United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

July 2017

Botanical Resources and 

Non-Native Invasive 

Species Report

Craggy Vegetation 

Management Project

Salmon/Scott River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest

Siskiyou County, California

For Information Contact: Danika Carlson

11263 N. Hwy 3, Fort Jones, CA

530.468.1225

Dcarlson02@fs.fed.us

Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and 

applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, 

religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual 

orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected 

genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all 

prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 

days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional 

information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any 

USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the 

information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or 

program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-

6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact 

us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

i

Table of Contents

Botany Report ...............................................................................................................1

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

Current Management Direction...................................................................................................1

Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) ..................... 1

Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................................. 1

Sensitive Species................................................................................................................. 1

Survey and Manage Species ............................................................................................... 2

Non-native Invasive Species............................................................................................... 3

Methodology................................................................................................................................3

Analysis Indicators.................................................................................................................. 4

Assumptions Specific to Species of Concern and Noxious Weeds.................................... 4

Data Sources ....................................................................................................................... 5

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area ............................................................. 5

Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Plant Species 6

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

Methodology................................................................................................................................6

Consultation to Date ........................................................................................................... 7

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

Affected Environment .................................................................................................................7

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

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Common to all Alternatives............................... 8

Determination of Effects .............................................................................................................8

Comparison of Alternatives.........................................................................................................8

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ....................................................8

Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Species ............................................................... 9

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

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

Preliminary Field Review ................................................................................................... 9

Field Survey...................................................................................................................... 10

Analysis Indicators................................................................................................................ 10

Measures........................................................................................................................... 10

Affected Environment ...............................................................................................................12

Species Accounts.............................................................................................................. 12

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

Interactions Important to Analysis........................................................................................ 14

Alternative 1.......................................................................................................................... 14

Direct and Indirect Effects................................................................................................ 14

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 15
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

ii

Alternatives 2 and 3 .............................................................................................................. 15

Direct and Indirect Effects................................................................................................ 16

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 17

Comparison of Alternatives.......................................................................................................18

Determination of Effects ...........................................................................................................19

Compliance with Law, Regulation, Policy, and the Forest Plan ...............................................19

Botanical Review of Survey and Manage Species.................................................... 20

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................20

Methodology..............................................................................................................................20

Preliminary Field Review ................................................................................................. 20

Analysis Indicators................................................................................................................ 21

Measures........................................................................................................................... 21

Affected Environment ...............................................................................................................21

Environmental Consequences....................................................................................................21

Alternative 1.......................................................................................................................... 21

Direct and Indirect Effects................................................................................................ 21

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 22

Alternatives 2 and 3 .............................................................................................................. 22

Direct and Indirect Effects................................................................................................ 22

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 22

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ..................................................22

Noxious Weed Risk Assessment............................................................................... 23

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................23

Methodology..............................................................................................................................23

Inventory and Mapping..................................................................................................... 23

Analysis Indicators................................................................................................................ 23

Measures........................................................................................................................... 23

Spatial and Temporal Context ...................................................................................................24

Affected Environment ...............................................................................................................25

Species Accounts.............................................................................................................. 25

Habitat Vulnerability: ....................................................................................................... 29

Non-project Dependent Vectors: ...................................................................................... 30

Environmental Consequences....................................................................................................30

Alternative 1.......................................................................................................................... 31

Direct and Indirect Effects................................................................................................ 31

Habitat Alteration Expected as a Result of the Project Implementation: ..................... 31

Increased Vectors as a Result of Project Implementation: ........................................... 31

Summary of Effects .......................................................................................................... 32

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 32
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

iii

Alternatives 2 and 3 .............................................................................................................. 32

Direct and Indirect Effects................................................................................................ 32

Habitat Alteration Expected as a Result of the Project Implementation: ..................... 32

Increased Vectors as a Result of Project Implementation: ........................................... 34

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 34

Compliance with Law, Regulation, Policy, and the Forest Plan ...............................................35

Literature Cited ........................................................................................................... 36

Appendix A. Botanical Resources Maps................................................................... 38

Appendix B. Klamath National Forest Noxious Weed List....................................... 40

Appendix C. Project Design Features for Botanical Resources.............................. 43

Appendix D. Klamath National Forest Federally Listed & Sensitive Plant Species 45

List of Tables

Table 1: Requirements for Survey and Manage Categories..........................................................................2

Table 2: Analysis Indicators .........................................................................................................................4

Table 3: Botanical Species of Concern from the Endangered Species Act List ...........................................7

Table 4: Summary of Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed for Listing and Candidate Plant 

Species..................................................................................................................................................8

Table 5: Documented Occurrences or Suitable Habitat for Sensitive Species .............................................9

Table 6: Flame Length Potential and Fireline Intensity used to Describe Analysis of Measurement 

Indicators.............................................................................................................................................11

Table 7. Current Flame Length Potential of Management Area 5 (Calochortus persistens) for the Short 

Term (less than five years)..................................................................................................................13

Table 8: Comparison of Analysis Indictors for All Alternatives................................................................18

Table 9. Comparison of Flame Length Effects for All Alternatives in Acres and their Percent of 

Management Area 5............................................................................................................................18

Table 10: Survey and Manage Species Present or Requiring Pre-disturbance Surveys in the Project Area

............................................................................................................................................................20

Table 11: Summary of Risk of Spreading or Introducing Noxious Weeds. ...............................................35

Table B-1: Klamath National Forest Noxious Weed List...........................................................................40

Table C-1: Project Design Features............................................................................................................43

Federally listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Proposed (P) ........................................................45

Region 5 listed as Sensitive that may occur on the Klamath National Forest ............................................45

List of Figures

Figure 1: Sensitive Plants in the Craggy Vegetation Management Project ................................................38

Figure 2: Nonnative Invasive Species in the Craggy Vegetation Management Project .............................39

Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

1

BOTANY REPORT

Introduction

The purpose of this document is to evaluate the Craggy Vegetation Management Project (Craggy 

Project) in sufficient detail to determine its effects on threatened, endangered, proposed, 

candidate, sensitive, or other plant species of concern, including survey and manage bryophyte, 

lichen, fungi, and vascular plant species. In addition, this document includes the Noxious Weed 

Risk Assessment for the project area. This report is prepared in accordance with the requirements 

set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act [19 U.S.C. 1536 (c)], and follows the 

standards established in the Forest Service Manual direction, FSM 2672.42 for sensitive plants 

and Forest Service Manual 2900 for invasive species management. This document includes the 

Biological Assessment for threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate plant species, the 

Biological Evaluation for Forest Service sensitive plant species; the Noxious Weed Risk 

Assessment and the Botanical Review of survey and manage species. For more information on 

the action alternatives and the purpose and need for the Craggy Project, refer to the project 

environmental impact statement.

Current Management Direction

Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Forest Plan)

Management direction for the Forest is provided by the Forest Plan (USDA 1995 as amended). 

The Forest Plan was developed utilizing the guidelines provided by the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act 

of 1976. The Record of Decision for the Klamath Forest Plan incorporates standards and 

guidelines from the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (1994) (also 

known as the Northwest Forest Plan).

Implementation of standards and guidelines outlined in the Forest Plan has been determined to 

provide for species viability, as required under the National Forest Management Act. This 

project is consistent with the standards and guidelines established for long-term species viability.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and Forest Service Policy (Forest 

Service Manual 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, or 

proposed to be listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Sensitive Species

Forest Service Policy (Forest Service Manual 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 Service Policy (Forest Service Manual
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

2

2672) also gives direction for the preparation of Biological Evaluations (USDA 2009). Forestwide 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 threatened or endangered (USDA and USDI 1994).

The Conservation Agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest 

Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for Calochortus persistens (Siskiyou 

mariposa lily) includes information on the known threats to the species and specific 

implementation items that will be followed to mitigate those threats (USDI and USDA 2013).

Survey and Manage Species

In 2001, a 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 was signed 

that provides direction for the management of habitat for species related to late-successional and 

old-growth forest. This document includes measures for management of known sites, sitespecific pre-habitat disturbing surveys, and landscape scale surveys for about 400 rare or isolated 

species. The standards and guidelines for these mitigation measures are known as ‘survey and

manage.’

The most recent survey and manage direction (USDA 2014a) directs agencies to follow the 

direction in this document (USDA and USDI 2003) and the December 2003 species list (USDA

and USDI 2003). Category descriptions are provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Requirements for Survey and Manage Categories

Category Relative 

Rarity

Pre-disturbance 

surveys Manage all known sites Strategic surveys

A Rare Yes Yes Yes, not required for NEPA

B Rare No Yes Yes, NEPA requirement

C Uncommon Yes High-priority only Yes, not required for NEPA

D Uncommon No High-priority only Yes, not required for NEPA

E Rare No Yes Yes, not required for NEPA

F Uncommon No No Yes, not required for NEPA

To be in compliance with the 2001 Record of Decision, projects must have pre-disturbance 

surveys conducted if an activity is considered to potentially be habitat-disturbing (to species in 

categories A and C), and known and high-priority sites must be managed to protect persistence. 

“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 and 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.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

3

Non-native Invasive Species

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 

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 

Forest 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. 

Additional direction is found in Executive Order #13112, Invasive species (1999).

Methodology

Only federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate; Forest Service sensitive; or 

survey and manage plant species (collectively referred to as species of concern in this report); 

that are within range and have potentially suitable habitat, or documented occurrences in areas 

that may be affected by the proposed project are discussed in this document. These areas include 

all activities discussed in the proposed action. A preliminary botanical review was done to 

determine which the species of concern are.

An office pre-field review was conducted to determine if the project is within the range of any 

species of concern for the Forest, and if suitable habitat for all species of concern exists in the 

project area. Additionally, the review indicated whether any species of concern or non-native or 

invasive plant species (collectively referred to as noxious weeds or weeds in this report) were 

known to be present within the proposed project area. All species listed for the Forest were 

considered for this review. Surveys are not required for species for which suitable habitat is not 

present, and for which the project area is outside of the currently known range of the species. 

The pre-field analysis includes a comparison of the range and habitat necessary for each species 

on the list to the location and habitat that is present within the project area. The preliminary field 

review is conducted to assess areas of assumed habitat and determine if suitable habitat is 

actually present in the project area that would warrant further survey. After the pre-field analysis 

and preliminary field review was completed, unit specific project surveys were conducted for the 

species that are within range and have suitable habitat in the project area. During unit specific 

surveys the habitat could be re-assessed and species could be added to the target list if habitats 

are found that were previously thought not to occur in the project area. The target species for this 

project are discussed in their respective locations in the Biological Assessment, Biological 

Evaluation, the Botanical Review of Survey and Manage Species, and Noxious Weed Risk 

Assessment below.

The Klamath National Forest Noxious Weed List (Appendix B) includes high priority plants 

from State and County lists that are known or expected to occur on the Klamath National Forest. 

Based on inventories and current understanding or species’ ranges, a total of 29 high priority 

weeds are on the Klamath National Forest Noxious Weed and Non-native Invasive Plant List. 

There are 15 species of moderate and low priorities also included on the list that may be 

addressed in projects if those species are a problem locally. This list is used for resource 

management and decision making, and is subject to change to reflect new information.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

4

Analysis Indicators

The analysis indicators for measuring the effects of the project are based on law, policy, and 

direction. The significance of management activities upon species of concern and noxious weeds 

depends upon many factors; the alternatives are evaluated in terms of how they would affect the 

analysis indicators for species of concern and noxious weeds. Table 2 displays the analysis 

indicators for the project.

Table 2: Analysis Indicators

Category of Species of 

Concern Analysis Indicators

Threatened and Endangered 

Species

Likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of threatened, endangered, 

proposed, or candidate species populations.

Sensitive Species, General Trend of sensitive species population viability measured as increasing, 

declining, or static.

Sensitive Species, Calochortus 

persistens

The maintenance or improvement of habitat conditions within occupied 

Calochortus persistens sites; measured by ground disturbance, the risk of 

noxious weed introduction or spread, and the level of conifer encroachment 

and;

The likelihood that a wildfire could be suppressed using minimum suppression 

techniques within Management Area 5 (Calochortus persistens) measured by 

comparing the fire and fuels Haul Chart between alternatives. The Haul Chart 

shows how flame length corresponds to potential suppression tactics (Table 7).

Survey and Manage Species Compliance with survey and manage guidelines as defined by the 2001 Record 

of Decision (USDA and USDI 2001).

Noxious Weeds

Risk of introducing and spreading non-native invasive species measured by a 

rating of high, moderate or low risk (this indicator will be measured separately 

within Management Area 5 (Calochortus persistens)).

