United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

August 2016

Short Form Botany Resource Report: 

Biological Assessment/Evaluation for 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and 

Sensitive Plant Species; Survey and Manage 

Report; and Noxious Weed Assessment

Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration 

Project

Salmon/Scott River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest

Siskiyou County, California

For Information Contact: Melissa Van Scoyoc

Salmon River Restoration Council, 25631 Sawyers Bar Road, Sawyers Bar, CA 96027

(530) 462-4665

www.srrc.org
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.
i

Table of Contents

Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or candidate Plant Species

.................................................................................................................................. 1

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

Methodology................................................................................................................................... 1

Analysis Indicators.............................................................................................................. 1

Spatial and Temporal Context ............................................................................................ 1

Affected Environment..................................................................................................................... 1

Environmental Consequences......................................................................................................... 2

Alternative1 and Alternative 2............................................................................................ 2

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ........................................... 2

Biological Evaluation .................................................................................................. 2

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 2

Methodology................................................................................................................................... 2

Analysis Indicators.............................................................................................................. 3

Spatial and Temporal Context ............................................................................................ 3

Affected Environment..................................................................................................................... 4

Environmental Consequences......................................................................................................... 5

Alternative 1 -No Action .................................................................................................... 5

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action......................................................................................... 5

Cumulative Effect ............................................................................................................... 6

Compliance with Law, Regulation, Policy, and the Forest Plan ........................................ 6

Survey and manage plant report................................................................................. 6

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 6

Methodology................................................................................................................................... 7

Analysis Indicators.............................................................................................................. 7

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of the Analysis Area ....................................................... 8

Affected Environment..................................................................................................................... 8

Environmental Consequences......................................................................................................... 8

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2........................................................................................... 8

Cumulative Effect ............................................................................................................... 8

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ........................................... 9

Noxious weed risk assessment.................................................................................... 9

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 9

Methodology................................................................................................................................... 9

Analysis Indicators.............................................................................................................. 9

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of the Analysis Area ....................................................... 9
ii

Affected Environment..................................................................................................................... 9

Environmental Consequences....................................................................................................... 11

Alternative 1 -No Action .................................................................................................. 11

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action....................................................................................... 11

Cumulative Effect ............................................................................................................. 11

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ......................................... 11

Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 12

Methodology................................................................................................................................. 12

Analysis Indicators............................................................................................................ 12

Spatial and Temporal Context .......................................................................................... 13

Affected Environment................................................................................................................... 13

Environmental Consequences....................................................................................................... 14

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate plant species: ...................................... 14

Sensitive plants species:.................................................................................................... 15

Survey and Manage plant species:.................................................................................... 15

Noxious Weeds:................................................................................................................ 16

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ......................................... 16

Botany and Noxious Weeds Project Design Features....................................................... 17

Literature Cited ........................................................................................................ 18

Appendix A1 – Manage Known Sites Pre-Field Table ................................................. 20

Appendix A2 – Botanical Pre-Field Review Analysis Flowchart................................... 28

Appendix A3 – Botanical Pre-Field Review of Proposed Projects and Results of Preliminary 

Field Review............................................................................................................. 38

Appendix B – Endangered, Threatened, and Proposed Botanical Biological Assessment 

Specialist Report ...................................................................................................... 44

List of Tables

Table 1. Plant species of concern present in the project area......................................................................14

Table 2. Botanical Resources Analysis Indicators by Alternative..............................................................14

Table 3. Project design features for Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) .......................................................17
1

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THREATENED, 

ENDANGERED, PROPOSED, OR CANDIDATE PLANT 

SPECIES

Introduction 

Species list addressed: USFWS T, E, and P plant species

Project area reviewed for presence of populations, habitat, and range: Yes

Methodology 

A pre-field review was conducted to determine which species of concern are present, and for 

which species a field survey may be necessary (USDA 2016, Appendix B). Surveys were not 

triggered for any species listed as Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate. Field 

surveys have been conducted for the specific project area. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) 

web service provided the following list of species to the Salmon River Restoration Council on 

February 26, 2016 (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/).This BA addresses these species:

Arabis macdonaldiana

Chamaesyce hooveri

Fritillaria gentneri

Orcuttia tenuis

Pinus albicaulis

Analysis Indicators 

The analysis indicators for measuring the effects of the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and 

Channel Restoration Project are based on law, policy, and direction. Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended, and Forest Service Policy (FSM 2670) direct Federal agencies 

to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or permitted by such agencies is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of species listed, or proposed to be listed as Endangered or 

Threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (USDA 2005). There are no plant species 

listed as Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate within the project area, therefore, there 

will be no impacts to analyze as a result of project activities.

Spatial and Temporal Context

The project area is the analysis area. There are no plant species listed as Threatened, Endangered, 

Proposed, or Candidate within the project area, therefore, there will be no short-term or longterm effects to define.

Affected Environment

The Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project is not within the range and/or 

habitat of any plant species listed as Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate. No 
2

populations of any federally listed plant species have been recorded in botanical records or 

identified in previous surveys within the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration

Project area. No critical habitat is established for these species in the project area. In addition, no 

federally listed plant species were found during surveys for this project. Therefore, there will be 

no effects to compare between alternatives for this project.

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2

The Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project is not within the range of any 

federally listed TEP plant species. A field review has been conducted, and no potentially suitable 

habitat has been located. It is my determination that the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and 

Channel Restoration Project will not affect Arabis macdonaldiana, Chamaesyce hooveri, 

Fritillaria gentneri, Orcuttia tenuis or Pinus albicaulis because there are no direct or indirect 

effects, and therefore there are no cumulative effects.

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan 

The Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project complies with Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and Forest Service Policy (FSM 2670).

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

Introduction

Species list addressed: Klamath National Forest Sensitive Plant Species (USDA 2013a)

Project area reviewed for presence of populations, habitat, and range: Yes

Methodology

A pre-field review was conducted to determine which species of concern are present, and for 

which species a field survey may be necessary (USDA 2016). Surveys were triggered for the 

following species (Appendix A-3, step 5):

Vascular Plants

Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady's slipper)

Cypripedium montanum (mountain lady slipper)

Erythronium hendersonii (Henderson’s fawn lily)

Piperia candida (white-flowered rein orchid)

Silene marmorensis (Marble Mountain campion)

Bryophytes

Mielichhoferia elongata (elongate copper moss)

Fungi

Phaeocollybia olivacea
3

Field surveys have been conducted for the above species within project area. The project was 

surveyed using intuitive controlled surveys on 3/7/2016, 5/10/2016, and 6/14/2016.

In early March the project footprint was surveyed for potential habitat of all species. The site was 

also surveyed specifically for Erythronium hendersonii, Piperia candida, and Mielichhoferia

elongate. None of these species were observed within or adjacent to the project footprint.

In early May the site was surveyed for Cypripedium fasciculatum, Cypripedium montanum, 

Piperia candida, and Silene marmorensis. Of these species, only Silene marmorensis (State rare

plant rank 1B.2) was observed. Plants were observed throughout the project area and within the 

footprint of work. About 50 individuals were observed within the proposed channel to be 

restored, the western channel alignment. About 100 individuals were observed along the 

shoulder of Forest Road 10N16. About 100 individuals were observed between the eastern and 

western channels, in areas where surface disturbances would be avoided. 

Though the pre-field review (Appendix A3, step 3) indicated surveys should be conducted for 

Phaeocollybia olivacea (KNF Sensitive), surveys for preferred habitat were conducted, while 

occurrence surveys were not conducted because this species would not be fruiting until fall, 

which is outside the window for project surveys.

Analysis Indicators

The analysis indicators for measuring the effects of the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and 

Channel Restoration Project are based on law, policy, and direction. Forest Service Policy (FSM 

2670) directs Federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or permitted by such 

agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as Sensitive by the 

Regional Forester, or to cause a trend to federal listing for species listed as Sensitive (USDA 

2005). Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines have been developed that direct the management of 

Sensitive plant species to ensure maintenance of reproducing, self-sustaining populations and to 

prevent the need for the species to become listed as T&E species (USDA 1994).

The alternatives are compared using the following indicators:

• The likelihood that the level of disturbance would decrease the ability of the species to 

maintain reproducing, self-sustaining populations within the project area.

• The likelihood that habitat would be managed in a manner that most closely imitates the 

natural ecological processes that created and maintained the habitat historically.

Spatial and Temporal Context

The project area is the analysis area. This boundary is appropriate for assessing the project 

impacts as they might be experienced by existing sensitive species within the project area.

The temporal boundary for Phaeocollybia olivacea is the time it takes to complete project 

implementation and for a layer of mulch and debris to recover bare ground, three to five years.

The temporal bound for Silene marmorensis is the time it takes for the population to recover 

from disturbance, ten years.
4

Affected Environment 

I have reviewed the proposed project area and the GIS Sensitive plant layer. Silene marmorensis

was observed within the project area. Field surveys did not locate any other sensitive species that 

were within the range and/or habitat of the project. Preferred habitat did occur for Phaeocollybia 

olivacea within the project area. Potential effects were analyzed for this species because surveys 

could not be conducted during the appropriate window for observation. 

Present in the Project Area:

Silene marmorensis (Marble Mountain campion) – This species is endemic to northeastern 

Humboldt and southwestern Siskiyou Counties. The plant prefers the southern aspect of exposed 

ridges and edge openings of Douglas fir-ponderosa pine forest and lower elevation oak 

woodlands, such as along roads and trails (Nakamura and Nelson 2001; Natureserve 2015). It

grows on a variety of soils and slopes at elevations ranging around 800 to 4,300 feet (Nakamura 

and Nelson 2001). A perennial forb, growing form a single taproot, this plant flowers from May 

to June (Nakamura and Nelson 2001). Though this plant has a very limited range and prefers 

areas associated with forest road system maintenance and timber management, resulting in the 

state ranking of 1B.2 (fairly endangered), Silene marmorensis is a relatively stable species 

(Natureserve 2015). It can be seen in stable populations throughout the Salmon River watershed.

Known sites within the Project area: Silene marmorensis was observed throughout the project 

area and within the footprint of work. About 50 individuals were observed within the proposed 

channel to be restored, the western channel alignment. About 100 individuals were observed 

along the shoulder of Forest Road 10N16. About 100 individuals were observed between the 

eastern and western channels, in areas where surface disturbances would be avoided. The 

California Natural Diversity Database Occurrence Report for the project site’s population 

indicates plants occur throughout an 18 acre area, starting at the Junction of Cecilville Road and 

continuing along Forest Road 10N16. The report states observes found 150+ individuals in 1988, 

following and unknown number of individuals lost due to road construction (CDFW 2016). 100+ 

individuals were observed in 1989 (CDFW 2016). This species appears to tolerate light 

disturbance, while heavy disturbance (e.g., trailing, grazing) could be detrimental (Natureserve 

2015). Since the road disturbance in 1988, the site’s population has recovered.

Potentially Present in the Project Area:

Phaeocollybia olivacea (olive Phaeocollybia) –Phaeocollybia olivacea populations are known 

from the western portions of Washington, Oregon, and California as far south as the Mendocino 

National Forest (USDA 2003). This is an ectomycorrhizal species, such fungi have a highly 

interdependent relationship with a host plant, which for this species is typically old growth 

conifers. Like all ectomycorrhizal species, this fungus has mycelia which are fine, net-like 

structures spread throughout soil, rotting wood, and duff. The mycelia penetrate plant roots, form 

Mycorrhizae, and exchange nutrients with the plant. The network of mycelia can extend over 

several acres; fruiting structures can form anywhere along the network. Such fungi, require 

adequate overstory, understory, and shrub layers of diverse species are required to support this 
5

species. Overstory tree cover is important for this species, as it maintains high moisture levels in 

forest litter and woody debris.

