amendment of the Forest Plan. The Motorized Travel Management 

selected alternative identified 5.5 miles of closed non-system roads in the project area (USDA 

Forest Service 2010a). Of that, one existing non-system road is being administratively added to 

the Forest System Roads; it is 0.84-mile long and runs between 44N84 and 44N79. Road 44N03 

(Badger Loop) is going from “Highway Legal Only,” to “Open to All Vehicles.” Map A-8, 

located in appendix A depicts the Hi-Grouse Project area and changes with the Motorized Travel 

Management decision. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Federal, State or Private Actions

Sagebrush-steppe Restoration on BLM lands: This is not expected to have adverse impacts to 

wildlife (FEIS, August 2008). 

Pumice Project: The legal location of the project is all or portions of T43N, R1E, sections 

12−13 and 24; T43N, R2E, sections 2−11, 14−22, and 29−30; and T44N, R2E, Sections 31−33, 

MDM. The project is located within the Tamarack 7th

Highlands Roadside Safety Improvement Project: This project is located on the Doublehead 

Ranger District of the Modoc National Forest, east of the Hi-Grouse Project area. The project is 

proposed to improve public safety along major public travel routes by removal of hazard trees 

likely to fall onto the roadway, and includes removal of vegetation to increase sight distance 

around corners including thinning, mowing, pruning, hand pile and burning. 

-field watershed. The purpose of the project 

is to reduce fuel loads and improve forest health, while considering opportunities to maintain 

wildlife habitat and maintain and improve scenery values.

Hoffman Vegetation Management Project: The legal location of the project is T43N, R3E, 

MDB&M, near Little Glass Mountain, on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest; located southeast 

of the Hi-Grouse Project area. This project was proposed to reduce tree densities and fuels on 

approximately 2,600 acres to enhance forest resilience to natural disturbances. In heavily 

diseased areas, trees would be removed (leaving live, healthy trees where they exist) and 

healthy/resilient trees planted. This project is currently on hold as per the Shasta-Trinity National 

Forest web site.