Assumptions Specific to Species of Concern and Noxious Weeds

Species of Concern:

• Survey and manage guidelines will be used to analyze effects on botanical species that 

fall under both sensitive and survey and manage categories because they provide for a 

more protective management strategy.

Invasive Species:

• Not all existing non-native invasive species (weed) infestations for the Forest are 

currently mapped but it is assumed that high priority weed species in this project area 

were discovered and mapped through the noxious weed program and survey specific to 

the Craggy Project. 

• Roadside weed infestations that are low or moderate priority species in this project area 

are expected to continue to spread along road systems regardless of project activities;

• Inclusions of privately owned lands within the project boundary may contain infestations 

of weeds that could spread to National Forest System lands regardless of Forest activities; 

and

• Once established, weed infestations are likely to persist for the long term.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

5

Data Sources

National Databases: Natural Resources Information System for all species of concern, and nonnative invasive species.

California Natural Diversity Database records through RareFind 5, California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife.

US Fish and Wildlife Service official list of threatened and endangered species.

Klamath National Forest geographic information system layer: Forest activities tracking system.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The analysis area for botanical species of concern and non-native invasive species is the project 

area exclusive of the private land within it, because it is the most relevant to changes in

population viability and the risk of spread from project activities. The temporal bounding for 

botanical species of concern and non-native invasive species will be less than five years for 

short-term and greater than five years for long-term effects. The temporal bounding’s were

chosen to account for species’ recovery times, seed dormancy and germination requirements and 

the difficulty of identifying biennial and perennial vegetative life stages (rosettes).
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

6

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THREATENED, 

ENDANGERED, AND PROPOSED PLANT SPECIES

Introduction

Species list addressed: Federal threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate plant species 

(Appendix D)

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

Proposed Action and Alternatives Analyzed

The Klamath National Forest proposes the Craggy Vegetation Management Project to improve 

fire resiliency on National Forest System lands by reducing fuels and stand density in strategic 

areas and within the wildland urban interface. The purpose and need for action in this project 

area is comprised of the need for fire resilient communities and ecosystems, forest health, 

wildlife and foraging habitat, rare plant species habitat, and treatment of legacy sites. In 

summary, three alternatives are analyzed in this report: Alternative 1 in which no action is 

proposed and two action alternatives. The project proposes to treat about 10,700 acres under 

Alternative 2 (the modified proposed action) or about 11,310 acres under Alternative 3, all 

within the 29,500-acre project boundary.

Methodology 

The likelihood that the continued existence of threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate 

plant populations will be jeopardized by this project will be evaluated by determining the number 

of existing populations within the project boundary and the number and degree to which those 

populations will be negatively affected by the proposed action.

To determine which species are known to occur or may potentially occur within the project 

boundaries the following resources were consulted.

• U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service list of threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate 

species which might occur on the Forest

• California Natural Diversity Database species occurrence list for all of the mapped 7.5 

topographical quadrangles that intersect the project area;

• Forest species occurrence records (Natural Resource Inventory System Database), survey 

records, and site visit records from within the project boundary and;

• Project preliminary botanical review

An official list of species was obtained from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service website on June 

20, 2017 (Document Code: 08EYRE00-2017-SLI-0141). The species addressed in this report are 

displayed in the Table below, table 3 is the official list of flowering plants obtained from the U. 

S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

7

Table 3: Botanical Species of Concern from the Endangered Species Act List

Flowering Plants Status

Applegate’s milk-vetch (Astragalus applegatei) Endangered

Gentner’s Fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri) Endangered

Hoover’s spurge (Chamaesyce hooveri) Threatened

Slender Orcutt grass (Orcuttia tenuis) Threatened

Yreka phlox (Phlox hirsuta) Endangered

The pre-field and preliminary botanical field review determined that this project is not within the 

range or habitat for the federally listed species; Astragalus applegatei, Fritillaria gentneri, 

Chamaesyce hooveri, or Orcuttia tenuis. The project is within range and contains potentially 

suitable habitat for Phlox hirsuta. Project surveys specifically designed to target Phlox hirsuta

resulted in no additional populations discovered (for details see the field survey section in the 

biological evaluation below). There are no documented populations of Phlox hirsuta within any 

proposed project activities. Field surveys conducted for the Project were adequate to determine 

presence of threatened, endangered, and proposed plant species.

Consultation to Date

No currently listed threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species exist in the project 

area; therefore, no consultation is required. However, at the start of the planning process for the 

Craggy Project, Calochortus persistens was a candidate for Federal listing and informal 

consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service was initiated. Mid-way through this 

planning process the status of this species changed and it is no longer a candidate for listing;

instead it is now analyzed as a Forest Service sensitive species and is discussed further in the 

biological evaluation below. Field visits and multiple meetings were held with the U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to discuss the effects to Calochortus persistens as a result of this project; project 

design features to reduce negative effects to this species were developed in coordination with a 

representative of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Conservation Agreement for 

Calochortus persistens was referenced and used to develop the purpose and need for protecting 

and enhancing habitat for this species.

Analysis Indicators

See Table 2.

Affected Environment

No populations of currently federally-listed threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate plant 

species have been recorded in botanical records or identified in previous surveys within the 

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

federally listed plant species were found during the field surveys for this project.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

8

Environmental Consequences

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Common to all Alternatives

The likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of threatened, endangered, 

proposed, or candidate species populations:

The likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate species populations in the project area is extremely low because no populations of 

federally-listed threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate plant species have been recorded 

either from previous survey or survey specifically for this project. Therefore, there will be no 

direct or indirect effects to these species. Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there will 

be no cumulative effects. Additionally, there are no activities that are interrelated or 

interdependent to the project that will affect these species since no populations of these species 

are known to exist in the project area.

Determination of Effects

The Craggy Vegetation Management Project is not within the range of the federally listed 

species: Astragalus applegatei, Fritillaria gentneri, Chamaesyce hooveri, or Orcuttia tenuis; the 

Craggy Vegetation Management Project will not affect these species. Field surveys were

conducted for Phlox hirsuta because suitable habitat occurs in the project area for this species 

but no populations were discovered; therefore, the Craggy Vegetation Management Project will 

not affect this species. It is my determination that the Craggy Vegetation Management Project 

will not affect any threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species.

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 4: Summary of Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed for Listing and Candidate Plant Species

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate 

species populations

Extremely Low; 

No effect

Extremely Low; 

No effect

Extremely Low; 

No effect

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

The Craggy Vegetation Management Project complies with section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 as amended, and Forest Service Policy (FSM 2670) by preparing this Biological 

Assessment and documenting that the project will not affect any threatened, endangered, 

proposed, or candidate plant species.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

9

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR SENSITIVE SPECIES

Introduction

The Regional Forester for the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) of the U. S. Forest Service 

has listed plants for which there is a concern for species viability as sensitive. Sensitive plants are 

those species which may occur in few to large numbers in a small localized area, or which may 

occur in a wide geographical area but in few numbers in restricted specialized habitats. As noted 

in the environmental impact statement, part of the purpose and need of this project particular to 

this resource is to address known and potential threats to the Forest Service sensitive plant 

species, Calochortus persistens (Siskiyou mariposa lily), in order to maintain its habitat so that 

random natural events and environmental variation can occur without a negative effect on the 

future viability of the species. In the Conservation Agreement for Calochortus persistens (USDIUSDA 2013), the Klamath National Forest (Forest) agrees to plan and implement actions to 

address fuel loading and encroachment concerns in this plant’s management area, Management 

Area 5 Special Habitat for Calochortus persistens1

. Project design features are designed to 

protect botanical species of concern and prevent the introduction or spread of non-native 

invasive plant species and will be incorporated into action alternatives. The botanical resources 

project design features can be found in chapter 2 of the environmental impact statement and 

Appendix C of this document. For a list of the sensitive plant species that are known, or thought 

likely to occur on the Forest see Appendix D. This Biological Evaluation addresses this list.

Species list addressed: Klamath National Forest Sensitive Plant Species (Appendix D)

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

Methodology

Preliminary Field Review

The proposed project area was determined to contain documented occurrences or suitable habitat 

for the following species listed in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Documented Occurrences or Suitable Habitat for Sensitive Species

SPECIES STATUS FIELD SURVEY RECOMMENDED

Known Occurrences

Calochortus persistens Sensitive Yes

Eriogonum ursinum var. 

erubescens

Sensitive Yes

Suitable Habitat

Cypripedium fasciculatum Sensitive/Survey and 

Manage – Vascular

Yes – low probability in project area but survey 

recommended.

 1 There are other ‘special habitat’ categories for Management Area 5, but for the purposes of this document any 

mention of this management area will be referring to the specific one designated for Calochortus persistens.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

10

SPECIES STATUS FIELD SURVEY RECOMMENDED

Cypripedium montanum Sensitive/Survey and 

Manage – Vascular

Yes – low probability in project area but survey 

recommended.

Field Survey

Project specific surveys were conducted in September of 2010; April, May, July, and August of 

2011; and May of 2013. These surveys were in addition to past field work within the general 

project area for other projects that also located sensitive plants. All field surveys were performed 

at a time appropriate to make positive identification of plant species of concern. Surveys were 

intuitively controlled; only project activity areas with suitable habitat were surveyed for the five 

target species listed in Table 5. Previously documented populations of Calochortus persistens

and Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens within the project area were found and flagged during 

project specific surveys.

As a result of field surveys no new locations of any threatened, endangered or sensitive species 

were located. Species that were not located during survey for this project will not be addressed 

further in this document. The species that are addressed further in this document are Calochortus 

persistens and Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens.

Analysis Indicators

Forest Service Sensitive Species – all sensitive species in the project area: To be in compliance 

with management direction for sensitive plant species the population viability must be 

maintained and the species must not be put on a trend towards federal listing. The analysis 

indicator for comparison between alternatives will be:

• The trend of sensitive species population viability

Sensitive Species – Calochortus persistens Specific: One objective of this project is to address 

known and potential threats to Calochortus persistens in order to maintain habitat so that random 

natural events and environmental variation can occur without a negative effect on the future 

viability of the species. This was evaluated in terms of the maintenance of the specific habitat 

that the species occupies including the risk of spreading noxious weeds, and the condition of its

management area in terms of the suppression tactics that would be needed in order to prevent a 

fire from threatening nearby communities. This was compared between alternatives with the 

following analysis indicators:

• The maintenance or improvement of habitat conditions within occupied Calochortus

persistens sites and;

• The likelihood that a wildfire could be suppressed using minimum suppression 

techniques (see Table 7 for descriptions of how flame lengths corresponds to suppression 

tactics within Management Area 5 (Calochortus persistens)).

Measures

Sensitive Species – General:

• The trend in population viability was measured by determining the number of extant 

populations on the Forest, the number of populations that will be impacted by the Project 
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

11

activities, and how that impact will affect the continued viability of the population and is 

described as: declining, increasing, or static.

Sensitive Species – Calochortus persistens Specific:

• The maintenance or improvement of habitat conditions within occupied Calochortus

persistens sites was measured by determining ground disturbance, the risk of noxious 

weed introduction or spread, and the level of conifer encroachment and is described as:

not maintained, maintained, or improved for each sub-population in the project area.

• The likelihood that a wildfire could be suppressed using minimum suppression 

techniques within Management Area 5 was measured by comparing the fire and fuels 

Haul Chart (Table 6 below) between alternatives. According to the fuels report, flame 

lengths are an indicator of how intense or severe a fire may become. Flame lengths are 

also a proxy for assessing the potential for fires becoming difficult to suppress.

Methodology and assumptions related to the use of fuel models can be found in the Fire 

and Fuels resource report, available on the project 

website http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=31770. This is relevant to Management 

Area 5 (Calochortus persistens) as fire suppression activities are of major concern. Fire 

suppression often entails ground-disturbing activities that can have negative impacts to

Calochortus persistens. Flame lengths greater than four feet typically create the need for 

increased fire suppression forces needed as well as the need for ground-disturbing 

equipment and dropping retardant from aircraft in order to suppress the fire. In the case of 

Management Area 5 (Calochortus persistens), this plant grows on a key ridge system that 

would likely be used for fire suppression efforts in the event of a large wildfire in the area 

as the ridge is a logical holding location if fire were to come from the Humbug drainage 

towards the town of Yreka. Table 6 below is the Haul Chart from the Fire and Fuels 

resource report which shows how the flame length potential corresponds to potential 

suppression tactics.

Table 6: Flame Length Potential and Fireline Intensity used to Describe Analysis of Measurement Indicators

Flame Length 

(feet)

Fireline 

Intensity 

(British Thermal 

Units per foot

per second)

Description

0 feet 0 Very Low – Non-flammable areas such as rock outcropping, 

water, etc.