There is very little specific information available for Phaeocollybia olivacea. Preferred habitat 

information for this analysis is based upon a database query of the results of the pre-project surveys, 

strategic surveys, and purposive surveys that have been completed within Oregon, Washington, and 

California, and on the species range listed in the scientific literature (Carlson 2015). There are 29 

known sites on the Klamath National Forest, none of those sites occur within the project area. 

Phaeocollybia olivacea has been found scattered in older mixed forests containing oak, pine, true 

fir, tanbark oak, or sequoia in western mountain ranges. There is a potential that this species may 

be present within the project area. If present, populations are most likely to occur on wet, north 

facing slopes or in riparian areas with a perennial stream.

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 -No Action

If the no action alternative is selected, there would be no soil or vegetation disturbance within the 

project area; the Silene marmorensis and Phaeocollybia olivacea population would remain the 

same as the current condition. Therefore, the no action alternative would have no effect on 

the ability of Silene marmorensis and Phaeocollybia olivacea to maintain a reproducing, 

self-sustaining population within the project area.

Hotelling Gulch was diverted (from flooding or mining action) into the eastern alignment 

channel at some point since 1964. The current channel was created from mining activity, it does 

not provide a natural flow regime for the lower portion of Hotelling Gulch. As a result, the 

project area is altered, which limits the natural ecological processes which create/maintain 

preferred habitat of Silene marmorensis and Phaeocollybia olivacea. Therefore, it is unlikely 

that the no action alternative would result in developing habitat that most closely imitates 

the natural ecological processes that created and maintained the habitat for Silene 

marmorensis and Phaeocollybia olivacea historically.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The proposed action would result in surface disturbance in areas of known individuals of Silene 

marmorensis. However, the project work area is within a small portion of the population, totaling 

about 1.5 acres of surface disturbance (8.3% of the population’s known area), primarily within 

the western channel alignment. Vehicles accessing work areas, may disturb individuals, which

would likely recover from the localized, temporary disturbance within one to two growing 

seasons. In the short-term, it is likely that Silene marmorensis would take advantage of exposed 

soil due to surface disturbances, and individuals would establish in such areas within three to five 

years following disturbance. In the long-term, individuals lost due to surface disturbing actions 

would take up to 10 years to be replaced as new individuals revegetate along the new channel

banks. Additionally, the eastern channel alignment would be plugged, creating new habitat for 

Silene marmorensis in that channel; there would be no net loss of habitat for the population.

Therefore, it is very unlikely that the proposed action would decrease the ability of Silene 

marmorensis to maintain a reproducing, self-sustaining population within the project area.

The proposed action aims to restore Hotelling Gulch to a more natural stream, appropriate for the 

drainage area. The project would reconnect surface flows of Hotelling Gulch into one channel 
6

(western alignment) within a more natural valley at a lower elevation, with an upgraded crossing 

to allow for 100 year storm events. Therefore, it is highly likely that the proposed action 

would result in developing habitat that most closely imitates the natural ecological 

processes that created and maintained the habitat for Silene marmorensis historically.

The proposed action occurs in areas of potential Phaeocollybia olivacea population. Disturbing 

mycelia generally doesn’t kill the fungus, it fragments the mycelial network. The fungus continues to 

live and fruit where moisture and nutrients are adequate. Therefore, surface disturbance from this 

project would not eliminate potential fungi populations, but would temporarily fragment individuals 

if they are present. Vehicles accessing work areas may disturb individuals, which would likely 

recover from the localized, temporary disturbance within one to two growing seasons. If present, 

it is likely that the disturbed mycelia network would re-establish within three to five years 

following disturbance, as mulch and debris cover bare ground and improve soil moisture. 

Additionally, the eastern channel alignment would be plugged, creating new habitat for 

Phaeocollybia olivacea in that channel; there would be no net loss of habitat for the population.

Therefore, it is very unlikely that the proposed action would decrease the ability of

Phaeocollybia olivacea to maintain a reproducing, self-sustaining population within the 

project area.

The proposed action aims to restore Hotelling Gulch to a more natural stream, appropriate for the 

drainage area. The project would reconnect surface flows of Hotelling Gulch into one channel 

(western alignment) within a more natural valley at a lower elevation, with an upgraded crossing 

to allow for 100 year storm events. By restoring the western channel, surface water connectivity 

would be improved, substantially increasing the amount of perennial flow and therefore increase 

preferred habitat of Phaeocollybia olivacea within the project area. Therefore, it is highly likely 

that the proposed action would result in developing habitat that most closely imitates the 

natural ecological processes that created and maintained the habitat for Phaeocollybia 

olivacea historically.

In addition to the small project scale, to further reduce the risk of adversely affecting soil and 

botanical resources, Project Design Features (PDFs) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

would be required during implementation and they are described in Chapter 2 of the EA. 

Cumulative Effect 

There are no on-going or reasonably foreseeable actions within the project area so there are no 

cumulative effects to Forest Service Sensitive plant species. 

Compliance with Law, Regulation, Policy, and the Forest Plan

The Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project complies with Forest Service 

Policy (FSM 2670), and Klamath National Forest LRMP Standards and Guidelines for Sensitive 

plant species.

SURVEY AND MANAGE PLANT REPORT

Introduction 

Species list addressed: Survey and Manage Table 1-1 (USDA 2014b)
7

Project area reviewed for presence of populations, habitat, and range: Yes

Methodology 

A pre-field review was conducted to determine which species of concern are present, and for 

which species a field survey may be necessary (USDA 2016). Surveys were triggered for the 

following species (Appendix A-3, step 5):

Vascular Plants

Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady's slipper)

Cypripedium montanum (mountain lady slipper)

Bryophytes

Ptilidium californicum (Pacific fuzzwort)

Lichens

Lobaria oregana (Oregon lung lichen)

Nephroma occultum

Fungi

Phaeocollybia olivacea

Field surveys have been conducted for the above species within project area. The project was 

surveyed using intuitive controlled surveys on 3/7/2016, 5/10/2016, and 6/14/2016. No Survey 

and Manage species were observed during field surveys.

In early March the project footprint was surveyed for potential habitat of all species. The site was 

also surveyed specifically for Ptilidium californicum, Lobaria oregana and Nephroma occultum. 

None of these species were observed within or adjacent to the project footprint.

In early May the site was surveyed for Cypripedium fasciculatum and Cypripedium montanum.

Neither of these species were observed within or adjacent to the project footprint.

Analysis Indicators 

The analysis indicators for measuring the effects of the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and 

Channel Restoration Project are based on law, policy, and direction. The Bureau of Land 

Management and Forest Service adopted standards and guidelines for the management of habitat 

for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern 

spotted owl, commonly known as the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The NWFP included 

measures for management of known sites, site-specific pre-habitat disturbing surveys, and/or 

landscape scale surveys for about 400 rare and/or isolated species. The standards and guidelines 

for these mitigation measures are known as survey and manage.

To be in compliance with the 2001 Record of Decision for Amendments to the Survey and 

Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines 

(USDA/USDI 2001), projects must have pre-disturbance surveys conducted if the activity is 

potentially considered to be habitat-disturbing, and known sites must be managed to protect 
8

persistence at the site. “Habitat-disturbing activities are defined as those disturbances likely to 

have a significant negative impact on the species’ habitat, its life cycle, microclimate, or life 

support requirements” (USDA/USDI 2001 – Standards and Guidelines, p.22). Species-specific 

standards and guidelines, survey protocols, and management recommendations from the 

Northwest Forest Plan are identified below under species effects analysis, if applicable. The most 

recent Survey and Manage direction (May 13, 2014) directs Agencies to follow the 2001 S&M 

ROD standards and guidelines, and the December 2003 species list, except for the red tree vole 

which remains a Category C, and/or the four categories of projects exempt from the Survey and 

Manage standards and guidelines as stipulated by Judge Pechman (October 11, 2006) (USDA 

2014a).

The alternatives are compared using the following indicators:

• Is the project in compliance with Survey and Manage requirements?

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of the Analysis Area

The project area is the analysis area. This boundary is appropriate for assessing the project 

impacts as they might be experienced by existing Survey and Manage species within the project 

area.

The temporal boundary is the time it takes to complete project implementation and for a layer of 

mulch and debris to recover bare ground, three to five years.

Affected Environment 

Pre-disturbance surveys (Category A&C) and management of known sites required by protocol 

standards to comply with the 2001 Record of Decision and Standard and Guidelines for 

Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure 

Standards and Guidelines (USDA 2014a) have been completed for the Hotelling Gulch Fish 

Passage and Channel Restoration Project. No Survey and Manage Species were found.

The project area has been reviewed for species listed as manage known sites and manage high 

priority sites (Category B, D, or E) and there are no known sites present in locations that may be 

affected by project activities (USDA 2016). The project area is exempt from Equivalent Effort 

fungi surveys because ground disturbing activities would not occur in stands defined as oldgrowth (USDA 2006, 2016).

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2

There are no known locations of Survey and Manage species in the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage 

and Channel Restoration Project. Therefore, this project is in compliance with Survey and 

Manage requirements.

Cumulative Effect 

There are no on-going or reasonably foreseeable actions within the project area so there are no 

cumulative effects to Survey and Manage plant species. 
9

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan 

The Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project complies with the 2001 

Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, 

Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines.

NOXIOUS WEED RISK ASSESSMENT

Introduction 

Species list addressed: Klamath National Forest Noxious Weed and Non-native Invasive Plant 

List (USDA 2013b)

Project area reviewed for presence of infestations: Yes

Methodology 

A pre-field review was conducted to determine which species of concern are present, and for 

which species a field survey may be necessary (USDA 2016). Noxious weeds inventories have 

been occurring on a rotating basis throughout the project area.

Analysis Indicators 

The analysis indicators for measuring the effects of the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and 

Channel Restoration Project are based on law, policy, and direction. Forest Service Manual 2900 

Invasive Species Management (USDA 2011) includes a policy statement calling for a risk 

assessment for noxious weeds to be completed for every project. The Klamath National Forest 

has placed a high priority on management of noxious weeds. Management includes reducing 

management related introduction and spread of noxious weeds on the Forest. The KNF Land and 

Resource Management Plan includes Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for vegetative 

management that call for all silvicultural practices to consider how to best prevent introducing 

noxious or alien weeds (USDA 1994, p.4-50). Additional direction is found in Executive Order 

#13112. Invasive species. Order by President Bill Clinton to prevent the introduction of invasive 

species and provide for their control (1999).

The Analysis Indicator for noxious weeds is the risk of spread of noxious weeds as a result of 

project related activities.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of the Analysis Area

The spatial boundary is the project area and adjacent access roads. The temporal boundary is the 

time it takes to complete project implementation and for a layer of mulch and debris to recover 

bare ground, three to five years.

Affected Environment 

I have reviewed the proposed project area, the GIS noxious weeds layer, and the weed atlases. 

The project was surveyed using intuitive controlled surveys on 3/7/2016, 5/10/2016, and 

6/14/2016. Noxious weed surveys have been conducted within this project area as part of 

ongoing annual inventory completed by the Forest Noxious Weeds Crew and Salmon River 
10

Restoration Council’s Noxious Weeds Crew. Field survey and the Noxious Weed Program 

records revealed that two infestations are present within the project area.