Less than 4 feet 0 - 100 Low – Persons using hand tools can generally attack fires at the

head or flanks of the fire.

4 to 8 feet 100 - 500

Moderate – Fires are too intense for direct attack on the head of 

the fire by persons using hand tools. Equipment such as 

dozers, engines and retardant aircraft can be effective.

8 to 11 feet 500 - 1,000 High – Fires may present serious control problems such as 

torching, crowning, and spotting. Control efforts at the head of 

the fire will probably be ineffective.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

12

Flame Length 

(feet)

Fireline 

Intensity 

(British Thermal 

Units per foot

per second)

Description

Greater than 11

feet

Greater than 

1,000

Very High – Fires present serious control problems and control 

efforts are typically ineffective.

Affected Environment

Species Accounts

The following species accounts describe the sensitive plants that are known to occur within the 

project area. Included in each species account is the current habitat condition within the project 

area compared to the desired condition for the species.

Calochortus persistens – Siskiyou mariposa lily:

The majority of the following information has been summarized from the Conservation 

Agreement for Calochortus persistens (USDI-USDA 2013). Calochortus persistens is an 

herbaceous perennial with a single, basal leaf arising from a bulb and one to two large showy, 

pink bell-shaped flowers. This species is restricted to three separate ridge tops in the KlamathSiskiyou Range, near the California-Oregon border. Two historical occurrences are known: the 

type locality on the Gunsight-Humbug Ridgeline, west of Yreka, California in Siskiyou County;

and the Bald Mountain site, west of Ashland, Oregon in Jackson County. The third location was 

more recently discovered on private and Forest lands on Cottonwood Peak, north of the Klamath 

River, and between the California Gunsight Ridgeline site and the Oregon Bald Mountain site. 

The Gunsight Ridgeline occurrence is divided into nine sub-populations that are spread out along

about six miles of the Gunsight-Humbug Ridgeline.

The Gunsight-Humbug Ridgeline occurrence occurs at elevations of 4,300 feet to 6,060 feet on 

ridgeline rock outcrops and talus, where the soils are shallow, dry, rocky, and acidic (Fiedler 

1987). These soils are well drained and dry early in the season after snowmelt. Calochortus

persistens plants are found in greater numbers on north-facing slopes. This may be a result of 

longer snow bank retention and may be important to plant survival in dry years. The plants are 

almost entirely restricted to the rockiest portions of the ridge tops and ridge shoulders, and do not 

extend very far down the associated slopes. It is not known whether this reflects a requirement 

for very rocky, well-drained soil, or a restriction to these areas due to an inability to compete 

successfully with other vegetation (Fiedler 1987).

Existing Condition within the project area: Within the project area Calochortus persistens 

occupies about 43 acres scattered along a six-mile stretch of the Forest and privately owned 

lands. Calochortus persistens plants occur in rocky openings within a montane-shrub plant 

community and mixed conifer forest surrounds this shrubby vegetative community. Conifer and 

brush encroachment is occurring within portions of Calochortus persistens habitat. 

Encroachment is on-going and has resulted in increased fuel loading, shading, competition, the 

risk of high-intensity fire, and the potential risk of fire suppression activities that could be 

destructive to its habitat. A non-native invasive plant, Dyer’s woad or Marlahan mustard (Isatis 
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

13

tinctoria), occurs on the ridge within Calochortus persistens habitat; past and ongoing annual 

management efforts have reduced this infestation in some locations along the ridge.

The trend of sensitive species population viability: Populations of Calochortus persistens 

within the project area are currently viable. The trend is somewhat difficult to estimate because 

there appears to be great yearly variation in numbers of plants in each population; however, 

based on recent observations, the sub-populations within the project area appear to be static.

The maintenance or improvement of habitat conditions within occupied Calochortus

persistens sites: The habitat for the nine sub-populations along the Gunsight-Humbug Ridgeline

is in functioning condition. There is little ground disturbance occurring within these populations.

The main threats to the condition of the habitat comes from conifer encroachment and 

competition from non-native invasive species. Conifer encroachment has been observed in a 

number of sub-populations along the Gunsight-Humbug Ridgeline, the removal of this 

encroachment would improve the habitat condition of each site. Currently the noxious weed,

Dyer’s woad, occurs throughout the area. The competition from this invasive species is 

undesirable within the sub-populations. Current management efforts are reducing the amount of 

competition from Dyer’s woad in this management area.

The likelihood that a wildfire could be suppressed using minimum suppression techniques 

within Management Area 5 (Calochortus persistens): As described in Table 7, approximately 

60 percent of Management Area 5 (Calochortus persistens) would currently require suppression 

tactics that require some use of machinery and soil-disturbing activities.

Table 7. Current Flame Length Potential of Management Area 5 (Calochortus persistens) for the Short Term 

(less than five years)

Flame Length Acres (% of Management Area 5)

0-4 feet 376 (40%)

4-8 feet 140 (15%)

8-11 feet 160 (17%)

Greater than 11 feet 270 (28%)

Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens – blushing wild buckwheat:

Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens is a narrow endemic that was recently discovered and 

described as a new variety of buckwheat (Reveal and Knorr 2004). Eriogonum ursinum var. 

erubescens is restricted to two distinct population areas. The species was originally discovered 

along the Gunsight-Humbug Ridgeline area, on Deadwood Baldy Peak, and Indian Creek Baldy. 

Subsequent to the publication of the species description, the species was also found at three sites 

on Trinity Mountain, and along the Trinity and Shasta County boundary. There are currently six 

total populations known on the Forest. On the Forest, Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens occurs 

on north-facing slopes of open and rocky ridge tops between elevations of 5,100 to 6,200 feet 

(USDA 2009). The plants are found within openings in montane shrub communities within highelevation mixed conifer forests. The vegetative cover is generally sparse within the populations, 

and the sites are dominated by rock and talus with little soil development.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

14

The trend of sensitive species population viability: The habitat conditions of the known 

populations of this species are functioning, and the populations are viable. Populations of 

Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens within the project area are currently static.

Environmental Consequences

Interactions Important to Analysis

Ground disturbance and alterations of the light, moisture, and nutrient regimes within forested

and associated plant environments can affect sensitive plans and their habitats. These effects can 

take two forms: either the actual destruction of individuals in a population or the adverse 

modification of suitable habitat considered critical for the maintenance of viable populations 

(direct effect), or the modification of habitat to the extent that it prevents future colonization of 

the site by a species (indirect effect).

Management activities differ in their intensity of impact on sensitive plants within a project area. 

Removal of conifer overstory through thinning overstocked stands may have a short-term 

negative impact, but a long-term beneficial effect if the thinning serves to reduce the risk of 

stand loss through wildfires, insect infestation, encroachment, or excessive mortality due to 

suppressed conifers. Management activities (or the lack thereof) and their effects on sensitive 

plants can be both long-term and short-term, with positive or negative effects in either time 

frame. Activities that occur once on a specific population may not affect a population or its 

habitat if the species possesses the biological mechanisms to recover, while repeated activities 

may have the potential to significantly impact a population. Activities prescribed by a project 

may have cumulative effects on the species viability if individually insignificant effects occur 

over a wide geographic range or on large numbers of sensitive plant populations.

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

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

sensitive 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 sensitive species viability in the context of the above factors.

Alternative 1

Under this alternative, current management plans will continue to guide management of the 

project area. No project activities would be implemented to accomplish project goals. As a no 

action alternative, Alternative 1 provides reviewers a baseline to compare the magnitude of the 

environmental effects of the action alternatives.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1 there would be no direct effects to sensitive plant species in the project area 

because there would be no implementation of the proposed activities or associated actions. 

Indirect effects to sensitive plant species would occur in the form of continued threats to 

sensitive plant species habitat, including conifer and shrub encroachment and competition from 

non-native and invasive plant species. Fuels will continue to accumulate, increasing the potential 

flame length and fire severity if a wildfire were to occur in the project area. Such an event would 

have a high likelihood of having a severe negative impact to Calochortus persistens habitat. 

There would be no management in the project area to reduce the likelihood of high intensity 
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

15

wildfire and more aggressive suppression tactics would likely take place in the event of a 

wildfire.

• The trend of sensitive species population viability: Changes to the habitat within the 

project area may happen over time in the absence of a stand replacing wildfire however; 

these changes would most likely not affect species viability.

• The maintenance or improvement of habitat conditions within occupied C. 

persistens sites: Two subpopulations of C. persistens that have conifer encroachment 

occurring would not be treated under this alternative. This can negatively affect 

populations because there is more competition for space, water and nutrients.

• The likelihood that a wildfire could be suppressed using minimum suppression 

techniques within Management Area 5: Under this alternative, there would be no 

management in the project area to reduce the likelihood of high intensity wildfire and 

more aggressive suppression tactics would likely take place in the event of a wildfire.

This is a concern for Management Area 5 as fire suppression activities are of major 

concern. Fire suppression entails ground disturbing activities, such as the use of 

bulldozers, which can have negative impacts to Calochortus persistens. Longer flame 

lengths correspond to a potential for more aggressive suppression tactics. Flame lengths 

over four feet typically require machinery and aircraft to suppress the fire. Using 

machinery could destroy habitat and create habitat that is more vulnerable to non-native 

and invasive plant species. In the case of Management Area 5, Calochortus persistens

grows on a key ridge system that would likely be utilized for fire suppression efforts in 

the event of a large fire in the area, as the ridge is a logical holding location if fire were to 

come from the Humbug drainage towards the town of Yreka. Flame lengths and 

associated acres of Management Area 5 habitat for Alternative 1 are the same as what’s 

portrayed in Table 7 in the affected environment section since no action will occur. In the 

no action alternative if a wildfire were to happen, at least 60 percent of the management 

area would require more than hand tools to suppress the fire under modeled conditions.

Cumulative Effects

There will be indirect effects to sensitive plant habitat under Alternative 1 because conifer

encroachment will continue to occur and fuel reduction activities will not occur. However, there 

are no reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the locations where sensitive plants 

occur to cumulatively add to these indirect effects.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Alternatives 2 and 3 incorporate actions that would help to address current and potential threats 

to Calochortus persistens, while also incorporating project design features to reduce the threat of 

further invasion from non-native invasive species (see chapter 2 of the Craggy Environmental 

Impact Statement for the table of project design features). Thinning vegetation within the special 

habitat management area but outside of the Calochortus persistens population boundaries,

reduces fuels so that the threat of high intensity wildfire and the need for heavy fire suppression 

tactics are not needed or can be reduced. Furthermore, Alternatives 2 and 3 meet the purpose and 

need of this project to address known and potential threats to the sensitive plant species 

Calochortus persistens in order to maintain habitat so that random natural events and 

environmental variation can occur without a negative effect on the future viability of the species. 
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

16

Alternatives 2 and 3 will be analyzed jointly for the effects to sensitive plant species of concern, 

the proposed treatment in the special habitat management area is the same between Alternatives 

2 and 3. Alternative 3 has slightly more acres of fuel breaks and prescribed underburning 

incorporated into the prescription than Alternative 2, but not enough difference to be analyzed 

individually for effects to sensitive plant species of concern.

Direct and Indirect Effects

There will be no direct effects to the sensitive plant species Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens 

as a result of Alternative 2 or 3 because of project design features. The indirect effects that are 

discussed below for the Calochortus persistens Management Area also apply to Eriogonum 

ursinum var. erubescens. See chapter 2 of the Craggy Environmental Impact Statement for more 

details on each type of treatment.

Fuel Breaks and Roadside Fuel Treatments:

Fuel reduction and removal of encroaching brush using hand-cutting and piling, may occur 

through two subpopulations of Calochortus persistens as described in the project design features.

Project design features have been incorporated to protect known sites of Calochortus persistens

and their habitat. Removal of small diameter fuels by hand will create a small amount of 

disturbance within the sensitive plant habitat, and there may be direct effects to a few

individuals. These effects are unlikely to kill individual plants because of the deep seated bulb,

and a project design feature requires this work to occur during the dormant season. Hand-piles 

would be created outside of the flagged population boundaries during the dormant growing 

season. Monitoring of these activities would occur post-treatment. Indirect effects from 

removing encroaching conifers and shrubs are likely to be beneficial because this reduces 

competition and shading and also reduces fuels, so that the threat of high intensity wildfire and 

the need for more ground disturbing fire suppression tactics are reduced.

Prescribed Underburning:

Prescribed underburning may be used in the Management Area 5 for Calochortus persistens

(part of the Forest Plan for Management Area 5) in accordance with the project design features. 