Noxious Weeds Present in the Project Area:

Centaurea solstitialis (yellow star-thistle) – C. solstitialis originally from southern Europe and 

western Eurasia, is a winter annual or short-lived perennial, preferring roadsides and disturbed 

areas (Cal-IPC 2016). Seeds germinate in the fall, following rain, form taprooted rosettes, then 

bolt in late spring to early summer, the plants then flower and fruit from June through September 

(Cal-IPC 2016). Plants can develop up to 1,000 flowerheads per plant, producing 30 to 80 seeds 

per flowerhead (Zouhar 2002). Seeds generally drop within 2 feet of the plant and are dispersed 

by vehicles along roadways, waterways, human/animal contact, and to a limited extent wind, 

which disperses seeds up to 16 feet (Cal-IPC 2016; Zouhar 2002). Seeds are spread as a 

contaminant in hay and crop seed (Cal-IPC 2016). C. solstitialis is a CW-rated species for the 

State and a moderate priority for the Klamath National Forest (CDFA 2015; USDA 2013b). C. 

solstitialis is found throughout the Klamath NF and is expanding in range. There are 120

infestations mapped on the Klamath NF which is only a portion of what actually exists. This 

species is only treated where it threatens Wilderness Areas, Botanical Areas, or other special 

habitat areas.

Known sites within the Project area: An infestation of C. solstitialis occurs along Forest Road 

10N16. This infestation has not been treated by the Noxious Weeds Crews in recent years. 

Project design features will be applied to reduce the risk of the spread as a result of project 

activities. There is a low risk of this infestation spreading as a result of project activities.

Isatis tinctoria (dyer’s woad) - I. tinctoria, originally from southeast Russia, is a winter annual, 

biennial, or short-lived perennial (Whitson 2012; Zouhar 2009). It is found in areas with a minimal 

over story and in disturbed areas such as roadsides, river bars, and forb dominated habitats. Generally, 

plants germinate in the fall, produce rosettes in early spring, and then overwinter. The following spring 

the rosette bolts, usually with multiple flowering stocks, flowering from late spring through early 

summer. It takes about 8 weeks from initial stem growth to seed production (Zouhar 2009). If the plant 

is mechanically injured, resprouting can occur from the taproot near the crown of the plant for several 

years (Zouhar 2009). Each plant typically produces 350-500 (NWCB 2016), which are dispersed by 

vehicles along roadways and by waterways. Seeds are spread as a contaminant in hay and crop seed 

(Zouhar 2009). Seeds generally drop within 21 inches of the parent plant; wind can disperse the seeds 

up to 8 feet (Zouhar 2009). I. tinctoria is a BW-rated species for the state and a moderate priority for 

the Klamath National Forest (CDFA 2015; USDA 2013b). I. tinctoria is found throughout the 

Klamath NF and is expanding in range. There are 239 infestations mapped on the Klamath NF which 

is only a portion of what actually exists. This species is only treated where it threatens Wilderness 

Areas, Botanical Areas, or other special habitat areas.

Known sites within the Project area: An infestation of I. tinctoria occurs along Cecilville Road. 

This infestation has not been treated by the Noxious Weeds Crews in recent years. Project design 

features will be applied to reduce the risk of the spread as a result of project activities. There is a 

low risk of this infestation spreading as a result of project activities.
11

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 -No Action

If the no action alternative is selected, there would be no soil or vegetation disturbance within the 

project area; the noxious weed populations would remain the same as the current condition. 

Therefore, the no action alternative would have no effect to Klamath N.F. listed noxious 

weeds.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project is proposing activities that 

require using heavy equipment to restore the western alignment stream channel and construct a 

new crossing over that channel Cecilville Road to accomplish project objectives. This type of 

work creates relatively low amounts of ground disturbance, and may leave some openings that 

could be vulnerable to infestation if a seed source is introduced. Activities that require soil 

disturbance for implementation have the potential to create habitat for noxious weed species, 

however, project design features have been incorporated into the proposed action to minimize the 

potential spread of noxious weed infestations that currently exist within the project area. These 

project design features will be sufficient to reduce the risk of spreading infestations into or out of 

the project area. Implementation of mandatory project design features – Equipment Cleaning and 

Weed Free Materials – in the contract will reduce the risk of introduction of new noxious weeds 

into the project area. There is a low risk that the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel 

Restoration Project will cause the introduction or spread of Klamath N.F. listed noxious 

weeds.

In addition to the small project scale, to further reduce the risk of spreading noxious weeds, 

Project Design Features (PDFs) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required 

during implementation and they are described in Chapter 2 of the EA. 

Cumulative Effect 

The Knownothing Fuels Reduction project is adjacent to Cecilville Road which goes through the 

project area. The project is expected to have a low risk of introducing or spreading listed noxious 

weeds with the implementation of project design features that include heavy machinery washing. 

When the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration project is combined with the 

Knownothing Fuels Reduction project the risk of introduction or spread of weeds remains low. 

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan 

There will be a low risk of noxious weed introduction and spread within the Hotelling Gulch 

Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project area. Project design features have been 

incorporated into the proposed action which are expected to reduce the risk of weed introduction 

and spread. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Manual direction will be met.
12

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project Botany Biological 

Assessment, Biological Evaluation, Survey and Manage Review, Noxious Weed Risk 

Assessment, and Pre-field documents: Appendices A-1, A-2, A-3, and B are summarized in this 

section and are available in the project record. The purpose of this document is to evaluate the 

Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project in sufficient detail to determine 

its effects on Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Sensitive, and Survey and Manage plant 

species as well as determine the risk of introducing or spreading Noxious Weed species.

Methodology

The significance of management activities upon plant species viability depends upon many 

factors, including the size of known populations, the wider geographic range of known plant 

populations outside of the project area, and the degree of species sensitivity to short-term and 

long-term habitat modification. The alternatives are evaluated in terms of how they would affect 

plant species viability in the context of the above factors.

Analysis Indicators

There are no plant species listed as Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate within the 

project area (USDA 2016, Appendix B), therefore, there will be no impacts to analyze as a result 

of project activities.

Sensitive and Survey & Manage plant species:

The analysis indicators for measuring effects of the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel 

Restoration Project are based on law, policy, and direction. Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended, and Forest Service Policy (FSM 2670) direct federal agencies to 

ensure that any action authorized, funded, or permitted by such agencies is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 1) species listed, or proposed to be listed as Endangered or 

Threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 2) species listed as Sensitive by the 

Region 5 Regional Forester, or to cause a trend to federal listing for species listed as Sensitive 

(USDA 2005). Analysis indicators also include species of concern identified as Survey and 

Manage species. The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service adopted standards and 

guidelines for the management of habitat to late-successional and old-growth forest related 

species within the range of the northern spotted owl, commonly known as the Northwest Forest 

Plan (NWFP). The NWFP included measures for management of known sites, site-specific prehabitat disturbing surveys, and/or landscape scale surveys for about 400 rare and/or isolated 

species. To be in compliance with the 2014 Survey and Manage direction (USDA 2014a), 

projects must have pre-disturbance surveys conducted if the activity is potentially considered to 

be habitat-disturbing, and known sites must be managed to protect persistence at the site.

The alternatives are compared using the following indicators: 

• The likelihood that the level of disturbance would decrease the ability of the sensitive

species to maintain reproducing, self-sustaining populations within the project area.
13

• The likelihood that habitat would be managed in a manner that most closely imitates the 

natural ecological processes that created and maintained the sensitive species habitat 

historically.

• Is the project in compliance with Survey and Manage requirements?

Noxious Weeds:

The analysis indicators for measuring the effects of the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and 

Channel Restoration Project on noxious weeds species of concern are based on policy, and 

direction. Forest Service Manual 2900 Invasive Species Management (USDA 2011) includes a 

policy statement calling for a risk assessment for noxious weeds to be completed for every 

project. The Klamath National Forest has placed a high priority on management of noxious 

weeds. Management includes reducing management related introduction and spread of noxious 

weeds on the Forest (USDA 2001). The KNF Land and Resource Management Plan includes 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for vegetative management that call for all silvicultural 

practices to consider how to best prevent introducing noxious or alien weeds (USDA 1994, p.4-

50). Additional direction is found in Executive Order #13112 (1999).

The alternatives are compared using the following indicator:

• Risk of spread of Noxious Weeds.

Spatial and Temporal Context

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, Sensitive, and Survey & Manage plant species:

The project area is the analysis area. This boundary is appropriate for assessing the project 

impacts as they might be experienced by existing sensitive species within the project area.

The short-term temporal boundary is the time it takes to complete project implementation and for 

a layer of mulch and debris to recover bare ground, three to five years.

The long-term temporal bound is the time it takes for the population of Silene marmorensis to 

recover from disturbance, ten years.

Noxious Weeds:

The spatial boundary is the project area and adjacent access roads. The temporal boundary is the 

time it takes to complete project implementation and for a layer of mulch and debris to recover 

bare ground, three to five years.

Affected Environment 

A pre-field review was conducted to determine which species of concern are present, and for 

which species a field survey may be necessary (USDA 2016). There are no known sites and 

surveys were not triggered for any species listed as Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or 

Candidate. Field surveys have been conducted for the specific project area. The pre-field review 

revealed that the sensitive species Silene marmorensis occurs within the project area and that the

noxious weed species, Centaurea solstitialis and Isatis tinctoria occur in the project area.

Though the pre-field review (Appendix A3, step 3) indicated Phaeocollybia olivacea (KNF 

Sensitive and Survey and Manage Category E) could occur in the area, surveys for preferred 

habitat were conducted, while occurrence surveys were not conducted because this species

would not be fruiting until fall, which is outside the window for project surveys
14

Table 1. Plant species of concern present in the project area

SPECIES STATUS

Centaurea solstitialis Noxious Weed; KNF moderate priority; State CW-rated

Isatis tinctoria Noxious Weed; KNF moderate priority; State BW-rated

Phaeocollybia olivacea KNF Sensitive; Survey and Manage Category E

Silene marmorensis State Rare Plant Rank 1B.2

Environmental Consequences 

Interactions between the project activities and the potential effects to botanical resources are 

discussed in detail in the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project BA/BE, 

Survey & Manage Review, and Noxious Weed Risk Assessment, and summarized here.

Table 2. Botanical Resources Analysis Indicators by Alternative

Analysis Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2

(Proposed Action)

Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or 

Candidate Species under the ESA

No species 

present in 

analysis area

No species present 

in analysis area

Likelihood that the level of disturbance would 

decrease the ability of Sensitive Species to maintain 

reproducing, self-sustaining populations within the 

project area.

No effect Very unlikely

Likelihood that habitat would be managed in a 

manner that most closely imitates the natural 

ecological processes that created and maintained 

the habitat historically of Sensitive Species.

Unlikely Highly likely

Compliance with Survey and Manage requirements Complies with all 

requirements

Complies with all 

requirements

Risk of introduction or spread of listed noxious 

plant species

Low Low

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate plant species:

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
15

The Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project is not within the range of any 

federally listed TEP plant species. A field review has been conducted, and no potentially suitable 

habitat has been located. It is my determination that the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and 

Channel Restoration Project will not affect Arabis macdonaldiana, Chamaesyce hooveri, 

Fritillaria gentneri, Orcuttia tenuis or Pinus albicaulis. There are no direct or indirect effects, 

and therefore there are no cumulative effects on threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate 

plant species. 

Sensitive plants species:

Alternative 1 -No Action

The no action alternative would have no effect on the ability of Silene marmorensis to maintain a 

reproducing, self-sustaining population within the project area. It is unlikely that the no action 

alternative would result in developing habitat that most closely imitates the natural ecological 

processes that created and maintained the habitat for Silene marmorensis historically. There are 

no on-going or reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area and therefore no cumulative 

effects.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project would not significantly affect 

Sensitive plant species. It is very unlikely that the proposed action would decrease the ability of 

the Silene marmorensis to maintain reproducing, self-sustaining populations within the project 

area. It is highly likely that the proposed action would result in developing habitat that most 

closely imitates the natural ecological processes that created and maintained the habitat for 

Silene marmorensis historically. There are no on-going or reasonably foreseeable actions in the 

project area and therefore no cumulative effects.

It is very unlikely that the proposed action would decrease the ability of the Phaeocollybia 

olivacea to maintain reproducing, self-sustaining populations within the project area. It is highly 

likely that the proposed action would result in developing habitat that most closely imitates the 

natural ecological processes that created and maintained the habitat for Phaeocollybia olivacea

historically. There are no on-going or reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area and 

therefore no cumulative effects. 