All implementation will be done in coordination with the project botanist and timed during the 

dormant growing season to minimize any effects. Direct effects to individual plants are unlikely 

to occur because the plants primarily grow in open rocky locations where prescribed fire would 

not carry, additionally the deep seated bulb of this species would be protected from the light to 

moderate effects of a prescribed underburn. Indirect effects from prescribed fire activities are 

low within occupied Calochortus persistens sites because this habitat is sparse and unlikely to 

carry fire. Indirect effects from prescribed fire within Management Area 5 are likely to be 

beneficial because the reduction of fuels will reduce potential flame lengths. Prescribed fire has 

the potential indirect effect of creating habitat that is vulnerable to weed infestation, however, 

project design features will be implemented to reduce this risk. Additionally, the reduction in 

potential flame lengths of the project area could reduce the likelihood of a stand replacing 

wildfire which in turn would leave more habitat vulnerable to weed infestation than the 

prescribed fire itself.

Thinning with and without forest product removal:

Project design features will prevent these treatment activities from occurring within known 

populations in the project area. No direct mechanical damage will occur to individuals within 
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

17

these populations, therefore there will be no direct effects. Indirect effects from these treatments 

could occur because equipment related disturbance increases vulnerable habitat for non-native 

and invasive species; however, this disturbance will only occur within forested treatment units 

where canopy cover and duff will remain after treatment activities. Additionally, project design 

features will help mitigate this. Another indirect affect would be from reduction of fuels 

associated with these treatments, which would help protect the ridge and habitat from stand 

replacing wildfires.

Mastication:

There will be no mastication treatments completed within Management Area 5, so there will be 

no direct or indirect effects from this activity.

Access and Roads:

No roads will be added to, or removed from, the National Forest Transportation System (system) 

as part of this project. Ninety miles of system roads will potentially be used for forest product 

removal. There are no sensitive plant species populations present within the areas affected by 

forest system roads. No landing construction will occur in locations that have known sensitive 

plant populations. There will be no direct or indirect effects from associated activities. No new 

landing construction will occur within Management Area 5 for Calochortus persistens.

Analysis Indicators for Alternatives 2 and 3:

• The trend of Sensitive species population viability: Alternatives 2 and 3 meet the 

purpose and need of this project to address known and potential threats to the sensitive 

plant species Calochortus persistens (Siskiyou mariposa lily) in order to maintain habitat 

so that random natural events and environmental variation can occur without a negative 

effect on the future viability of the species. Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens 

populations within the project area will remain viable because direct disturbances to these 

populations will be avoided with the implementation of the project design features.

• The maintenance or improvement of habitat conditions within occupied C. 

persistens sites: Reducing conifer and shrub encroachment within two subpopulations of 

Calochortus persistens by hand cutting will improve habitat and provide an opportunity 

for monitoring the plant response of this kind of activity.

• The likelihood that a wildfire could be suppressed using minimum suppression 

techniques within Management Area 5: Implementing Alternative 2 increases the acres 

in the zero to four foot flame length category from 376 acres to 757 acres which is about 

80 percent of the Management Area 5. This alternative greatly reduces the need for fire 

suppression tactics such as dozers from 60 percent as shown in the no action alternative 

above down to 20 percent.

Cumulative Effects

There is the potential for minor direct and indirect effects to occur as a result of implementing 

Alternative 2 or 3.There are no current plans to conduct vegetation management activities in this 

area beyond the scope of this project in the near future on Forest lands. There is the potential for 

timber harvesting to occur on private land; however, this does not overlap with any locations of 

sensitive plants within the project area. Therefore, this project, foreseeable future projects, and 

those that have occurred in the recent past; are not likely to contribute any cumulative adverse 
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

18

effects to sensitive plant species or habitat. The proposed treatment in the special habitat 

management area is the same between Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 3 has slightly more acres 

of fuel breaks and prescribed underburning than Alternative 2, but not enough difference to be 

analyzed individually for effects to sensitive plant species of concern.

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 8 below shows the benefits of implementing Alternatives 2 or 3 compared to Alternative 1 

(no action) using the analysis indicators.

Table 8: Comparison of Analysis Indictors for All Alternatives

Analysis Indicators Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3

The trend of sensitive 

species population viability

No direct effects, indirect effects potential 

for stand replacing fires, which could 

potentially destroy habitat for sensitive 

species.

Meets the purpose and need of this project 

to address known and potential threats to 

the Sensitive plant species. Maintains

habitat so that random natural events and 

environmental variation can occur without 

a negative effect on the future viability of 

the species.

The maintenance or 

improvement of habitat 

conditions within occupied 

C. persistens sites

No direct effects, indirect effects from 

conifer encroachment. This can negatively 

affect populations because there is more 

competition for space, water and nutrients.

Reduces conifer and shrub encroachment 

within two subpopulations of C. persistens

by hand cutting, this will improve habitat 

and provide an opportunity for monitoring 

the plant response to this kind of activity.

The likelihood that a 

wildfire could be 

suppressed using 

minimum suppression 

techniques within 

Management Area 5

No direct effects, indirect effects if a wildfire 

were to happen, at least 60% of the 

Management Area would require more than 

hand tools to suppress the fire under 

modeled conditions. Fire suppression 

ground disturbing activities, such as 

bulldozers can have negative impacts to C. 

persistens.

Implementing Alternative 2 increases the 

acres in the 0 to 4 foot flame length 

category from 376 acres to 757 acres 

which is about 80% of the Management 

Area 5. This alternative greatly reduces the 

need for fire suppression tactics such as 

bulldozers from 60% as shown in the no 

action alternative above to 20%.

Table 9 below shows the comparison of flame lengths for all alternatives, and thus the range of 

potential ground disturbing activities that may occur to suppress a potential wildfire within 

Management Area 5.

Table 9. Comparison of Flame Length Effects for All Alternatives in Acres and their Percent of Management 

Area 5

Flame Length Alternative 1 Alternative 2 or 3

0 to 4 feet 376 (40%) 757 (80%)

4 to 8 feet 140 (15%) 91 (10%)

8 to 11 feet 160 (17%) 18 (02%

greater than 11 feet 270 (28%) 79 (08%)
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

19

Determination of Effects

It is my determination that the Craggy Vegetation Management project will not affect Astragalus 

applegatei, Pinus albicaulis, Fritillaria gentneri, Phlox hirsuta, Chamaesyce hooveri, or 

Orcuttia tenuis.

Under all alternatives, it is my determination that the Craggy Vegetation Management project 

may affect individuals, but is unlikely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of 

viability for the sensitive plant species Calochortus persistens and Eriogonum ursinum var. 

erubescens.

Under all alternatives, it is my determination that the Craggy Vegetation Management project 

will comply with survey and manage regulations.

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

The Forest has complied with law, regulation, and policy by preparing this Biological 

Evaluation, and documenting that the project will not affect any sensitive plant species. 

Additionally, Forest Service Policy (Forest Service Manual 2670), and Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines for sensitive plant species have been addressed.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

20

BOTANICAL REVIEW OF SURVEY AND MANAGE 

SPECIES

Introduction

Botanical review for survey and manage bryophyte, lichen, fungi, and vascular plant species has 

been completed for the Craggy Project, on the Salmon and Scott River Ranger District, on the 

Klamath National Forest (the Forest). The purpose of this review is to analyze the proposed 

project in sufficient detail to determine its effects on the plant species of concern.

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

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

Methodology

Preliminary Field Review

An office preliminary field review was conducted to determine if the Craggy Vegetation 

Management Project area contains any survey and manage populations and if suitable habitat is 

present within the proposed project area for species for which pre-project surveys would be 

required. During this review, the 2003 survey and manage species list was reviewed along with 

species occurrence and survey records to determine if survey and manage populations were 

present within the project area. Treatment unit selection criteria, site visits, aerial photographs, 

and species distribution information were used to determine if suitable habitat for survey and

manage species is present within treatment units.

During the preliminary botanical review, the proposed project area was determined to contain

habitat for or require pre-disturbance surveys for the survey and manage species listed in Table 

10 below.

Table 10: Survey and Manage Species Present or Requiring Pre-disturbance Surveys in the Project Area

Species Category Type

Known to occur in project area (Pre-disturbance surveys Required for Categories A and C, 

Protect Known Sites for Categories B, D, and E)

None NA NA

Pre-disturbance Surveys Required (Suitable Habitat Present and w/in Range)

Cypripedium fasciculatum Category–C (also Forest Service sensitive) Plant

Cypripedium montanum Category–C (also Forest Service sensitive) Plant

Pre-disturbance surveys were conducted for Categories A and C species in project activity units 

where suitable habitat was found. Project specific surveys were conducted in September of 2010; 

April, May, July, and August of 2011; and May of 2013; in accordance with current survey and

manage protocols. Field surveys conducted within the general area and specifically for this 

project are adequate to determine the presence of survey and manage plant species that were 

surveyed for. No populations of survey and manage plant species were located during surveys 
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

21

and there were no previously known sites of any survey and manage plant, lichen, fungi, or 

bryophyte species in the project area.

Analysis Indicators

The analysis indicator for survey and manage botanical species is:

• Compliance with survey and manage guidelines as defined by the record of decision 

(USDA and USDI 2001) that was referenced earlier in the beginning of this report under 

current management direction for survey and manage species.

Measures

In order to be in compliance with current survey and manage direction, known sites and high 

priority sites must be protected. The analysis indicator for survey and manage species will be 

measured by whether or not the known sites within the project area are protected. These known 

sites include any newly discovered sites that would be recorded during pre-disturbance surveys.

Affected Environment

The pre-disturbance surveys and review of known sites resulted in no populations of any survey 

and manage botanical species discovered within the project area. During field review it was 

determined that there was a low likelihood of finding any of these species due to the habitat that 

exists in the project area. A majority of the project area burned at high intensity in the 1955 

Haystack fire. Many of the timber stands experienced stand replacing fire conditions, and 

through reforestation, many of the treatment units are now 40 to 50 year old plantations that were 

planted with a mix of conifer species. Many of these plantations have been thinned in the past,

with some receiving two separate thinning treatments at different times. Some of the Craggy 

stands are natural regeneration stands of the same age. There are no stands that are old enough 

and with the habitat characteristics required for most of the survey and manage botanical species.

The species must be closely associated with late-successional or old-growth forest (USDA and 

USDI 2001).

Environmental Consequences

Each alternative is evaluated in terms of how the proposed activities would meet the 

requirements of the species specific management recommendations if known sites are present, 

and how the project would comply with the 2001 record of decision (USDA and USDI 2001).

Alternative 1

Under this alternative, current management plans will continue to guide management of the 

project area. No project activities would be implemented to accomplish project goals. This 

alternative provides reviewers a baseline to compare the magnitude of the environmental effects 

of the action alternatives.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1 there will be no direct or indirect effects because there no known 

populations of survey and manage plant species within the project area from management 

activities. Therefore, Alternative 1 is in compliance with the survey and manage direction.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

22

Cumulative Effects

There will be no cumulative effects from the no action alternative because there are no direct or 

indirect effects to survey and manage species.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Alternatives 2 and 3 include vegetation and fuel management activities to meet the Forest’s 

purpose and need. For a full description of alternatives see chapter 2 of the Craggy

Environmental Impact Statement. Alternatives 2 and 3 are analyzed together in this survey and 

manage report because the effects from these alternatives would be the same.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternatives 2 and 3 there will be no direct or indirect effects because there are no known 

populations of survey and manage plant species within the project area, therefore Alternatives 2 

and 3 are in compliance with the survey and manage direction.

Cumulative Effects

There will be no cumulative effects from Alternatives 2 or 3 because there are no direct or 

indirect effects to survey and manage species.

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

The Forest has complied with the Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for 

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

Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI 2001); by assessing the project area and 

determining that there is no habitat or known sites of survey and manage plant species or fungi 

that will be affected by the project.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

23

NOXIOUS WEED RISK ASSESSMENT

Introduction

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

List (appendix B).

Project area reviewed for presence of infestations: Yes

Methodology

To determine which weeds are located within the project area the following resources were 

consulted:

• Klamath National Forest Noxious Weed and Non-native Invasive Plant List (Appendix 

B)

• Klamath National Forest species occurrences records (Natural Resource Inventory 

Database - Invasive Species Survey and Inventory Application)

• Klamath National Forest weed treatment records

Inventory and Mapping

The Forest Service has developed national standards and protocols for the inventory, monitoring, 

and mapping of invasive plants (USDA 2013). Natural Resource Manager – threatened, 

endangered, sensitive, proposed or invasive species (TESP/IS – the Invasive Species Survey and 

Inventory Application) and Natural Resource Manager Forest Activity Tracking System (NRMFACTS) are the databases of record for all survey and inventory data, and treatment and 

treatment monitoring activities for all invasive species management activities on the forest. 

These databases were used for information on non-native invasive plant (weed) sites that are 

currently mapped within or adjacent to the project area.