Survey and Manage plant species:

Alternative 1 -No Action

The no action alternative would have no effect on the ability of Phaeocollybia olivacea to 

maintain a reproducing, self-sustaining population within the project area. It is unlikely that the 

no action alternative would result in developing habitat that most closely imitates the natural 

ecological processes that created and maintained the habitat for Phaeocollybia olivacea

historically. There are no on-going or reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area and 

therefore no cumulative effects.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project would have no effect on

Survey and Manage species and is in compliance with management requirements. 
16

Noxious Weeds:

Alternative 1 -No Action

The no action alternative would have no effect to Klamath N.F. listed noxious weeds. The 

Knownothing Fuels Reduction project is adjacent to Cecilville Road which goes through the 

project area. The project is expected to have a low risk of introducing or spreading listed noxious 

weeds into the project area.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

There is a low risk that the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project would

cause the introduction or spread of Klamath N.F. listed noxious weeds. The Knownothing Fuels 

Reduction project is adjacent to Cecilville Road which goes through the project area. The project 

is expected to have a low risk of introducing or spreading listed noxious weeds with the 

implementation of project design features that include heavy machinery washing. When the 

Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration project is combined with the Knownothing 

Fuels Reduction project the risk of introduction or spread of weeds remains low. 

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Plants: The Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and 

Channel Restoration Project complies with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as 

amended, Forest Service Policy (FSM 2670), and Klamath National Forest LRMP Standards and 

Guidelines for Sensitive plant species.

Survey and Manage Plants: The Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project 

complies with the 2014 direction for Survey and Manage Plant species (USDA 2014a).

Noxious Weeds: The Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project complies 

with the Forest Service Manual 2900 and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for noxious weed 

species.
17

Botany and Noxious Weeds Project Design Features

Table 3. Project design features for Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 

Design 

Feature Description 

WEED-1 Noxious weed infestations will be flagged on the ground prior to project 

implementation. Material from within the flagged noxious weed boundary will 

not be transported unless to a location that is approved by the District Botanist 

in order to prevent transporting seed bank to uninfested locations. Known 

infestations of noxious weeds will be treated by either manual or mechanical 

methods prior to seed set to avoid transporting seeds from the infested locations 

into other portions of the project area.

WEED-2 Equipment will be cleaned of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, and other debris 

that could contain or hold seed prior to moving to the project area, and after 

leaving the project area.

WEED-3 Wherever seed and/or straw is used to restore areas of ground disturbance, 

certified weed free seed and straw would be specified in the contract and used 

during implementation and any follow up treatments.
18

LITERATURE CITED

Carlson, D. 2015. Biological Assessment/Evaluation for Threated, Endangered, Proposed, 

Candidate/Sensitive Plant Species: Jess Project. January 2015. Salmon/Scott River Ranger 

District, Klamath National Forest, Fort Jones, CA.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 2015. Pest Rating of Noxious Weed Species 

and Noxious Weed Seed. State of California, Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of 

Plant Health and Pest prevention Services. July 2015.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2016. California Natural Diversity Database 

Occurrence Report: Occurrence Number 24. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

February 2016.

Cal-IPC. 2016. Centaurea solstitialis. In: Invasive Plants of California's Wildland, (Online). California 

Invasive Plant Council (Producer). Available: http://www.calipc.org/ip/management/ipcw/pages/detailreport.cfm@usernumber=28&surveynumber=182.php

[2016, August, 25]

Nakamura, G. and .J. K. Nelson. 2001. Illustrated Field Guide to Selected Rare Plants of Northern

California. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Communication

Services. Oakland, CA.

Natureserve. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life: Silene marmorensis (online). 

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia (producer). Available:

http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?sourceTemplate=tabular_report.wmt&loadTe

mplate=species_RptComprehensive.wmt&selectedReport=RptComprehensive.wmt&summaryVi

ew=tabular_report.wmt&elKey=152454&paging=home&save=true&startIndex=1&nextStartInde

x=1&reset=false&offPageSelectedElKey=152454&offPageSelectedElType=species&offPageYes

No=true&post_processes=&radiobutton=radiobutton&selectedIndexes=152454 [2016, August, 

26]

Noxious Weed Control Board (NWCB). 2016. Dyer’s Woad. Washington State Noxious Weed Control 

Board. http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/detail.asp?weed=79 [2016, August, 25]

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Land and Forest Resource 

Management Plan. Klamath National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Handbook to Additional Fungal Species of Special Concern in the 

Northwest Forest Plan. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-572. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service Manual: Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Management. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Forest Service, 2005. P.8-10 (FSM 2672.42).

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Stipulation and (Proposed) Order RE: Injunction, Case No. C04-844-P. 

Hon. Marsha J. Pechman. U.S. District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle, October 

11, 2006. Unpublished document on file, Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, 

CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest Service Manual 2900, Invasive Species Management. USFS. 

Washington, D.C.
19

USDA Forest Service. 2013a. 2670: Federally Listed and Sensitive Plant Species. July 2013. Klamath 

National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2013b. Klamath National Forest Noxious Weed and Nonnative Invasive Plant 

List. March 29, 2013.

USDA Forest Service. 2014a. Direction Regarding the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines: 

Letter to Forest Supervisors within the Northwest Forest Plan Area. May 13, 2014.

USDA Forest Service. 2014b. Table 1-1. Species Included in Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines and Category Assignment (December 2003, but with January 2001 ROD Category 

Assignment for Red Tree Vole). May 13, 2014.

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Botanical Pre-field Review of Proposed Projects and Results of Preliminary 

Field Review – Appendix A-1, A-2, A-3, T&E Report. Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel 

Restoration Project. February - August 2016. Unpublished documents on file. Salmon/Scott River 

Ranger District, Klamath National Forest, Fort Jones, CA.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. January 2001. Record of Decision 

and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and 

other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents within the Range of the northern spotted owl.

Whitson, Tom D. ed. 2012. Weeds of the West. Western Society of Weed Science. 11th edition. 2012.

Zouhar, K. 2002. Centaurea solstitialis. In: Fire Effects Information System, (Online). U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory 

(Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/censol/all.html [2016, 

August, 25]

Zouhar, K. 2009. Isatis tinctoria. In: Fire Effects Information System, (Online). U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory 

(Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/isatin/all.html [2016, August,

25]
20

APPENDIX A1 – MANAGE KNOWN SITES PRE-FIELD 

TABLE

Project Name: Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project

Date: 2/26/2016 Prepared by: Melissa Van Scoyoc

Manage All Known Sites and Manage High Priority Sites

*This Table includes all plant species included in Survey and Manage Category Assignment 

that are listed as Category B, D, E or F. (December 2003 list, but with January 2001 ROD 

category assignment for the Red Tree Vole)

TAXA GROUP

 Species

Note: Where taxon has more than one name indicated, 

first name is current accepted name, second one (in 

parentheses) is name used in NWFP (Table C-3).

Category

Known site 

present in 

project

EquivalentEffort surveys 

required**

FUNGI

Acanthophysium farlowii (Aleurodiscus farlowii) B No N8,9

Albatrellus avellaneus B No N5,7,9

Albatrellus caeruleoporus B No N5,7,9

Albatrellus ellisii B No N9

Albatrellus flettii, In Washington and California B No N9

Alpova alexsmithii B No N8,9

Alpova olivaceotinctus B No N9

Arcangeliella camphorata (Arcangeliella sp. nov. #Trappe 12382; 

Arcangeliella sp. nov. #Trappe 12359) B No N8,9

Arcangeliella crassa B No N9

Arcangeliella lactarioides B No N9

Asterophora lycoperdoides B No N8,9

Asterophora parasitica B No N8,9

Baeospora myriadophylla B No N9

Balsamia nigrens (Balsamia nigra) B No N8,9

Boletus haematinus B No N9

Boletus pulcherrimus B No N9

Bondarzewia mesenterica (Bondarzewia montana) B No N9

Cantharellus subalbidus, In Washington and California D No N6

Catathelasma ventricosa B No N5,7,9

Chalciporus piperatus (Boletus piperatus) D No N6

N

Chamonixia caespitosa (Chamonixia pacifica sp. nov. #Trappe #12768) B No N5,7,9

Choiromyces alveolatus B No N9

Choiromyces venosus B No N5,7,9

Chroogomphus loculatus B No N9

Chrysomphalina grossula B No N5,7,9

Clavariadelphus ligula B No N9

Clavariadelphus occidentalis (Clavariadelphus pistillaris) B No N9

Clavariadelphus sachalinensis B No N7,8,9

Clavariadelphus subfastigiatus B No N9

Clavariadelphus truncatus (syn. Clavariadelphus borealis) D No N6,9
21

Manage All Known Sites and Manage High Priority Sites

*This Table includes all plant species included in Survey and Manage Category Assignment 

that are listed as Category B, D, E or F. (December 2003 list, but with January 2001 ROD 

category assignment for the Red Tree Vole)

TAXA GROUP

 Species

Note: Where taxon has more than one name indicated, 

first name is current accepted name, second one (in 

parentheses) is name used in NWFP (Table C-3).

Category

Known site 

present in 

project

EquivalentEffort surveys 

required**

Clavulina castanopes v. lignicola (Clavulina ornatipes) B No N7,8,9

Clitocybe senilis B No N9

Clitocybe subditopoda B No N9

Collybia bakerensis F No N6

Cordyceps ophioglossoides B No N5,7,9

Cortinarius barlowensis (syn. Cortinarius azureus) B No N7,8,9

Cortinarius boulderensis B No N7,8,9

Cortinarius cyanites B No N9

Cortinarius depauperatus (Cortinarius spilomeus) B No N7,8,9

Cortinarius magnivelatus B No N9

Cortinarius olympianus B No N9

Cortinarius speciosissimus (Cortinarius rainierensis) B No N7,8,9

Cortinarius tabularis B No N7,8,9

Cortinarius umidicola (Cortinarius canabarba) B No N7,8,9

Cortinarius valgus B No N5,7,9

Cortinarius variipes B No N7,8,9

Cortinarius verrucisporus B No N9

Cortinarius wiebeae B No N7,8,9

Cudonia monticola B No N9

Cyphellostereum laeve B No N7,8,9

Dendrocollybia racemosa (Collybia racemosa) B No N9

Dermocybe humboldtensis B No N5,7,9

Destuntzia fusca B No N8,9

Destuntzia rubra B No N5,7,9

Dichostereum boreale (Dichostereum granulosum) B No N7,8,9

Elaphomyces anthracinus B No N7,8,9

Elaphomyces subviscidus B No N7,8,9

Endogone acrogena B No N7,8,9

Endogone oregonensis B No N7,8,9

Entoloma nitidum (Rhodocybe nitida) B No N5,7,9

Fayodia bisphaerigera (Fayodia gracilipes) B No N9

Fevansia aurantiaca (Alpova sp. nov. # Trappe 1966) (Alpova aurantiaca) B No N8,9

Galerina cerina B No N5,7,9

Galerina heterocystis E No N6

Galerina sphagnicola E No N6

Gastroboletus imbellus B No N7,8,9

Gastroboletus ruber B No N7,8,9

Gastroboletus subalpinus B No N9

Gastroboletus turbinatus B No N9

Gastroboletus vividus (Gastroboletus sp. nov. #Trappe 2897; Gastroboletus

sp. nov. #Trappe 7515) B No N9
22

Manage All Known Sites and Manage High Priority Sites

*This Table includes all plant species included in Survey and Manage Category Assignment 

that are listed as Category B, D, E or F. (December 2003 list, but with January 2001 ROD 

category assignment for the Red Tree Vole)

TAXA GROUP

 Species

Note: Where taxon has more than one name indicated, 

first name is current accepted name, second one (in 

parentheses) is name used in NWFP (Table C-3).