Annual weed inventories are conducted throughout the Forest on a rotating basis across 

landscapes. If new invasive species are discovered, they are mapped and a treatment plan is 

created based on priority and program capacity.

Analysis Indicators

The analysis indicators for non-native invasive species are:

• The risk of spread or introduction of noxious weeds for the general project area and;

• The risk of spread or introduction of noxious weeds specifically within Management 

Area 5 for Calochortus persistens.

Measures

A risk analysis was conducted based on the current distribution of weed species in habitats 

similar to those found in the proposed treatment areas and on the types of proposed project 

activities. The estimation of risk of weed spread and introduction of new weed invaders from the 
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

24

proposed activities is based on peer-reviewed literature, experience in the project area and on 

similar sites in the Forest.

Effects of proposed actions on noxious weed spread are based on the amount of canopy removal, 

on the predicted amount of soil or understory vegetation disturbance, and on the predicted 

effectiveness of the project design features in each alternative. Proposed actions with greater 

disturbance of existing vegetation and with greater soil disturbance would have a higher risk of 

weed spread, than actions with less disturbance.

Risk Assessment

The invasive species risk assessment was developed to standardize the process for determining 

the risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds associated with a project. For projects having 

a moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds, the project decision 

document must identify noxious weed control measures that must be undertaken during project 

implementation (FSM 2903.04)

Risk of weed spread within a project area is evaluated using the following five risk factors:

• Known populations of weeds within the project area;

• Vulnerability of the habitat to weed invasion;

• Possible non-project related vectors that may contribute to weed spread;

• The amount of disturbance resulting from project activities; and

• How much project activities may contribute to weed spread.

The risk analysis of introducing or spreading weeds with the proposed activities are generally 

described as very low, low, moderate, or high, with the following definitions:

• Very low = no measurable effect on existing weed infestations or susceptible habitat.

• Low = existing weed infestations or susceptible habitat are not likely affected

• Moderate = existing weed infestations or susceptible habitat may be affected, with the 

potential for expansion into un-infested areas or the establishment of new invaders.

• High = weed infestations or susceptible habitat are affected, with a high likelihood of 

expansion into un-infested areas or the establishment of new invaders.

Spatial and Temporal Context

The project area, will serve as the geographic bounds for effects analysis of non-native and 

invasive species. Determination of the risk analysis area for weeds considered the extent of 

currently documented weed infestations and their likely seed dispersal distances. This is an 

appropriate area to assess the effects of all alternatives because of the similarity of weed

composition and distribution on adjacent lands and due to difficulties in predicting long distance 

vector transport. A vector is anything biological or abiological that could spread seed.

Temporal bounding for weeds will be less than five years for short-term effects and greater than 

five years for long-term effects. The temporal bounding was chosen to account for seed 

germination and dormancy characteristics, as well as to account for the difficulty in identifying 

biennial and perennial vegetative life stages (rosettes).
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

25

Affected Environment

The Forest has a list of noxious and non-native invasive plants that are a concern on the Forest 

(Appendix B). A high priority weed species is one that is of important local management concern 

because it has a limited distribution on the Forest, highly invasive nature, and has demonstrated 

the potential to displace large geographic areas of native plant communities. Emphasis is given 

primarily to high priority weed species. Low and moderate priority species are of lesser concern 

and may be addressed in a project if those species are a problem locally. Priority for treatment is 

also given geographically, and can include high, medium, and low priority species if they occur 

in areas that are subject to high probability of dispersal, or are vulnerable to invasion.

Known Sites:

There are 41 documented infestations of high or moderate priority noxious weeds within the 

project area. This general area is one of the most highly infested locations on the Forest, and 

because of this, priority is only given to high priority weed sites and there are several infestations 

of low or moderate priority species that have not been officially documented. The exception to 

this is within Management Area 5 for Calochortus persistens, and within this area all non-native 

invasive species are given a higher priority because they are a threat to the habitat for this 

species.

The high level of infestation within the project area is primarily due to the high level of 

recreational use and a long history of disturbance. The weed species that are documented in the 

project area are: lens-podded white top (Cardaria chalapensis), white top (Cardaria draba), 

spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), squarrose 

knapweed (Centaurea squarrosa), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Scotch broom (Cytisus 

scoparius), dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria), and sulphur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta).

Species Accounts

Cardaria chalapensis (lens-podded white top) and Cardaria draba (white top):

Cardaria chalapensis and Cardaria draba are closely related species with very similar life cycle 

characteristics. Due to the similarity in dispersal and management considerations, these species 

are described together in this report.

Cardaria chalapensis and Cardaria draba are erect perennials that can tolerate a wide range of 

soil types and moisture conditions. They typically occur in disturbed open sites, fields, 

agricultural areas, roadsides, and ditches. These species form dense infestations that crowd out 

native plants in open, un-shaded areas and can be difficult to eradicate due to the production of a 

deep tap root and their ability to spread vegetatively through fragmentation (DiTomaso and 

Healy 2007).

Plants primarily reproduce vegetatively from clonal colonies developed from creeping roots or 

through root fragmentation. Under favorable conditions, these species can increase vegetatively 

by more than 100 centimeters per year (DiTomaso and Healy 2007). Very small pieces of root 

fragments are capable of growth, allowing these species to easily spread and create new 

infestations through the transport of contaminated soils. Although sexual reproduction seems to 

be less important to spread, these species are capable of producing 1,000 to 5,000 seeds per stem 

(each plant has multiple stems) which can remain viable as a seed bank for up to five years 

(DiTomaso and Healy 2007). Seed germination typically occurs in autumn after the first rains, 
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

26

with the plants overwintering as rosettes and flowering the following spring. Seeds are dispersed 

by water, vehicles, heavy equipment, contaminated hay, and short distances by wind.

Both species are B-rated pests and are considered moderate priority for the Forest, meaning that 

these species are generally common, and are treated on a case by case basis depending on the 

location (USDA 2013). There are currently three infestations of C. chalapensis and one 

infestation of C. draba documented within the project area, these infestations consist of multiple 

sub-populations spread out along the main Humbug Creek area.

Centaurea maculosa (spotted knapweed):

This species is a short-lived (up to nine years) perennial forb that forms a deep tap-root from a 

basal rosette, and produces multiple stems. The taxonomy of this species in North America has 

seen many changes, and the name used here, C. maculosa, is a synonym for C. biebersteinii and 

C. stoebe ssp. micranthos. Centaurea maculosa was discovered to be a problem on the Forest in 

1997, and since then, control efforts have been on-going with some significant successes. 

However, this species can disperse via multiple vectors and there are still occasions where 

infestations are discovered for the first time, particularly in areas of mixed land ownerships.

Centaurea maculosa reproduces solely through the production of seeds. An individual plant can 

produce as many as 40,000 seeds (DiTomaso and Healy 2007), although seed production is 

variable and dependent upon: site condition, plant age, herbivory, and seed predation. Seeds can 

remain viable in the soil for more than 15 years. Seed dispersal is primarily facilitated by human 

activities: the maintenance and use of roads, machinery, contaminated hay, and recreation; but 

can also be spread quite quickly by animals, birds, through waterways and wind.

Centaurea maculosa is highly adaptable and can be found in multiple habitats, the common 

denominator being disturbance. The species is difficult to see unless it is flowering, which occurs 

late in the season, usually July through October. Since the taproot is deep-seated, fire is not 

likely to kill this species, or kill seeds in the seed bank, making it one of the first plants to come 

back after fire.

Centaurea maculosa is an A-rated pest and a high priority species on the Forest. Most spotted 

knapweed infestations on the Forest are being actively controlled by hand-pulling every year. 

This method, if applied consistently, can be effective control as long as revisits are conducted 

regularly to capture re-sprouting individuals.

There are currently three infestations of Centaurea maculosa documented within the Craggy 

Vegetation Management Project area. These infestations are part of the regular treatment plan for 

the Forest noxious weed crew. No plants have been found at these sites for multiple years, but 

they are still checked every year in case there is a dormant seed bank. It is unlikely that seed 

would be spread from these infestations because it has been years since any plants have gone to 

seed, however ground disturbance should still be avoided at these sites.

Centaurea solstitialis (yellow star thistle):

This species is an annual to biennial plant that has multiple branched stems with many flower 

heads linked by spiny bracts. Plants reproduce by seed, with large plants producing as many as 

75,000 seeds. Centaurea solstitialis was originally introduced into California from the 

Mediterranean region around 1850 and currently infests approximately 20 million acres in 

California. Plants occur in open and disturbed areas, such as roadsides, burned areas, and logged 
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

27

areas; and can spread rapidly into habitats with open canopies such as grasslands and oak 

woodlands (DiTomaso and Healy 2007).

Seeds are dispersed by wind, water, birds and mammals, and human activities via numerous 

vector pathways. Of particular concern is the potential for spread from contaminated straw, 

hence the requirement for certified weed free straw to be used. Seeds can remain viable in the 

soil for up to ten years (Duncan et al. 2001). However, infestations under a successful treatment 

regimen where seed set is avoided, show great progress in three to four years.

Centaurea solstitialis is a C-rated pest, and a moderate priority for the Forest (USDA 2013) due 

to its widespread occurrence. Over 124 infestations have been identified on the Forest. There are 

six infestations documented in the project area, and it is likely that more occur that are

undocumented. Priority is only given to this species for treatment in areas that are near 

trailheads, wilderness areas, and areas of botanical concern.

Centaurea squarrosa (squarrose knapweed):

Centaurea squarrosa is an A-rated pest and a high priority for the Forest. It is a perennial species 

that prefers disturbed open sites. It is distinguished from the other knapweeds by having a bushy 

appearance, spiny re-curved bracts on the flower head that act as hooks for dispersal, blooming 

in May or June (earlier than most knapweeds), and by having a unique dispersal mechanism 

whereby the seed head breaks off entirely on passing animals or people.

Centaurea squarrosa spreads primarily through the production of seeds. This seed is mainly

dispersed through animal and human transport of the barbed seed heads. Dispersal can also occur 

and be enhanced through soil and water movement. There are effective biological-controls 

available for this species, however the infestations on the Forest are not large enough to support 

the biological-control agents. Biological control is a method of controlling pests (including 

insects, mites, weeds and plant diseases) using other living organisms. The current treatment for 

this species for the Forest is manual hand-pulling, and given the limited number of infestations 

known, it is a high priority species for treatment.

There are 11 documented infestations of Centaurea squarrosa within the project area, which is 

the majority of what is known to occur on the Forest. These sites are treated annually by the 

Forest noxious weed crew and it is unlikely that seed will spread from these infestations.

Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle):

Cirsium arvense is an erect perennial that grows up to three to five feet tall and forms patches or 

clumps that are usually of a single sex. This species competes aggressively with native plant 

species and prefers open, disturbed sites such as roadsides, gardens, pastures, hillsides, 

rangeland, stream banks, forest openings, and sometimes cropland. Stems ordinarily die back 

over winter and new shoots are formed in spring from old stem bases or root buds when the soil 

moisture permits. C. arvense has an extensive root system that can reach depths of six to 15 feet 

making eradication difficult (OSU 2008).

Plants develop from seed and from vegetative shoots that generate from adventitious root buds.

Adventitious roots are roots that occur on plant material other than the actual primary root of a 

plant. C. arvense can produce between 1,000 and 5,000 seeds per stem. Most seeds fall near the 

parent plants or disperse short distances with wind. Birds and small mammals can consume and 

disperse seeds. This species can also be spread by human activities via multiple vector pathways.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

28

The seeds have been known to survive in the soil for up to 20 years and longevity is favored by 

deep burial. (OSU 2008).

Cirsium arvense is a B-rated pest and a moderate priority for the Forest. Because the deep-seated 

root system can spread vegetatively this species is very difficult to control by hand-pulling 

methods. There is one infestation documented in the project area, this infestation has not been a 

part of the regular treatment program by the Forest Noxious Weed crew and has potential to 

spread from disturbance.

Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom):

This species is an aggressive woody shrub in the pea family. It is very difficult to control because 

of its prodigious seed production and long-lived seed bank. One medium sized shrub can 

produce over 12,000 seeds per year which are able to remain viable in the soil for 30 years, and 

possibly longer depending on site conditions (Zouhar 2005). Additionally, it is highly 

flammable, carries fire into the tree canopy, and increases the frequency and intensity of fire 

(Bossard et al. 1991).

Cytisus scoparius reproduces from seed and has the ability to sprout from the root crown 

following damage or destruction of above ground portions. Seeds are produced in legumes which 

forcibly eject seeds an average distance of three feet as they dry (Zouhar 2005). C. scoparius

seeds also contain elaiosomes that attract ants who gather the seeds and carry them back to their 

nest (Bossard et al. 1991). Subsequently, C. scoparius bushes are often found in abundance 

around ant nests. Because the seeds are smooth, they are not typically dispersed on the fur of 

wildlife or livestock, but may also be transported by waterways, vehicles, and equipment. Plants 

can re-sprout from the root crown following cutting, freezing, or fire. After fire, a flush of new 

seedlings is produced in recently burned areas with an existing seed bank (Zouhar 2005).

Although the California Department of Food and Agriculture gives C. scoparius a C-rating for 

the state, it is a high priority species on the Forest. Currently there is one infestation documented 

in the project area.

Isatis tinctoria (Dyer’s woad):

This species is a winter annual, biennial, or short lived perennial, and is widespread and 

expanding on the Forest and throughout Siskiyou County. It is difficult to eradicate due to its

robust tap root, ability to re-sprout from the root crown following injury, and prolific seed 

production. The species has shown no elevation limits and forms large, dense colonies that have 

the potential to displace desirable native plant species. Areas subjected to disturbance, whether 

fire, flood, or human made; are highly susceptible to invasion by this species. Re-sprouting will 

occur from the taproot near the crown of the plant for several years if it is mechanically injured, 

although in some cases on the Klamath, mowing with weed-eaters has been an effective control 

mechanism where the infestation is too large to hand-pull.

Isatis tinctoria primarily spreads through seed production. An average plant will typically 

produce 250 to 500 seeds per year (CDFA 2017). Seeds are dispersed by vehicles along 

roadways, along waterways and by animals through ingestion. The seeds usually fall close to the 

parent plant, but wind can disperse seed farther (CDFA 2017). Fire will top kill existing plants, 

but not kill underground portions of the plant. Post-fire conditions may allow plants to spread 

more rapidly, largely due to lack of competition from other plants and the existing seed bank 

which is not affected by fire, especially fast moving fire (Zouhar 2009).
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

29

Isatis tinctoria is a C-rated pest species and a moderate priority species on the Forest. Isatis 

tinctoria is a common invasive found throughout the Forest with over 239 infestations 

documented on it. There are eight infestations documented in the project area. Isatis tinctoria is 

not considered a priority for the general project area due to the widespread occurrences of this 

weed throughout the Forest. However, Isatis tinctoria is a high priority within Management Area

5 for Calochortus persistens. There are seven large infestations of I. tinctoria documented within 

this management area. These infestations are managed by hand-pulling in key areas annually, but 

there is still a large seed bank that exists.

Potentilla recta (Sulphur cinquefoil):

Potentilla recta has pale yellow flowers with five heart-shaped petals. The stems are upright with 

some branching near the top, and can grow up to three feet tall. There can be one to several 

stems per plant; the stems are distinguished by long, stiff hairs that stick straight out from the 

surface. The leaves have five to seven leaflets with distinctly toothed edges. P. recta is a 

perennial that spreads by seed and also reproduces vegetatively via new shoots emerging from 

the edges of its woody root crown. Eventually the stems sprouting from the woody crown 

separate into individual plants, and the plants can live up to 20 years in this way. P. recta can 

self-pollinate and seedlings quickly mature into flowering plants.

Growth begins in early spring, and flowers from early May to July. Seed set is usually between 

mid-July and August (Kings County 2012). Most of the seed is dispersed by falling passively to 

the ground. Seeds may also be transported by small mammals, in plant material used for nests, in 

soil trapped in ungulate hooves, in material caught in the undercarriage, doors and wheels of 

vehicles, in soil stuck to heavy equipment, and in hay cut for livestock (Zouhar 2003). Wildlife 

and livestock avoid grazing this plant due to its high tannin content. It is invasive in grass fields, 

shrub-dominated areas, pastures, roadsides, and waste areas (Kings County 2012). On the Forest 

it is most often found around old home sites associated with historic mining activity.

Potentilla recta is an A-rated pest species for the state, meaning that eradication and control is 

high priority at the state level, and it is rated a high priority for the Forest (USDA 2013). 

Currently there are seven infestations documented within the project area. These infestations are 

part of the Forest noxious weed crew monitoring program. Treatment is difficult within the 

densely infested patches that occur in openings along Humbug Creek, but monitoring efforts are 

showing that the infestations are not quickly spreading from these areas.

Habitat Vulnerability:

Natural forested habitats: The natural stands in the project area are composed primarily of 

densely forested mixed conifer stands dominated by Douglas-fir. Many stands in the project area 

have received some type of management within the last 20 years, and most of this habitat area 

was within the Haystack fire area. This landscape has undergone disturbances that have left it 

quite vulnerable to weed invasion, and as a result there are multiple infestations that are well 

established. However, over time these areas have largely recovered from past disturbances, and 

they now have adequate shade and plant cover to compete with noxious weed infestations. This 

habitat type is typically less susceptible to weed invasion than more open types. This habitat type 

represents a low risk level.

Plantations: This habitat type is prominent in this project area. Plantations are typically at a 

higher risk of weed invasion than the natural forested habitats because of lower shade levels and 
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

30

a higher degree of past disturbances. However, there is still canopy cover and competition 

present that can make it more difficult for weed invasion than more open areas. This habitat type 

represents a moderate risk.

Oak woodland and Shrub Habitats: These habitat types are typically at a higher risk of weed

invasion than the conifer covered types because of lower shade levels and the amount of open 

ground with less competition. This habitat type represents a high risk.

Management Area 5 for Calochortus persistens: Ridgetop Habitat: The habitat within 

Management Area 5 consists of rocky open ridgetop surrounded by montane shrub communities 

and stands of conifers. The conifer stands within the management area represent a low risk as the 

canopy cover is enough to limit invasion. The shrub fields and open ridgetop areas represent a 

high risk due to low shade and less competition.

Non-project Dependent Vectors:

Non-project dependent vectors considered in this assessment include the potential transfer of 

seed by wind, vehicle use of the existing roads, use of the off highway vehicle trail system, and 

spread of seed by livestock and wild animal use of the area. Seed can be transferred from 

infested areas to non-infested areas by wind, water, vehicles, and equipment using roads (most 

often in tire tread), and in animal’s fur and digestive tracts. Seeds of weed species that are not 

actively managed have a high chance of dispersal throughout the project area with the current 

vectors that exist. Species that are actively managed have a much lower chance of dispersal 

because they are prevented from producing seed annually. There are roads throughout the project 

area that receive a high amount of use due to the recreational access that the roads provide.

Additionally there is a trail system for off highway vehicle use within this project area adding 

additional vectors. There is a low level of livestock transport into the project area. Birds are 

known to favor thistle seeds and if ingested seeds can be transported through their digestive 

tracts. Because of the high recreational use of this area the non-project dependent vectors pose a 

high risk of weed introduction and spread.

Current Risk of Noxious Weed Introduction or Spread:

The combined risk of noxious weed introduction or spread in the project area is currently high; 

this area is much infested with weed species and receives a high level of recreational use 

including use of an off highway vehicle trail system. The Forest noxious weed crew manages 

high priority sites, and monitors and inventories the project area annually, any new high priority 

sites that are discovered will be treated by hand-pulling methods. Weeds that are introduced into 

the project area are likely to remain roadside for a number of years in areas that have conifer 

cover, however in areas with open ridgetops and open oak woodlands these infestations can 

quickly spread off the road and into more natural areas. Within Management Area 5 the risk is 

reduced because of the additional treatment and monitoring efforts that are applied to that area 

every year in order to protect the rare plant species that occurs there.

Environmental Consequences

Non-native and invasive plant species habitat is created when soil is disturbed, shade is removed, 

competing vegetation is removed and bare soil is exposed. Non-native and invasive plant species 

have developed strategies that allow them to out compete native species by germinating and 
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

31

occupying land faster than native species under environmental conditions that are not as well 

tolerated by native species.

Project design features have been developed which have a high level of effectiveness, the 

potential for new weed site introduction through project activities would be reduced through 

equipment washing and the use of weed free seed and straw. This is expected to greatly reduce 

the amount of weed seed introduction into the project area. Heavy equipment would be excluded 

from the existing weed sites with the exception of pre- and post-haul road grading. This would 

prevent the transfer of seed into other areas in the project by equipment.

Continuation of the existing Forest weed monitoring and treatment would detect any new highpriority weed sites that may become established within the project area. Quickly treating these 

sites has a high probability of preventing new weed site establishment.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 provides reviewers a baseline to compare the magnitude of environmental effects 

from no action to the action alternatives.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would result in no direct introduction of new species or spread of existing weed

populations as there wouldn’t be any project activities. Non-native and invasive plant species are 

commonly found in disturbed areas in the project area. The presence of known noxious weeds in 

the project area provides indirect opportunities for weeds to spread or become established in new 

locations by non-project vectors.

Habitat Alteration Expected as a Result of the Project Implementation:

Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in no increase in suitable habitat for non-native and 

invasive plant species from project related activities. Suitable habitat for weeds decreases with 

full canopy closure. Lack of disturbance and maintenance of the canopy would continue to 

discourage the establishment of weeds, allowing native species to occupy the majority of the 

habitat in the project area. However, by implementing Alternative 1, there is an increased chance 

of stand replacing wildfires (for more information on these effects see the full fire and fuel 

resource report, available on the project website). Stand replacing wildfires alter habitats and 

major ground disturbances occur, which in turn would leave more habitat vulnerable to weed

infestation. In the absence of a stand replacing wildfire the risk from habitat alteration under the 

no action alternative is low for the entire project area and specifically for Management Area 5.

Also with Alternative 1, tree mortality may increase due to overcrowding (dense stands of trees) 

and the increased susceptibility to insects and disease, thus decreasing canopy cover (for more 

information see the full silviculture (vegetation) report, available on the project website).

Increased Vectors as a Result of Project Implementation:

Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in no increase in vectors as a result of project 

implementation, and therefore would not increase the risk of introducing or spreading non-native 

and invasive plant species within the project area. Other factors that contribute to the 
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

32

introduction and establishment of weeds, such as transport on vehicles travelling through the 

project area, livestock spread of weeds, and wildlife spread of weeds would continue.

Summary of Effects

The risk value for this project area is high due to non-project dependent vectors and Alternative 

1 would not increase or decrease that risk.

Cumulative Effects

The risk of introducing or spreading weeds is the same as effects stated in the affected 

environment for Alternative 1. Ongoing and future actions within the project area could continue 

to introduce and spread noxious weeds species, the risk of weed spread and introduction in the 

project area would remain high when considering all actions for cumulative effects (see 

Appendix C of the Craggy Environmental Impact Statement for the list of actions considered for 

cumulative effects).

Alternatives 2 and 3

Non-native and invasive plant species habitat is created when soil is disturbed, shade is removed, 

competing vegetation is removed and bare soil is exposed. Non-native and invasive plant species 

have developed strategies that allow them to out compete native species by germinating and 

occupying land faster than native species under environmental conditions that are not as well 

tolerated by native species.

Project design features have been developed which have a high level of effectiveness. The 

potential for new weed site introduction through project activities would be reduced through 

equipment washing and the use of weed free seed and straw. This is expected to greatly reduce 

the amount of weed seed introduction into the project area. Heavy equipment and vehicles would 

be excluded from the high priority and large weed infestations with the exception of pre- and 

post-haul road grading. This would prevent the transfer of seed into other areas in the project by 

equipment. Management of infestations will occur on landings to prevent the spread of 

contaminated soils, State certified weed free materials will be required, and inspection will be 

required of materials for which certification does not exist.

These mitigation measures are accepted weed prevention practices developed by public land 

management agencies and university cooperative extension offices and promoted by weed 

management organization across the nation (Sheley et al. 2002, USDA 2013). The above 

measures include those required in Forest Service Manual 2900 for activities related to timber 

harvest and roads.

Continuation of the existing Forest weed monitoring and treatment would detect any new highpriority weed sites that may become established within the project area. Quickly treating these 

sites has a high probability of preventing new weed site establishment.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Habitat Alteration Expected as a Result of the Project Implementation:

Prescribed Underburning: In the project area, strategic areas will be underburned according to an 

approved burn plan. Underburning can affect the introduction of non-native and invasive plant 

species by reducing the protective duff and making bare mineral soil available or by releasing 
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

33

seeds. Areas of pre-established weed infestations would be at greatest risk of spread since seed is 

already present within the soil. Studies have found that canopy cover is an important factor in the 

establishment of non-native plant species, with areas that retain high cover having the lowest risk 

of weed invasion (Rejmanek 1989). The proposed underburn would retain adequate over story, 

understory, and shrub layers in the forested habitats to suppress noxious weed invasions. 