Category

Known site 

present in 

project

EquivalentEffort surveys 

required**

Gastrosuillus amaranthii (Gastrosuillus sp. nov. #Trappe 9608) E No N6

Gastrosuillus umbrinus (Gastroboletus sp. nov. #Trappe 7516) B No N9

Gautieria magnicellaris B No N9

Gautieria otthii B No N9

Gelatinodiscus flavidus B No N9

Glomus radiatum B No N5,7,9

Gomphus bonarii B No N9

Gomphus clavatus F *** N6

Gomphus kauffmanii E No N6

Gymnomyces abietis (Gymnomyces sp. nov. #Trappe 1690, 1706, 1710; 

Gymnomyces sp. nov. #Trappe 4703, 5576; Gymnomyces sp. nov. #Trappe 

5052; Gymnomyces sp. nov. #Trappe 7545; Martellia sp. nov. #Trappe 1700; 

Martellia sp. nov. #Trappe 311; Martellia sp. nov. #Trappe 5903)

B No N9

Gymnomyces nondistincta (Martellia sp. nov. #Trappe 649) B No N8,9

Gymnopilus punctifolius, In California B No N9

Gyromitra californica B No N9

Hebeloma olympianum (Hebeloma olympiana) B No N7,8,9

Helvella crassitunicata B No N7,8,9

Helvella elastica B No N7,8,9

Hydnotrya inordinata (Hydnotrya sp. nov. #Trappe 787, 792) B No N9

Hydnotrya subnix (Hydnotrya subnix sp. nov. #Trappe 1861) B No N7,8,9

Hydropus marginellus (Mycena marginella) B No N5,7,9

Hygrophorus caeruleus B No N9

Hygrophorus karstenii B No N8,9

Hygrophorus vernalis B No N5,7,9

Hypomyces luteovirens B No N5,9

Leucogaster citrinus B No N9

Leucogaster microsporus B No N9

Macowanites chlorinosmus B No N5,7,,9

Macowanites lymanensis B No N7,8,9

Macowanites mollis B No N7,8,9

Marasmius applanatipes B No N9

Martellia fragrans B No N9

Martellia idahoensis B No N7,8,9

Mycena hudsoniana B No N9

Mycena overholtsii D No N6

Mycena quinaultensis B No N9

Mycena tenax B No N9

Mythicomyces corneipes B No N9

Neolentinus adhaerens B No N7,8,9

Neolentinus kauffmanii B No N5,7,9
23

Manage All Known Sites and Manage High Priority Sites

*This Table includes all plant species included in Survey and Manage Category Assignment 

that are listed as Category B, D, E or F. (December 2003 list, but with January 2001 ROD 

category assignment for the Red Tree Vole)

TAXA GROUP

 Species

Note: Where taxon has more than one name indicated, 

first name is current accepted name, second one (in 

parentheses) is name used in NWFP (Table C-3).

Category

Known site 

present in 

project

EquivalentEffort surveys 

required**

Nivatogastrium nubigenum, except OR Eastern Cascades and CA Cascades B No N9

Octavianina cyanescens (Octavianina sp. nov. #Trappe 7502) B No N7,8,9

Octavianina macrospora B No N7,8,9

Octavianina papyracea B No N5,7,9

Otidea leporina D No N6

Otidea smithii B No N5,9

Phaeocollybia attenuata D No N6

Phaeocollybia californica B No N9

Phaeocollybia dissiliens B No N7,8,9

Phaeocollybia fallax D No N6

Phaeocollybia gregaria B No N9

Phaeocollybia kauffmanii D No N6

Phaeocollybia olivacea, In Oregon F No N6

Phaeocollybia olivacea, In Washington and California E No N6,9

Phaeocollybia oregonensis (syn. Phaeocollybia carmanahensis) B No N7,8,9

Phaeocollybia piceae B No N9

Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva B No N9

Phaeocollybia scatesiae B No N9

Phaeocollybia sipei B No N9

Phaeocollybia spadicea B No N9

Phellodon atratus (Phellodon atratum) B No N9

Pholiota albivelata B No N5,9

Podostroma alutaceum B No N5,7,9

Polyozellus multiplex B No N7,8,9

Pseudaleuria quinaultiana B No N7,8,9

Ramaria abietina B No N9

Ramaria amyloidea B No N9

Ramaria araiospora B No N9

Ramaria aurantiisiccescens B No N9

Ramaria botryis var. aurantiiramosa B No N9

Ramaria celerivirescens B No N5,9

Ramaria claviramulata B No N9

Ramaria concolor f. marrii B No N5,7,9

Ramaria concolor f. tsugina B No N7,8,9

Ramaria conjunctipes var. sparsiramosa (Ramaria fasciculata var. 

sparsiramosa) B No N9

Ramaria coulterae B No N9

Ramaria cyaneigranosa B No N9

Ramaria gelatiniaurantia B No N9

Ramaria gracilis B No N9

Ramaria hilaris var. olympiana B No N7,8
24

Manage All Known Sites and Manage High Priority Sites

*This Table includes all plant species included in Survey and Manage Category Assignment 

that are listed as Category B, D, E or F. (December 2003 list, but with January 2001 ROD 

category assignment for the Red Tree Vole)

TAXA GROUP

 Species

Note: Where taxon has more than one name indicated, 

first name is current accepted name, second one (in 

parentheses) is name used in NWFP (Table C-3).

Category

Known site 

present in 

project

EquivalentEffort surveys 

required**

Ramaria largentii B No N9

Ramaria lorithamnus B No N7,8,9

Ramaria maculatipes B No N9

Ramaria rainierensis B No N5,7,9

Ramaria rubella var. blanda B No N5,7,9

Ramaria rubribrunnescens B No N5,7,9

Ramaria rubrievanescens B No N9

Ramaria rubripermanens, In Washington and California B No N9

Ramaria rubripermanens, In Oregon D No N6

Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva (Ramaria spinulosa) B No N9

Ramaria stuntzii B No N9

Ramaria suecica B No N7,8,9

Ramaria thiersii B No N9

Ramaria verlotensis B No N5,7,9

Rhizopogon abietis B No N9

Rhizopogon atroviolaceus B No N7,8,9

Rhizopogon brunneiniger B No N9

Rhizopogon chamaleontinus (Rhizopogon sp. nov. #Trappe 9432) B No N7,8,9

Rhizopogon ellipsosporus (Alpova sp. nov. # Trappe 9730) B No N9

Rhizopogon evadens var. subalpinus B No N9

Rhizopogon exiguus B No N7,8,9

Rhizopogon flavofibrillosus B No N9

Rhizopogon inquinatus B No N7,8,9

Rhizopogon truncatus D No N6

Rhodocybe speciosa B No N9

Rickenella swartzii (Rickenella setipes) B No N5,7,9

Russula mustelina B No N9

Sarcodon fuscoindicus B No N9

Sedecula pulvinata B No N9

Sowerbyella rhenana (Aleuria rhenana) B No N9

Sparassis crispa D No N6

Spathularia flavida B No N9

Stagnicola perplexa B No N9

Thaxterogaster pavelekii (Thaxterogaster sp. nov. #Trappe 4867, 6242, 7427, 

7962, 8520) B No N7,8,9

Tremiscus helvelloides D No N6

Tricholoma venenatum B No N9

Tricholomopsis fulvescens B No N9

Tuber asa (Tuber sp. nov. #Trappe 2302) B No N9

Tuber pacificum (Tuber sp. nov. #Trappe 12493) B No N7,8,9
25

Manage All Known Sites and Manage High Priority Sites

*This Table includes all plant species included in Survey and Manage Category Assignment 

that are listed as Category B, D, E or F. (December 2003 list, but with January 2001 ROD 

category assignment for the Red Tree Vole)

TAXA GROUP

 Species

Note: Where taxon has more than one name indicated, 

first name is current accepted name, second one (in 

parentheses) is name used in NWFP (Table C-3).

Category

Known site 

present in 

project

EquivalentEffort surveys 

required**

Tylopilus porphyrosporus (Tylopilus pseudoscaber) D No N6

No

LICHENS

Bryoria subcana B No N2

Buellia oidalea E No N6

Calicium abietinum B No N1

Calicium adspersum E No N6

Cetrelia cetrarioides E No N6

Chaenotheca chrysocephala B No N1

Chaenotheca ferruginea B No N1

Chaenotheca subroscida E No N6

Chaenothecopsis pusilla (syn. Chaenothecopsis subpusilla, Calcium 

asikkalense, Calcium floerkei, Calcium pusillum, Calcium subpusillum) E No N6

Collema nigrescens In WA and OR, except in OR Klamath Physiographic 

Province F *** N6

Dendriscocaulon intricatulum, In CA E No N6

Dermatocarpon luridum E No N6

Fuscopannaria saubinetii (Pannaria saubinetii) E No N6

Heterodermia sitchensis E No N6

Hypogymnia vittata (Hypogymnia vittiata) E No N6

Hypotrachyna revoluta (syn. Parmelia revoluta) E No N6

Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum E No N6

Leptogium rivale E No N6

Leptogium teretiusculum E No N6

Microcalicium arenarium B No N1

Nephroma bellum, In OR: Klamath, Willamette Valley, Eastern Cascades; 

WA; Western Cascaades (outside GPNF), Eastern Cascades, Olympic 

Peninsula Physiographic Provinces

E No N6

Nephroma isidiosum E No N6

Pannaria rubiginosa E No N6

Peltigera pacifica E No N6

Platismatia lacunosa, all except OR CR E No N6

Stenocybe clavata E No N6

Tholurna dissimilis, south of Columbia River B No N2

Usnea hesperina E No N2

Usnea longissima, In OR except Curry, Josephine, & Jackson Counties F *** N6

BRYOPHYTES

Brotherella roellii E No N6
26

Manage All Known Sites and Manage High Priority Sites

*This Table includes all plant species included in Survey and Manage Category Assignment 

that are listed as Category B, D, E or F. (December 2003 list, but with January 2001 ROD 

category assignment for the Red Tree Vole)

TAXA GROUP

 Species

Note: Where taxon has more than one name indicated, 

first name is current accepted name, second one (in 

parentheses) is name used in NWFP (Table C-3).

Category

Known site 

present in 

project

EquivalentEffort surveys 

required**

Buxbaumia viridis, In CA E No N6

Diplophyllum plicatum B No N1

Herbertus aduncus E No N6

Iwatsukiella leucotricha B No N1

Kurzia makinoana B No N2

Marsupella emarginata v. aquatica B No N2

Orthodontium gracile B No N2

Racomitrium aquaticum E No N2

Rhizomnium nudum, In OR B No N1

Tritomaria exsectiformis B No N2

Tritomaria quinquedentata B No N1

VASCULAR PLANTS

Arceuthobium tsugense mertensianae, In Washington only F *** N6

Notes:

* Adapted from Enclosure 3 - Table 1.1in: Forest Service Correspondence, File Code 1950 - Direction Regarding the 

Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines - May 13, 2014 (USDA 2014). This list contains those species that are 

not listed as Category A&C, which require pre-disturbance surveys. This list is known as the “manage known sites” 

table.

**Agencies will not sign NEPA decisions or decision documents for habitat disturbing activities in old-growth forests 

in fiscal year 2006 (fiscal year 2011 for fungi) and beyond, unless either:

• strategic surveys have been completed for the province that encompasses the project area, or

equivalent-effort surveys have been conducted in the old-growth habitat to be disturbed (USDA/USDI 2001, p.9, 

Standards and Guidelines, Category B species).

*** Category F species require only strategic surveys, and are included in this list only for reference. 1 Strategic survey requirements have been met (USDA/USDI 2006).

2 Species is not known or suspected to occur on Klamath National Forest (USDA 2008).

3 Ground disturbing activities will not occur in stands defined as old-growth (USDA/USDI 2001, Standards and 

Guidelines p.79).