Underburning is a use of low intensity fire to help control ladder fuels. Underburning doesn’t 

burn off 100 percent of the ground vegetation, which in turn keeps adequate soil cover. Retaining 

adequate soil cover would reduce the likelihood that new infestations can occur. Habitat 

alteration from underburning represents a low to moderate risk.

Fuel Breaks and Roadside Fuel Treatments:

• Fuel Breaks: Habitat alteration from ridgeline fuels treatments represents a low risk, 

because within these fuel breaks, conifers less than 10 inches in diameter will be thinned 

manually, hand-piled and burned. This activity would not remove shade provided by 

overstory conifers and would have low disturbance to soil and duff layers. Areas 

dominated by brush will also be hand-cut, piled and burned. This will likely not create 

habitat that is subject to invasion by weeds. Fuelbreaks adjacent to private land are the 

same as ridgeline fuelbreaks in their manner of treatment methods. Their width will be up 

to 150 feet. Actual treatment areas will vary in size according to field conditions.

• Roadside Fuel Treatments: Brush and small diameter trees (less than 10 inches in 

diameter) within buffers (about 150-feet wide on either side of the road) will be manually 

cut, hand-piled and burned. Where equipment can remove trees without leaving an 

established roadbed, some trees may be removed as biomass. Areas dominated by brush 

will be hand cut, piled and burned. These activities would create low levels of 

disturbance, but will decrease shade cover. Project design features have been 

incorporated into the proposed action to reduce the risk of spreading weeds as a result of 

these activities. Habitat alteration from roadside fuels treatments represents a low to 

moderate risk.

• Mastication: In the project area, mastication will be used in areas that are dominated by 

decadent brush. Habitat alteration from mastication treatments represents a moderate 

risk, because mastication creates disturbed openings that are likely to be subjected to 

invasion by weeds. Project design features will reduce the risk of seed introduction in 

masticated areas.

Thinning without Removal of Forest Products: Conifers less than 10 inches in diameter will be 

hand-thinned using a variable-density approach. Habitat alteration in natural stands represents a 

low risk, because the openings created within dense canopies from the proposed hand-thinning 

prescriptions are not likely to be subjected to invasion by weeds due to the preservation of shade 

and duff levels which inhibits germination of weed seeds. Weeds generally do not invade or 

persist in areas with moderate to high vegetative cover. However, habitat alteration in 

plantations represents a low to moderate risk, because in plantations, the risk of weed

introduction is increased by the higher amount of canopy cover that would be removed from 

these stands. The increased amount of open understory would increase the area available for 

weed establishment in the short term. However, infestations would be unlikely to persist in the 

long term, as canopy closure increases over time.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

34

Thinning with Removal of Forest Products: Tractor based and skyline cable-yarding systems will 

be used to yard thinned trees. Trees will be thinned by a combination of hand and mechanical 

falling using a variable-density thinning approach. Tractor timber harvest can create openings 

that are vulnerable to invasion by weeds and the risk is greater in these units than those that 

would use skyline cable-yarding systems. Project design features will lower the risk of 

introduction into tractor units. Habitat alteration in natural stands represents a low to moderate

risk. However, habitat alteration in plantations represents a moderate risk due to the amount of 

open understory.

Increased Vectors as a Result of Project Implementation:

Temporary Road and Landing Construction Activities: The ground disturbance from reopening 

old landings or constructing new landings can create additional suitable habitat where introduced 

non-native and invasive plant species seeds can become established. Landings, however, 

represent a small area of the total acreage proposed for the project activities and a small 

percentage increase in the existing temporary road and landing area. Existing landings will be 

used to the extent possible and all landings will be located in accordance with project design 

features. To reduce log skidding distances and associated impacts to soils and other resources, 12

miles of existing temporary road beds will be used as temporary roads, this will not create 

additional habitat that is susceptible to invasion because the road bed already exists. Alternative 

2 proposes two miles of new temporary road construction, whereas Alternative 3 proposes one 

mile of new temporary road construction. New road construction does expose more habitat for 

the potential invasion of noxious weeds, but this is only temporary because the roads will be 

closed once the project work is finished. Also, there are project design features in place to reduce 

the spread of noxious weeds to these newly exposed road beds. Habitat alteration from road and 

landing construction represents an overall moderate risk even with the construction of the 

temporary new roads.

Increased Traffic during Project Implementation: The temporary increase of vehicle equipment 

traffic due to workers necessary for project implementation would be short term. There would be

an overall short term increase in vectors due to increased traffic during project implementation; 

this would be mitigated through the implementation of project design features, specifically 

equipment washing prior to project area entry. Overall, this poses a low risk for the introduction 

of noxious weeds.

Cumulative Effects

Introduction of new weeds through natural processes such as wind, water, and wildlife would 

proceed unchanged in Alternatives 2 or 3. New weed sites may still be introduced through 

recreational vehicular use or livestock use of the project area. Any future projects proposed by 

the Forest in this project area would include project design features to reduce the risk of 

introduction or spread of noxious weeds. Future projects in this area on private land have a high 

risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds into the project area because it is unknown how 

or if mitigation measures would be applied to reduce this risk. High priority weed species would 

continue to be detected and treated through the forest noxious weed program. Overall, when 

project design features are applied, there would be a moderate potential risk for cumulative 

effects.

Overall Level of Risk for the Project:
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

35

Overall, there would be a moderate risk of introduction or spread of non-native and invasive 

plant species as a result of habitat alteration and increased vectors as a result of project 

implementation of Alternative 2 or 3. When combined with the baseline pre-project risk rating 

the risk of introduction or spread due to Alternative 2 or 3 is high due to the non-project 

dependent vectors that exist in this project area. Within Management Area 5 this risk is greatly 

reduced because the activities that are proposed (fuelbreaks, underburn, and skyline harvest) 

have lower risk ratings associated with weed spread then other proposed activities such as tractor 

harvest. Additionally no new landing construction or new temporary road construction will occur 

within this management area. This risk is even further reduced in Management Area 5 due to the 

extensive monitoring and treatment that occurs and will continue to occur as part of the Forest 

Noxious Weed Program. Considering these factors the risk of introduction and spread 

specifically within the Management Area for Calochortus persistens is low. The effectiveness of 

the proposed project design features has been factored into this risk rating as described above.

Table 11: Summary of Risk of Spreading or Introducing Noxious Weeds.

Analysis Indicator Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3

Risk of spread or 

introduction of 

noxious weeds

Risk of spread or 

introduction of noxious 

weeds is high due to 

non-project dependent 

vectors.

Risk of spread or introduction of noxious weeds is high, due to 

non-project dependent vectors, implementation of project 

design features will reduce the risk of new introduction during 

project implementation.

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

Forest Service Manual 2900 and Forest Plan standards and guidelines require that all projects be 

evaluated for the risk of noxious weed introduction and spread as a result of project activities. In 

addition, projects must be designed to reduce the risk of weed introduction or spread. In the 

action alternatives, project design features have been incorporated which are expected to reduce 

the risk of weed introduction or spread. Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Manual 

direction will be met.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

36

LITERATURE CITED

Bossard, Carla C., John M. Randall, and Marc C. Hoshovsky. 1991. Invasive Plants of 

California’s Wildlands. University of California Press.

CDFA. 2017. California Department of Food and Ag: Dyer’s 

woad. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/ipc/encycloweedia/weedinfo/isatis.htm [Accessed 

2017, August 28]

Di Tomaso and Healy. 2007. Weeds of California and Other Western States. Vol. 1. University 

of California Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Duncan, Celestine, Jim Story, and Roger Sheley. 2001. Montana Knapweeds: Identification, 

Biology, and Management. Montana State University.

Fiedler, Peggy Lee. 1987. Life History and Population Dynamics of Rare and Common 

Mariposa Lilies (Calochortus Pursh: Liliaceae). Journal of Ecology, 75(4) 977-955.

Kings County. 2012. Kings County Noxious Weeds Control Program Sulfur cinquefoil. 

Updated February 21, 

2012. http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/noxious-weeds/weedidentification/sulfur-cinquefoil.aspx. [Accessed 2015, January 14].

OSU Extension Service. 2008. Invasive Weeds in Forest Land Canada Thistle. September 2008.

Rejmanek, 1989. In Merriam, Kyle E., Tom W. McGinnis, and Jon E. Keeley 2004.

The role of fire and fire management in the invasion of non-native plants in 

California. Park Science, Vol. 22-2. Fall, 2004.

Reveal, J. L. & J. D. Knorr. 2004. A new variety of Eriogonum ursinum (Polyonaceae: 

Eriogonoideae). Phytologia 86: 169-172.

Sheley, R., Manoukian, M., and Marks, G. 2002. Preventing noxious weed invasion. 

MONTGUIDE MT 199517 AG 8/2002. Montana State University Extension Service, 

Bozeman MT. 3 pp.

USDA Forest Service 1995. Record of Decision for the Klamath National Forest Land and 

Resources Management Plan. Klamath National Forest.

USDA Forest Service 2005. Forest Service Manual 2670, Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant 

Management. Washington, D.C. P.8-10 (FSM 2670-2671). September 23, 2005.

USDA Forest Service 2009. Forest Service Manual 2672, Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant 

Management. Washington, D.C. July 24, 2009.

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

Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service 2013. National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management. 

FS-1017. August 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.
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

37

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 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.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Table 1-1. Species

Included in Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines and Category Assignments 

(December 2003, but with January 2001 ROD category assignment for Red Tree Vole).

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for 

Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents 

within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service, and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. 2013. Conservation Agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and 

the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management for Calochortus persistens

(Siskiyou mariposa lily). November 19, 2013.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Memorandum: List of threatened and endangered 

species that may occur in the Craggy proposed project area. Consultation Code 

08EYRE00-2017-SLI-0141 (from ECOS-IPaC) June 20, 2017.

Zouhar, Kris. 2003. Potentilla recta. 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/.

[Accessed 2015, January 14].

Zouhar, Kris. 2005. Cytisus scoparius. 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/. 

[Accessed 2015, January 14].

Zouhar, Kris. 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/ [Accessed 

2015, January 14].
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

38

APPENDIX A. BOTANICAL RESOURCES MAPS

Figure 1: Sensitive Plants in the Craggy Vegetation Management Project
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

39

Figure 2: Nonnative Invasive Species in the Craggy Vegetation Management Project
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

40

APPENDIX B. KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST 

NOXIOUS WEED LIST

Table B-1: Klamath National Forest Noxious Weed List

Scientific Name 

(Jepson, 1993)

Plants 

Code Common Name(s) KNF Priority

CDFA 

Rating

Cal-IPC 

Rating Family

Acroptilon repens (L.) 

DC. ACRE3 Russian knapweed High B Moderate Asteraceae

Ailanthus altissima AIAL Tree of Heaven Mod. C Moderate Simaroubaceae

Bromus tectorum L. BRTE Cheat Grass Low None High Poaceae

Buddleja davidii 

Franchet BUDA2 Butterfly bush Mod. None None Buddlejaceae

Cardaria draba (L.) 

Desv. CADR Heart-podded hoary cress Whitetop Mod. B Moderate Brassicaceae

Cardaria chalapensis 

(L.) Hand.-Maz CACH10 Lens-podded Whitetop Mod. B Moderate

♦ Brassicaceae

Carduus nutans L. CANU4 Musk thistle High A Moderate Asteraceae

Carduus 

pycnocephalus L. CAPY2

Italian thistle 

Plumeless Italian 

thistle

High C Moderate Asteraceae

Centaurea diffusa 

Lam. CEDI3 Diffuse knapweed, white knapweed High A Moderate Asteraceae

Centaurea maculosa 

Lam. CEMA4 Spotted knapweed High A High Asteraceae

Centaurea debeauxii

Gren. & Godr.

CEDE5 

CEPR2 Meadow knapweed High A Moderate

♦

Asteraceae

Centaurea solstitialis L. CESO3 Yellow star thistle Mod. C High Asteraceae

Centaurea squarrosa 

Willd. CESQ Squarrose knapweed High A Moderate Asteraceae

Chondrilla juncea L. CHJU Rush skeleton weed, 

hogbite High A Moderate Asteraceae

Cirsium arvense (L.) 

Scop. CIAR4 Canada thistle Mod. B Moderate Asteraceae

Cirsium vulgare CIVU Bull thistle Low C Moderate Asteraceae

Conium maculatum L. COMA2 Poison hemlock Low None Moderate Apiaceae

Cynoglossum officinale 

L. CYOF Houndstongue High None Moderate Boraginaceae

Cytisus scoparius (L.) 