4 Proposed project falls within four project types exempt from 2001 ROD requirements (USDA 2006).

5 There is no habitat for these species on KNF lands. They are found in hypercoastal areas in redwood, Sitka spruce, 

western hemlock, or other forest types not present on the Klamath N.F. (USDA 2002, 2010, Attachment C; 2015, 

Christy and Wagner 1996, Sharnoff 2014).

6 Equivalent Effort surveys apply only to Category B species. 7 Category B Fungi species not documented in any survey efforts in Klamath and Cascade physiographic provinces of 

California, Northwest Forest Plan Area (USDA 2015). 8 Species not documented in CA. (USDA 2002, 2010, 2011a, 2011b, 2015 Christy and Wagner 1996, Sharnoff 2014) 9

 Strategic survey requirements have been met in CA. (USDA 2011a, 2011b, 2015).

Description of Categories:
27

A: Manage All Known Sites; Pre-disturbance surveys required; Strategic Surveys.

B: Manage All Known Sites; Strategic Surveys.

C: Manage High Priority Sites; Pre-disturbance surveys required; Strategic Surveys.

D: Manage High Priority Sites; Strategic Surveys.

E: Manage All Known Sites; Strategic Surveys.

F: Strategic Surveys.

References:

Christy, J.A., and Wagner, D.H. 1996. Guide for the identification of rare, threatened or sensitive bryophytes in the 

range of the Northern Spotted Owl, Western Washington, Western Oregon, and Northwestern California. 

Eugene District, USDI Bureau of Land Management; Siuslaw National Forest, USDA Forest Service; The 

Nature Conservancy; and the Northwest Botanical Institute.

Magney, D. 1996. Preliminary List of Rare California Lichens. Unpublished document on file, Supervisor’s Office, 

Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

Sharnoff, S. 2014. A field guide to California Lichens. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT and London. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Lichen Survey Summary for Survey and Manage Species. David Magney and others. 

Unpublished document on file, Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Stipulation and (Proposed) Order RE: Injunction. Hon. Marsha J. Pechman, U.S. 

District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle, October 11, 2006. Case 2:04-cv-00844-MJP. 

Unpublished document on file, Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Category B species Known or Suspected to occur on KNF. Karen West, January 29, 

2008. Unpublished document on file, Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Summary of findings pertaining to the Status of Strategic Surveys for Fungi in the 

Northern Province: Briefing for the Province Resources Board, and Attachment A-C. Lisa Hoover & Julie 

Nelson, June 25, 2010. Unpublished documents on file, Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, 

Yreka, CA. 

USDA Forest Service 2011a. Survey and manage Category B Fungi Species: Completion of Strategic Surveys. Lisa 

Hoover, February 7, 2011. Unpublished documents on file, Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, 

Yreka, CA. 

USDA Forest Service 2011b. Status of Strategic Surveys for Fungi in the Northern Province: Briefing for the 

Province Resources Board. Lisa Hoover, February 7, 2011. Unpublished documents on file, Supervisor’s 

Office, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. 

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Forest Service Correspondence, File Code 1950 - Direction Regarding the Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines - May 13, 2014. 

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Survey and Manage Category B Fungi Strategic Survey Report, Pacific Southwest 

Region, Northwest Forest Plan Area. Hoover, Lisa et al. May 2015.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. January 2001. Record of Decision for 

Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and 

Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl. http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/RODjan01.pdf

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Implementation of 2003 Survey and 

Manage Annual Species Review. FS-Memorandum. BLM – Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2004-034. 

December 19, 2003.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2006. Category B Species where Strategic 

Surveys are Considered Complete. FS-Memorandum. BLM – Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2006. 

March 24, 2006. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/02-categoryb_lichens_bryophytes.pdf
28

APPENDIX A2 – BOTANICAL PRE-FIELD REVIEW ANALYSIS FLOWCHART

Project: Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and 

Channel Restoration Project

Name: Melissa Van Scoyoc Date: 03/04/2016

This form serves to track special management plants listed by the Klamath National Forest through the pre-field analysis process. Species considered in this 

document are those species included in Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines that require special management on the Klamath, Category assignments A 

or C (USDA/USDI 2001, USDA 2014), and those species listed as Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Sensitive on the Klamath (USDA 2013). 

 Completion of this form certifies that pre-field evaluation procedures are in compliance with species survey protocols.

 Survey and Manage: survey protocol will be triggered if column 1 is "yes" and if any of columns 2,3,4, or 5 (both parts) is "yes".

 Sensitive Plants: Regional botanical survey protocol is triggered if column 1 is "yes" and if either column 2 or 5 (both parts) is "yes".

Vascular Plants: 1 2 3 4 5

Taxa

Code

Species

Scientific name

Common name

R5 

Sensitive, 

Federal & 

State Rare, 

Threatened, 

Endangered

Survey 

and 

Manage

Category

If the species is assumed to 

be present, do the types of 

actions proposed in this 

project have the potential to 

directly or indirectly 

impact this species or alter 

its habitat conditions (TES) 

or significantly negatively 

affect species/habitat 

(S&M)?

Known 

site exists 

in 

proposed 

project 

area

Known site 

exists in 

5th field 

watershed

Known site 

exists in 

adjacent 

24K 

quads*

Project w/in known or 

suspected range and 

there is probability of 

suitable habitat w/in 

project area

Survey 

protocol 

triggered**

Known or 

Suspected 

Range

Suitable 

Habitat

ARMA33

Arabis macdonaldiana

McDonald's rock cress

State, 

Federal 

Endangered

no N/A N/A no1 NA no

ASAP Astragalus applegatei

Applegate’s milk-vetch

Federal 

Endangered

no N/A N/A no1 NA no
29

Vascular Plants: 1 2 3 4 5

Taxa

Code

Species

Scientific name

Common name

R5 

Sensitive, 

Federal & 

State Rare, 

Threatened, 

Endangered

Survey 

and 

Manage

Category

If the species is assumed to 

be present, do the types of 

actions proposed in this 

project have the potential to 

directly or indirectly 

impact this species or alter 

its habitat conditions (TES) 

or significantly negatively 

affect species/habitat 

(S&M)?

Known 

site exists 

in 

proposed 

project 

area

Known site 

exists in 

5th field 

watershed

Known site 

exists in 

adjacent 

24K 

quads*

Project w/in known or 

suspected range and 

there is probability of 

suitable habitat w/in 

project area

Survey 

protocol 

triggered**

Known or 

Suspected 

Range

Suitable 

Habitat

BEOR Bensoniella oregana

bensoniella

R5 Sensitive 

(not on KNF 

list)

CA Rare

A

(in CA) no

no no no3 no3

no

BOCR Botrychium crenulatum

scalloped moonwort

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

BOLU Botrychium lunaria

common mooonwort

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

BOMI Botrychium minganense

Mingan moonwort

Sensitive

A

(in OR 

& CA) no

no no no2 NA no

BOMO Botrychium montanum

mountain grape-fern

Sensitive A no no no no2 NA no

BOPI Botrychium pinnatum

northwest moonwort

Sensitive no N/A N/A no5 no5 no

BOPU2 Botrychium pumicola

Crater Lake grape-fern

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

CAGR Calochortus greenei

Green's mariposa-lily

Sensitive no N/A N/A no1 NA no

CAPE Calochortus persistens

Siskiyou mariposa-lily

Sensitive,

CA Rare,

Federal

Candidate

no N/A N/A no2 NA no

CAWI8 Campanula wilkinsiana

Wilkin's harebell

Sensitive no N/A N/A yes2 no2 no
30

Vascular Plants: 1 2 3 4 5

Taxa

Code

Species

Scientific name

Common name

R5 

Sensitive, 

Federal & 

State Rare, 

Threatened, 

Endangered

Survey 

and 

Manage

Category

If the species is assumed to 

be present, do the types of 

actions proposed in this 

project have the potential to 

directly or indirectly 

impact this species or alter 

its habitat conditions (TES) 

or significantly negatively 

affect species/habitat 

(S&M)?

Known 

site exists 

in 

proposed 

project 

area

Known site 

exists in 

5th field 

watershed

Known site 

exists in 

adjacent 

24K 

quads*

Project w/in known or 

suspected range and 

there is probability of 

suitable habitat w/in 

project area

Survey 

protocol 

triggered**

Known or 

Suspected 

Range

Suitable 

Habitat

CHSU Chaenactis suffrutescens

Shasta chaenactis

Sensitive no N/A N/A yes2 no2 no

COAS

Coptis aspleniifolia

spleenwort-leaved 

goldthread

A no no no no6 NA no

COTR2 Coptis trifolia

threeleaflet goldthread

A no no no no6 NA no

COAQ Corydalis aquae-gelidae

cold-water corydalis

A no no no no6 NA no

CYFA Cypripedium fasciculatum

clustered lady's slipper

Sensitive C yes no yes yes yes2 maybe2,4 yes

CYMO2 Cypripedium montanum

montain lady slipper

Sensitive

C

yes no yes yes yes2 maybe2,4 yes

DRCA6

Draba carnosula

Mt. Shasta draba

Sensitive no N/A N/A yes2 no2 no

EPOR Epilobium oreganum

Oregon fireweed

Sensitive no N/A N/A yes2 no3,4 no

ERAL6 Eriogonum alpinum

Trinity buckwheat

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

ERHI7 Eriogonum hirtellum

Klamath Mtn. buckwheat

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

ERURE

Eriogonum ursinum var.

erubescens

blushing wild buckwheat

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

ERHE7 Erythronium hendersonii

Henderson’s fawn lily

Sensitive yes no N/A N/A no2

yes2 yes
31

Vascular Plants: 1 2 3 4 5

Taxa

Code

Species

Scientific name

Common name

R5 

Sensitive, 

Federal & 

State Rare, 

Threatened, 

Endangered

Survey 

and 

Manage

Category

If the species is assumed to 

be present, do the types of 

actions proposed in this 

project have the potential to 

directly or indirectly 

impact this species or alter 

its habitat conditions (TES) 

or significantly negatively 

affect species/habitat 

(S&M)?

Known 

site exists 

in 

proposed 

project 

area

Known site 

exists in 

5th field 

watershed

Known site 

exists in 

adjacent 

24K 

quads*

Project w/in known or 

suspected range and 

there is probability of 

suitable habitat w/in 

project area

Survey 

protocol 

triggered**

Known or 

Suspected 

Range

Suitable 

Habitat

EUVI Eucephalus vialis (Aster)

wayside aster

Sensitive A no no no no2 NA no

FRUM2 Frasera umpquaensis

clustered green-gentian

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

FRGE Fritillaria gentneri

Gentner mission-bells

State,

Federal 

Endangered

no N/A N/A no1 NA no

HOHE2

Horkelia hendersonii

Henderson's horkelia

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

IVPI Ivesia pickeringii

Pickering's ivesia

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

LULEA

Lupinus lepidus

var. ashlandensis

Mt. Ashland lupine

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

MIEV

Mimulus evanescens

ephemeral monkey flower

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

MIST9 Minuartia stolonifera

Scott Mtn. sandwort

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

PACII

Parnassia cirrata var. 

intermedia

fringed grass-of-parnassus

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

PEHO

Pedicularis howelli

Howell's lousewort

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

PHCO20

Phacelia cookei

Cooke's phacelia

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

PHGR2 Phacelia greenei

Scott Valley phacelia

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no
32

Vascular Plants: 1 2 3 4 5

Taxa

Code

Species

Scientific name

Common name

R5 

Sensitive, 

Federal & 

State Rare, 

Threatened, 

Endangered

Survey 

and 

Manage

Category

If the species is assumed to 

be present, do the types of 

actions proposed in this 

project have the potential to 

directly or indirectly 

impact this species or alter 

its habitat conditions (TES) 

or significantly negatively 

affect species/habitat 

(S&M)?