Link. CYSC4 Scotch Broom High C High Fabaceae

Euphorbia esula L. EUES Leafy spurge High A High ♦ Euphorbiaceae

Euphorbia oblongata 

Grisb. EUOB4 Oblong spurge High B Limited Euphorbiaceae
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

41

Scientific Name 

(Jepson, 1993)

Plants 

Code Common Name(s) KNF Priority

CDFA 

Rating

Cal-IPC 

Rating Family

Foeniculum vulgare 

Mill. FOVU4 Fennel High None High Apiaceae

Genista 

monspessulana (L.) L. 

Johnson

GEMO2 French broom High C High Fabaceae

Hypericum perforatum 

L. HYPE Klamath weed, St. John's wort Low C Moderate Hypericaceae

Isatis tinctoria L. ISTI Dyer's woad, 

Marlahan mustard Mod. B Moderate Brassicaceae

Lathyrus latifolius L. LALA4 Sweet pea Low None None Fabaceae

Lepidium latifolium L. LELA2

Perennial 

Pepperweed, tall 

whitetop

High B High Brassicaceae

Linaria dalmatica (L.) 

P. Mill ssp. Dalmatica LIDAD Dalmation toadflax High A Moderate Schropulariaceae

Lythrum salicaria L. LYSA2 Purple Loosestrife High B High Lythraceae

Melilotus spp. MEAL2, 

MEOF

White Sweetclover, 

Yellow Sweetclover Low None None Fabaceae

Onopordum acanthium 

L. ONAC Scotch thistle, Cottonthistle High A High Asteraceae

Onopordum tauricum 

Willd. ONTA Taurian thistle, Bull cottonthistle High A None Asteraceae

Polygonum cuspidatum 

Sieb. & Zucc. POCU6 Japanese knotweed High B Moderate

♦ Polygonaceae

Potentilla recta L. PORE5 Sulphur cinquefoil High None None Rosaceae

Rubus discolor RUDI2 Himalayan 

blackberry Low None None Rosaceae

Salvia aethiopis L. SAAE Mediterranean sage High B Limited Lamiaceae

Sonchus arvensis SOAR2

Perennial 

Sowthistle, Field 

Sow-thistle

High A None Asteraceae

Spartium junceum SPJU2 Spanish Broom High C High Fabaceae

Taenaiatherum 

caputmedusae TACA8 Medusahead Low C High Poaceae

Tamarix parviflora TAPA4 Tamarisk High B High Tamaricaceae

Tribulus terrestris TRTE Puncture vine High C None Zygophyllaceae

Pest Ratings:

Klamath National Forest (KNF) Priority:
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

42

High: These species are currently either limited in distribution, highly invasive, or not present on 

the KNF. Treatment may vary by location.

Moderate: These species are generally common, and are treated on a case by case basis 

depending on location (Wilderness and Research Natural Area (RNA) increase the priority for 

treatment).

Low: These species are either widespread throughout the KNF, or are not considered to be 

highly invasive in our area. Usually not treated unless located in a high priority area, such as 

Wilderness or RNA.

California Dept. of Food and Agriculture (CDFA):

A: Eradication, containment, rejection, or other holding action at State-County level. Quarantine 

interceptions to be rejected or treated at any point in the State.

B: Species more widespread. Eradication, containment, control, or other holding action at the 

discretion of the County Ag. Commissioner.

C: Species very widespread. State endorsed holding action and eradication only when found in a 

nursery; action to retard spread outside of nurseries at the discretion of the commissioner; reject 

only when found in a crop seed for planting or at the discretion of the County Ag. 

Commissioner. Q: Temporary "A" action outside of nurseries at the state-county level pending 

determination of a permanent rating. Species on List 2, "Federal Noxious Weed Regulation" are 

given an automatic "Q" rating when evaluated in California.

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC):

High: These species have severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal 

communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are 

conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal and establishment. Most are widely distributed 

ecologically.

Moderate: These species have substantial and apparent—but generally not severe—ecological 

impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their 

reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal, 

though establishment is generally dependent upon ecological disturbance. Ecological amplitude 

and distribution may range from limited to widespread.

Limited: These species are invasive but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level 

or there was not enough information to justify a higher score. Their reproductive biology and 

other attributes result in low to moderate rates of invasiveness. Ecological amplitude and 

distribution are generally limited, but these species may be locally persistent and problematic.

♦ = Alert
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

43

APPENDIX C. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR 

BOTANICAL RESOURCES

Table C-1: Project Design Features

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/ Areas 

or Units

Rationale OR 

Applicable 

Standard and 

Guideline

Botany-1

Within Calochortus persistens habitat (in the Calochortus 

persistens management area, part of Management Area 5), 

ground disturbance will only occur within designated unit 

boundaries; all equipment and project related disturbance will 

not operate or occur outside those boundaries except on 

designated road systems. No new landings will be constructed 

within this management area. Use of existing landings will be 

coordinated with the district botanist.

All Alternatives: Units 

134-47S, 138-155S, 

138-46E, 138-56S, 

138-71S, 544-17S, 

544-19S, 544-20E, 

544-222S

USFWS / 

USFS / BLM 

Conservation 

Agreement

Botany-2

Within Calochortus persistens populations in the Calochortus 

persistens management area, all sub-populations within the 

project area will be flagged with yellow and black striped 

flagging. No equipment/vehicle activity, tree skidding, or any 

other form of ground disturbance will occur within these flagged 

boundaries. Burn piles will not be constructed within flagged 

areas.

All Alternatives: Units 

134-47S, 138-155S, 

138-46E, 138-56S, 

138-71S, 544-17S, 

544-19S, 544-20E, 

544-222S, 134-70P, 

138-102P, 138-56P, 

138-70P, FBP1, 

FBR2, FBS1, FBS2

USFWS / 

USFS / BLM 

Conservation 

Agreement

Botany-3

Two sub-populations of Calochortus persistens will be included 

for fuels removal treatment and underburn prescriptions. This 

work will be implemented with the district botanist and the 

following design features will be implemented: 1) Prescribed 

fire, and removal of brush and small diameter conifers within 

the sub-population boundary will only occur outside of the 

active growing season (April through August); 2) Burn piles will 

not be constructed within the flagged population boundaries 

(delineated with yellow and black striped flagging); 3) 

Monitoring will occur after implementation and will include 

monitoring non-native invasive plant species.

All Alternatives: UB5, 

FBR2, and FBS1

USFWS / 

USFS / BLM 

Conservation 

Agreement

Botany-4

All populations of Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens within 

the project area will be excluded from all project activities. 

These locations will be flagged with yellow and black flagging 

prior to project implementation.

All Alternatives: UB1, 

UB5, FBR2, FBS1, 

138-155

USFWS / 

USFS / BLM 

Conservation 

Agreement

Invasive 

Species-1

Equipment and vehicles that leave established road surfaces 

will be cleaned of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, and other 

debris that could contain noxious weeds seeds or propagative 

material prior to entering the project area and before leaving 

infested areas. Areas appropriate for cleaning equipment will be 

designated as appropriate.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with 

Removal and 

Mastication Units

Forest Plan 

21-53
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

44

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/ Areas 

or Units

Rationale OR 

Applicable 

Standard and 

Guideline

Invasive 

Species-2

High priority non-native invasive species (NNIS) sites will be 

flagged prior to project implementation with orange/black 

flagging labeled with “invasive species”. Equipment, vehicles, 

and personnel will avoid working within these flagged high 

priority areas. Mastication, equipment piling, and pile burning 

will not occur within these high priority areas.

All Alternatives: 136-

145, 137-8, 138-11, 

138-46, 138-56, 138-

71, 138-74, 138-151, 

138-155,138-501, 

544-17, 544-19, 544-

20, 544-222, UB1, 

UB2, UB4, FBR2, 

FBR3, FBR4, FBS2, 

138-MAST-1, 138-

MAST-4

Forest Plan 

21-53

Invasive 

Species-3

If potential landing sites are infested with noxious weeds, 

consult with the district botanist to determine appropriate 

methods for containing and/or managing the infestation. 

Methods may include blading infested soil away from activity 

zones and covering this soil; or adding a barrier to the landing 

so seed banks cannot be transported.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with 

Removal Units

Forest Plan 

21-53

Invasive 

Species-4

Any straw or seed placed within the project area must be 

documented as California certified weed free. Other materials 

where State inspection protocol does not exist (gravel, wood 

chips) used as mulch in the project area should be inspected by 

a Forest Service representative to determine the potential for 

spread of noxious weeds.

All Alternatives: All 

Units

Forest Plan 

21-53

Invasive 

Species-5

Any facility that provides material such as rock, gravel, or 

boulders to be used in the project area should be inspected and 

determined to have limited potential for the spread of noxious 

weeds from stored material. Material stockpiles must be 

noxious weed free.

All Alternatives: All 

Units

Forest Plan 

21-53
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

45

APPENDIX D. KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST 

FEDERALLY LISTED & SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES

FEDERALLY LISTED AND SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES

Section 7 ESA, FSM 2670

KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST June 2016

(This list supersedes all similar lists bearing earlier dates. It is subject to change as new information becomes 

available. Procedures for documenting changes are identified in FSH 2609.25 section 1.32.)

Federally listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Proposed (P)

Species Code

* Arabis macdonaldiana Eastw. (E) ARMA33

***+ Astragalus applegatei Peck (E) ASAP

***+ Fritillaria gentneri Gilkey (E) FRGE

* Phlox hirsuta E.Nelson (E) PHHI7

Region 5 listed as Sensitive that may occur on the Klamath National Forest

Vascular Plant Species Code

+ Botrychium crenulatum W. H. Wagner BOCR

+ Botrychium lunaria (L.) Sw. BOLU

+ Botrychium minganense Victorin BOMI

+ Botrychium montanum W. H. Wagner BOMO

H Botrychium pinnatum St. John BOPI

+ Botrychium pumicola Coville ex Underw BOPU2

Calochortus greenei Wats. CAGR

** Calochortus persistens Ownbey CAPE

Campanula wilkinsiana Greene CAWI8

Chaenactis suffrutescens A. Gray CHSU

Cypripedium fasciculatum Wats. CYFA

Cypripedium montanum Lindl. CYMO2

Draba carnosula O. E. Schulz DRCA6

Epilobium oreganum Greene EPOR

* Eriogonum alpinum Engelm. ERAL6

Eriogonum hirtellum J.T. Howell and Bacig. ERHI7

Eriogonum ursinum S. Watson var. erubescens Reveal & J. D. Knorr ERURE

Erythronium hendersonii S. Watson ERHE7

+ Eucephalis vialis Bradshaw EUVI8

+ Frasera umpquaensis M.E. Peck & Applegate FRUM2

Horkelia hendersonii J. Howell HOHE2

Ivesia pickeringii Torr. ex Gray IVPI

Lupinus lepidus Dougl. ex Lindl. var. ashlandensis (B.J.Cox) Isley LULEA

H Mimulus evanescens Meinke MIEV

Minuartia stolonifera Nelson & Nelson MIST9

Parnassia cirrata Piper var. intermedia (Rydb.) P.K. Holmgren & 

N.H. Holmgren

PACII

Pedicularis howellii Gray PEHO

Phacelia cookei Const. & Heckard PHCO20

Phacelia greenei J. Howell PHGR2
Botany Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

46

Phacelia inundata J. Howell PHIN3

C Pinus albicaulis Engelm. PIAL

+ Polemonium chartaceum H. Mason

Polemonium pulcherrimum Hook. var. Shastense (Eastw.) Stubbs

POCH3

POPUS

Raillardella pringlei Greene RAPR

Rorippa columbiae (Robinson) Howell ROCO3

Tauschia howellii (Coult. & Rose) Macbr. TAHO2

Thermopsis robusta J. Howell THRO4

Fungi Species Code

Boletus pulcherrimus Thiers & Halling BOPU4

Cudonia monticola Mains CUMO2

Dendrocollybia racemosa (pers.: Fr.) Peterson & Redhead DERA5

Phaeocollybia olivacea A.H.Smith PHOL

Tricholomopsis fulvescens A.H.Smith TRFU3

Bryophyte Species Code

+ Buxbaumia viridis (DC.) Moug. & Nestl. BUVI2

Fissidens aphelotaxifolius Pursell FIAP

Helodium blandowii (Web. & Mohr) Warnst. HEBL2

Meesia uliginosa Hedw MEUL70

Mielichhoferia elongata (Hoppe &Hornsch. Ex Hook) Nees & 

Hornsch. In Nees et. Al 

MIEL5

Lichen Species Code

+ Peltigera gowardii Lendemer & H.O’Brien PEGO4

* Listed as Endangered by the State of California.

** Listed as Rare by the State of California.

*** Listed as Endangered by the State of Oregon

C Listed as Federal Candidate species

+ Suspected to occur, not currently documented.

H Historic occurrence, not currently documented