Known 

site exists 

in 

proposed 

project 

area

Known site 

exists in 

5th field 

watershed

Known site 

exists in 

adjacent 

24K 

quads*

Project w/in known or 

suspected range and 

there is probability of 

suitable habitat w/in 

project area

Survey 

protocol 

triggered**

Known or 

Suspected 

Range

Suitable 

Habitat

PHIN3

Phacelia inundata

playa phacelia

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

PHHI7

Phlox hirsuta

Yreka phlox

State,

Federal 

Endangered

no N/A N/A no1 NA no

PIAL

Pinus albicaulis

Whitebark pine

Sensitive, 

Federal 

Proposed

no N/A N/A yes1 no1 no

PLOR4

Platanthera orbiculata 

var. orbiculata 

(Habenaria)

large round-leaved orchid

C

no

no no no6 NA no

POCH3

Polemonium chartaceum

Mason’s sky pilot

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

RAPR Raillardella pringlei

showy raillardella

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

ROCO3 Rorippa columbiae

Columbia yellow cress

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

TAHO2

Tauschia howellii

Howell's tauschia

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

THRO4 Thermopsis robusta

robust false lupine

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no
33

Bryophytes: 1 2 3 4 5

Taxa

Code

Species

Scientific name

Common name

R5 

Sensitive, 

Federal & 

State Rare, 

Threatened, 

Endangered

Survey 

and 

Manage

Category

If the species is assumed to

be present, do the types of 

actions proposed in this 

project have the potential 

to directly or indirectly 

impact this species or alter 

its habitat conditions 

(TES) or significantly 

negatively affect 

species/habitat (S&M)?

Known site 

exists in 

proposed 

project 

area

Known site 

exists in 

5th field 

watershed

Known site 

exists in 

adjacent 

24k quads*

Project w/in known or 

suspected range and 

there is probability of 

suitable habitat w/in 

project area Survey

protocol

triggered** Known or 

Suspected 

Range

Suitable 

Habitat

BUVI2

Buxbaumia viridis

green bug moss

Sensitive

E (predisturbance 

surveys not 

required)

no

N/A N/A no2 NA

no

FIAP Fissidens aphelotaxifolius

brook pocket moss

Sensitive no N/A N/A yes2 no2 no

HEBL2

Helodium blandowii

Blandow’s bog moss

Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

MEUL70 Meesia uliginosa

broad-nerved hump-moss Sensitive no N/A N/A no2 NA no

MIEL5 Mielichhoferia elongata

elongate copper moss

Sensitive yes no N/A N/A yes2 maybe2 yes

PTCA5 Ptilidium californicum

Pacific fuzzwort

A (in CA 

only) yes no yes yes yes5 yes5 yes

SCPE9 Schistostega pennata

cat's eyes moss

A no no no no6 NA no

TEGE

Tetraphis geniculata

bent-kneed four-tooth 

moss

A

no

no no no6 NA no
34

Fungi: 1 2 3 4 5

Taxa

Code

Species

Scientific name

Common name

R5 

Sensitive, 

Federal & 

State Rare, 

Threatened, 

Endangered

Survey 

and 

Manage

Category

If the species is assumed to 

be present, do the types of 

actions proposed in this 

project have the potential 

to directly or indirectly 

impact this species or alter 

its habitat conditions 

(TES) or significantly 

negatively affect 

species/habitat (S&M)?

Known site 

exists in 

proposed 

project 

area

Known site 

exists in 

5th field 

watershed

Known site 

exists in 

adjacent 

5th field 

watershed

Project w/in known or

suspected range and 

there is probability of 

suitable habitat w/in 

project area Survey

protocol

triggered** Known or 

Suspected 

Range

Suitable 

Habitat

BOPU4 Boletus pulcherrimus Sensitive B no N/A N/A yes2 no2 no

BRNO8 Bridgeoporus nobilissimus

noble polypore

R5 Sensitive (not 

KNF listed) A no no No data no2 NA no

CUMO2 Cudonia monticola Sensitive B yes no N/A N/A yes2 maybe2 yes

DERA5 Dendrocollybia racemosa 

(Collybia racemosa)

Sensitive B no N/A N/A yes2 no2 no

PHOL Phaeocollybia olivacea Sensitive E (in CA), 

F (in OR) yes no N/A N/A yes2 maybe2 yes

TRFU3 Tricholomopsis fulvescens Sensitive B no N/A N/A yes2 no2 no
35

Lichens: 1 2 3 4 5

Taxa

Code

Species

Scientific name

Common name

R5 

Sensitive, 

Federal & 

State Rare, 

Threatened, 

Endangered

Survey 

and 

Manage

Category

If the species is assumed to 

be present, do the types of 

actions proposed in this 

project have the potential 

to directly or indirectly 

impact this species or alter 

its habitat conditions 

(TES) or significantly 

negatively affect 

species/habitat (S&M)?

Known site 

exists in 

proposed 

project 

area

Known site 

exists in 

5th field 

watershed

Known site 

exists in 

adjacent 

5th field 

watershed

Project w/in known or 

suspected range and 

there is probability of 

suitable habitat w/in 

project area Survey

protocol

triggered** Known or 

Suspected 

Range

Suitable 

Habitat

HYDU60 Hypogymnia duplicata

duplicate pore lichen

A no no No data no2 NA no

LECY60 Leptogium cyanescens A no no No data no2 NA no

Lobaria linita var. tenuoir

lung lichen

A

(in OR & 

WA)

no no No data no2 NA no

LOOR60 Lobaria oregana

Oregon lung lichen

A

(in CA) yes no no No data yes2 yes2 yes

NEOC3 Nephroma occultum C yes no no No data maybe2 yes2 yes

NICE Niebla cephalota

niebla lichen

A no no No data no2 NA no

PEGO4 Peltigera gowardii

veined water lichen

Sensitive no N/A N/A yes2 no2 no

PSPE6 Pseudocyphellaria 

perpetua

A no no No data no2 NA no

PSRA3 Pseudocyphellaria 

rainierensis

A no no No data no2 NA no

TEFL4 Teloschistes flavicans

teloschistes lichen

A no no No data no2 NA no

USLO50 Usnea longissima

beard lichen

Sensitive

(but not on 

KNF list)

A no no No data no2 NA no
36

* Analysis using CNDDB BIOS Viewer version 5.38.09. March 4, 2016.

** Determination of need for a survey for Sensitive and Survey and Manage species is made by the line officer, incorporating recommendations made by the 

botanist, and considers the probability of the species being present on the project site, and the probability that the project would cause a significant negative 

effect on the species habitat or the persistence of the species at the site.

References:

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service Manual: Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Management (section 2670). 

USDA Forest Service. 2013. 2670: Sensitive Plant Species. Klamath National Forest. July 2013. 

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Forest Service Regions 5 and 6 Correspondence, File Code 1950 - Direction Regarding the Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines – May 13, 2014; plus attachments.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Survey Protocols for Survey and Manage Component 2 Bryophytes. Version 2.0. 

December 11, 1997. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Survey Protocols for Component 2 Lichens. Version 2.0. March 12, 1998. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Survey Protocols for Bridgeoporus nobilissimus Fungi. Version 2.0. Hibler & 

O'Dell, September 17, 1998. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Survey Protocols for Survey & Mangage Strategy 2 Vascular Plants. Version 2.0. 

Whiteaker et al. (January 20, 1999 transmittal).

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Survey Protocols for Protection Buffer Bryophytes. Version 2.0. December 3, 1999. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. January 2001. Record of Decision for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection 

Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the 

Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Standards and Guidelines, Table 1-1, pp. 41-51. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2002. Survey Protocols for Category A&C Lichens. Version 2.0 September 2002. (October 

18, 2002 transmittal date). 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Survey Protocols for Category A & C Lichens. Version 2.1. June 9, 2003. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003. 2003 Amendment to the Survey Protocol for Category A & C Lichens. Version 2.1 

Amendment. September, 2003. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Implementation of 2003 Survey and Manage Annual Species Review. FS-Memorandum. 

BLM – Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2004-034. December 19, 2003.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Survey Protocol for Bridgeoporus nobilissimus. Version 3.0. Hibler & O'Dell, June 

2008.
37

Plants ranked 1A, 1B.1, 1B.2, 2A, 3.1 or 4.1 as identified using the CNDDB BIOS Viewer and RareFind not listed as KNF 

Sensitive or Survey and Manage species include (habitat evaluations from RareFind):

Piperia candida (white-flowered rein orchid), Rare Plant Rank 1B.2, Sawyers Bar 24K quad.

Habitat suitable in project area, survey protocol triggered.

Sidalcea oregana ssp. eximia (coast checkerbloom), Rare Plant Rank 1B.2, Salmon Mountain and Trinity Mountain 24K quads.

No suitable habitat in project area.

Silene marmorensis (Marble Mountain campion), Rare Plant Rank 1B.2, known population within project site.

Known site within project area, survey protocol triggered.

M. Van Scoyoc Citations

1. Thorough review of Federal Endangered, Threatened and Proposed species.

2. Used KNF provided TES habitat excel spreadsheet or Survey and Manage KNF Guide for habitat descriptions and 

recommendations for analysis.

3. Nakamura G and JK Nelson. 2001. Illustrated Field Guide to Selected Rare Plants of Northern California. University of California 

Agriculture and Natural Resources Communication Services. Oakland, CA.

4. Mullens, L and R Showalter. 2007. Rare Plants of Southwest Oregon. USFS and BLM Grants Pass Interagency Office. Grants Pass, 

OR.

5. CNPS Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory <http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/>

6. Species is not known to occur in California (multiple sources reviewed for each species).
38

APPENDIX A3 – BOTANICAL PRE-FIELD REVIEW OF 

PROPOSED PROJECTS AND RESULTS OF 

PRELIMINARY FIELD REVIEW

Klamath National Forest

Botanical Prefield Review of Proposed Projects

And Results of Preliminary Field Review

PROJECT: Hotelling Gulch Fish 

Passage and Channel 

Restoration Project

RANGER DISTRICT: Salmon-Scott

USGS 

QUAD(S):

Youngs Peak COMPARTMENTS(S):

LOCATION:

EVALUATED 

BY:

Melissa Van Scoyoc

TITLE: Botanist DATE: 08/12/2016

RESOURCES CONSULTED:

GIS and NRIS layers/Atlas X (KNF Survey and Manage)

GIS and NRIS layers/Atlas X (KNF TES species)

Aerial photos X

Stand Record Cards _____

LMP Timber type GIS layer __

Botany program survey records __

Other Databases/maps ___ 

The objective of this pre-field is to determine if known sites are present in, or in the vicinity 

of, the proposed project area and to determine if potential suitable habitat for these species 

exists in the proposed project area. The species addressed in this document include species 

listed as Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, Survey and Manage (pre-project surveys 

required, Appendix A-2) and Survey and Manage (manage known/high priority sites, 

Appendix A-1).

RESULTS OF BOTANICAL PREFIELD REVIEW ANALYSIS FLOWCHART:

(See attached Appendix A-2)
39

 Step 1: Survey Protocol triggered for following species: (from an evaluation of known 

vegetative conditions within the project area prior to conducting a field survey, using 

currently available information such as known population sites, past botanical surveys 

adjacent to the project area, botanist’s personal knowledge, past vegetation mapping, EUI 

and Ecology program data, etc.)

Vascular Plants Bryophytes Fungi Lichens

Cypripedium fasciculatum

clustered lady's slipper

Mielichhoferia elongata

elongate copper moss

Cudonia monticola Lobaria oregana

Oregon lung lichen

Cypripedium montanum

mountain lady slipper

Ptilidium californicum

Pacific fuzzwort

Phaeocollybia olivacea Nephroma occultum

Erythronium hendersonii

Henderson’s fawn lily

Piperia candida

white-flowered rein orchid

Silene marmorensis

Marble Mountain campion

 Step 2: Known Sites Of 1) Sensitive, and 2) Survey and Manage Category A&C from 

Step 1 list: (pre-project surveys required)

 SPECIES STATUS POPULATION NUMBER(S)

Silene marmorensis Rare Plant Rank 1B.2 150+ (1988); 100+ (1989)

 Step 3: Description of Suitable Habitat for Sensitive/Survey and Manage Category 

A&C Species: (from Step 1 list)

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT

Cypripedium fasciculatum KNF Sensitive

Survey & Manage 

Category C

Variable, many types of coniferous and hardwood

forest.1 Moist to dry, shaded mixed, evergreen

woods.2 Usually serpentinite seeps and streambanks.3

Cypripedium montanum KNF Sensitive

Survey & Manage 

Category C

Moist areas, dry slopes, mixed-evergreen or coniferous

forest.1 Mixed conifer forest in deep humus.

2

Broadleaf upland, cismontane woodland, lower

montane coniferous forest, north coast coniferous

forest.3

Erythronium hendersonii KNF Sensitive Opening in dry oak woodlands.1 Mixed woods,

meadows, fields.2

Piperia candida Rare Plant Rank 

1B.2

North coast coniferous forest, lower montane

coniferous forest, broadleafed upland forest.

Sometimes on serpentine. Forest duff, mossy banks,

rock outcrops & muskeg.4

Silene marmorensis Rare Plant Rank 

1B.2

Broadleafed upland forest, lower montane

coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, chaparral.

Openings with little vegetation,shady areas, often

along trails; can be on serpentine.4
40

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT

Mielichhoferia elongata KNF Sensitive Grows on metamorphic, sedimentary, limestone, granite 

and serpentine rock outcrops that often contain copper or 

other heavy metals and that are seasonally moist or less 

commonly on moist soil.1 Metamorphic rock, usually 

acidic, usually vernally mesic, often roadsides, 

sometimes carbonate.3

Ptilidium californicum Survey & Manage 

Category A

Epiphytic on tree trunks, logs and stumps. Late mature 

Douglas-fir and true fir forests on moist North facing 

slopes or near riparian areas.1

Cudonia monticola KNF Sensitive

Survey & Manage 

Category B

Generally found in mature, moist coniferous forests. It 

occurs on litter (needles and decomposing wood) of the 

forest floor, where it feeds on dead and decaying organic 

material. With spruce species, white fir, Douglas fir; 

under conifers.1

Phaeocollybia olivacea KNF Sensitive

Survey & Manage 

Category E

Conifer and hardwood forests where it can grow in arcs 

in the humus layer. Mid-late seral forests incl. partial cut 

units. Mixed forests with pine or oak in coastal lowlands; 

mixed woods in Castle Crags State Park; under oaks; 

under Sequoia & fir; under tan oak1

Lobaria oregana Survey & Manage 

Category A

Wood substrate, prefers conifers. Found high in the 

canopy. Also found on boles.1

Nephroma occultum Survey & Manage 

Category C

Often associated with L. oregana. Found high in the 

canopy or forest floor openings.1

1. KNF TES habitat excel spread sheet or Survey and Manage KNF Guide.

2. Turner M and P Gustafson. 2006. Wildflowers of the Pacific Northwest. Timber Press. Portland, OR.

3. CNPS Rare and Endangered Plant inventory <http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/>

4. CNDDB RareFi nd < https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind>

 Step 4: Preliminary Field Review: (Document if preliminary field review does not 

reveal suitable habitat, in which case no further protocol surveys are needed)

Name: Melissa Van Scoyoc, Brenden Twieg

Date: 3/7/2016; 5/10/2016; 6/14/2016

Preliminary Field Review Results: Using intuitive controlled surveys

In early March the project footprint was surveyed for potential habitat of all species. The site was 

also surveyed specifically for Erythronium hendersonii, Piperia candida, Mielichhoferia

elongate, Ptilidium californicum, Lobaria oregana and Nephroma occultum. None of these 

species were observed within or adjacent to the project footprint.

In early May we surveyed for Cypripedium fasciculatum, Cypripedium montanum, Piperia 

candida, and Silene marmorensis. Of these species, only Silene marmorensis was observed. 

Plants were observed throughout the project area and within the footprint of work. About 50 

individuals were observed within the proposed channel to be restored, the western channel 

alignment. About 100 individuals were observed along the shoulder of Forest Road 10N16. 

About 100 individuals were observed between the eastern and western channels, in areas where 

surface disturbances would be avoided. 
41

The project footprint does not include preferred habitat for Cudonia monticola; which is mature, 

moist coniferous forest.

We were not able to survey for Phaeocollybia olivacea presence because this species would not 

be fruiting until fall, which is outside the window for project surveys.

The field review revealed habitat for the following species: 

Vascular Plants Bryophytes Fungi Lichens

Cypripedium fasciculatum Mielichhoferia elongate Phaeocollybia olivacea Lobaria oregana

Cypripedium montanum Ptilidium californicum Nephroma occultum

Erythronium hendersonii

Piperia candida

Silene marmorensis

The field review did not locate any suitable habitat for these species for which the survey 

protocol was triggered: 

Vascular Plants Bryophytes Fungi Lichens

Cudonia monticola

For Survey and Manage Category A&C species:

Field surveys are not required if reported sites do not exist in the proposed ground disturbing 

activity area or in the vicinity, if the project area is not within known or suspected range of the 

species, or if it is determined that suitable habitat for the target species is not likely to exist in the 

proposed project area. 

For Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species: Field surveys are not required for species 

for which it is determined that the proposed ground disturbing activity: 1) will not impact 

populations or alter habitat conditions, or 2) for which the project area is not within the known or 

suspected range, or 3) for which there is no suitable habitat.

Documentation of the prefield review is complete at this step for those species that do not 

meet the above criteria.

 

 Step 5: Field Survey Required For The Following Species: 

 SPECIES APPROXIMATE DATES

Cypripedium fasciculatum March - August1

Cypripedium montanum March - August1

Erythronium hendersonii April – July1

Piperia candida March – September1

Silene marmorensis May - July2; June –August1

Mielichhoferia elongate Anytime1

Ptilidium californicum May – August1

Lobaria oregana Anytime
42

 SPECIES APPROXIMATE DATES

Nephroma occultum Anytime

1.CNPS Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory <http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/>

2. Nakamura G and .JK Nelson. 2001. Illustrated Field Guide to Selected Rare Plants of Northern

California. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Communication Services.

Oakland, CA.

Previous Field Surveys of This Project Area:

 None X General area Specific project site

 Previous project name 

 Previous survey adequate for this project: Yes: No: 

MANAGE ALL KNOWN SITES and MANAGE HIGH PRIORITY SITES:

 Step 6: Known Sites of Species of Interest Category B, D, &E Plant Species (Manage 

Known Sites) Within the Project Area (see attached Appendix A-1):

SPECIES STATUS POPULATION NUMBER(S)

Silene marmorensis Rare Plant Rank 1B.2 About 250 individuals

• Step 7: Comments, Other Botanical Elements of Concern (i.e. invasive species):

References:

USDA Forest Service. 2013. 2670: Federally listed and Sensitive Plant Species. Klamath 

National Forest. July, 2013. 

USDA Forest Service. 2014a. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plant Species, Klamath 

National Forest. TES_habitats_2014.doc. Species, habitat, distribution and rarity, and 

management sensitivity. January 2014.

USDA Forest Service. 2014b. Regions 5 and 6. Direction Regarding the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines. May 13, 2014. Enclosures: Enclosure 1-NEPA Language; 

Enclosure 2 Table 1-1, January 2001; Enclosure 3 Table 1-1, December 2003 with Red 

Tree Vole

USDA Forest Service. 2014c. Survey and Manage Plant Species. Klamath National Forest. 

S+mCatA-C_Habitats03Dec2014.xlsx. Species, habitat, range, survey protocols, and 

management sensitivity. December 2014.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. January 2001. Record of 

Decision for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other 
43

Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Implementation of 

2003 Survey and Manage Annual Species Review. FS-Memorandum; BLM – Instruction 

Memorandum No. OR-2004-034. December 19, 2003.

Description of S&M Categories:

A: Manage All Known Sites; Pre-disturbance surveys required; Strategic Surveys.

B: Manage All Known Sites; Strategic Surveys.

C: Manage High Priority Sites; Pre-disturbance surveys required; Strategic Surveys.

D: Manage High Priority Sites; Strategic Surveys.

E: Manage All Known Sites; Strategic Surveys.

F: Strategic Surveys.
44

APPENDIX B – ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND 

PROPOSED BOTANICAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

SPECIALIST REPORT

Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project 

Endangered, Threatened, and Proposed Botanical Biological Assessment Specialist Report

February 26, 2016

Melissa Van Scoyoc

Analysis of botanical species listed in the IPaC Trust Resource Report for the Hotelling 

Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project:

MacDonald’s rock-cress (Arabis macdonaldiana): This species is known to occur within the 

Lower Klamath River watershed1

, California. Preferred habitat for this species is described as 

“crevices, cracks, and margins of rocks on barren to shrub-covered shallow, rocky ultramafic 

soils of peridotite origin; also in rocky openings in Jeffrey pine-dominated woodland on granite 

slopes and ridges or seepage areas...1,200 to 2,200 meters.”2 Such habitat does not occur within 

the project area. Therefore, this species is unlikely to occur within the project area and will not 

be analyzed further.

Hoover’s spurge (Chamaesyce hooveri): Preferred habitat for this species is described as 

“drying beds of vernal pools in valley grassland communities, usually in the larger, deeper pools 

where there is little cover by other plants...20-150 meters.”2 Such habitat does not occur within 

the project area. Additionally, the closest known occurrence of this species is south of Big Bend, 

California3

. The closest USWFS designated critical habitat is south of Red Bluff, California4. 

Therefore, this species is unlikely to occur within the project area and will not be analyzed 

further.

Gentner’s fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri): Preferred habitat for this species is described as 

“open, dry low-elevation sites in mixed oak-madrone woodlands, ponderosa pine woodlands, 

chaparral, and grasslands 1,000-5,000 feet.”5 Though preferred habitat for this species does occur 

within this project area, the closest known occurrence of this species is in the Upper Klamath 

River watershed1

, near the California/Oregon border6. Therefore, this species is unlikely to occur 

within the project area and will not be analyzed further.

Slender orcutt grass (Orcuttia tenuis): Preferred habitat for this species is described as “vernal 

pools and similar habitat, occasionally on reservoir edges or stream floodplains, on clay soils 

with seasonal inundation in valley grassland to coniferous forest or sagebrush scrub...30-1,700 

meters.”2 Such habitat does not occur within the project area. Additionally, the closest known 

occurrence of this species and USFWS designated critical habitat is near Redding, California4,7. 

Therefore, this species is unlikely to occur within the project area and will not be analyzed 

further.
45

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis): This species is known to occur within the Salmon River 

watershed. Preferred habitat for this species is described as “montane forests and on thin, rocky, 

cold soils at or near timberline.”1 Such habitat does not occur within the project area. Therefore, 

this species is unlikely to occur within the project area and will not be analyzed further.

References

1. Natureserve

2. Nakamura G and JK Nelson. 2001. Illustrated Field Guide to Selected Rare Plants of 

Northern California. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources 

Communication Services. Oakland, CA.

3. Calflora distribution for Hoover’s spurge

4. USFWS link to critical habitat GIS data

5. Mullens, L and R Showalter. 2007. Rare Plants of Southwest Oregon. USFS and BLM 

Grants Pass Interagency Office. Grants Pass, OR.

6. Calflora distribution for Gentner’s fritillary

7. Calflora distribution for slender orcutt grass