Hi-Grouse Project

Supplemental Botany Report

for

Ethnobotanical Species

Prepared by:

Blaze Baker,

Botanist

for:

Goosenest Ranger District,

Klamath National Forest

June 18, 2009

Ranger District: Goosenest

Prepared by: _/s/ Blaze Baker_____________________ ______ Blaze Baker

Botanist

Reviewed by: __/s/ Maria Knight

Maria KnightBotanist

Klamath National Forest

Approved by:L~en~

Goosenest District RangerKiamath National Forest

Maria Knight, 530-468-1238

orBlaze Baker, 559-779-6559

(Maria Knight has the project botanysurveys records on file.)

Above and Beyond Ecosystems Enterprise Unit

Date: ~June 18, 2009Date: _July 28, 2009~

Date: V/2 S//c

Hi-Grouse Botany Supplemental Report Contact:

1
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

2

Table of Contents

I. Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 3

A. Location Information.......................................................................................................... 3

B. Ethnobotanical Species....................................................................................................... 3

C. Mushrooms......................................................................................................................... 3

II. Current Management.............................................................................................................. 7

III. Description of Proposed Action............................................................................................ 7

A. Proposed Action ................................................................................................................. 7

IV. Existing Environment ........................................................................................................... 8

V. Effects of the Alternatives...................................................................................................... 8

A. Interactions Important to Analysis – General..................................................................... 8

B. Effects of the No-Action Alternative.................................................................................. 9

C. Effects of All Action Alternatives...................................................................................... 9

VI. Determination Of Effects...................................................................................................... 9

References................................................................................................................................. 10

Appendix A: Medicine Lake Highlands Botanical Species List ................................................... 11
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

3

I. Introduction

The purpose of this document is to evaluate the Hi-Grouse Project in sufficient detail to 

determine its effects on ethnobotanical species that may be present within the project area. 

Species used by humans are referred to as ethnobotanical plants, and can be used for food, 

medicine, fiber, fuel, and structural materials. The project area is within the Central Medicine 

Lake Highlands area that has traditionally been used by Native Americans for many purposes 

including the collection of ethnobotanicals. 

A. Location Information

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

extends south to the Forest boundary near Little Glass Mountain. The project area encompasses 

approximately 7,450 acres in the south east portion of the Goosenest Ranger District. 

Approximately the southern one-third of the Hi-Grouse Project lies within the Central Medicine 

Lake Highlands. 

Legal Description: The project is located in the southwest of the district at T44N, R2E, Sections 

25–28; T43N, R2E, Sections 1–4, and 13; T44N, R3E, Section 31; T43N, R3E, Sections 6, 7, and 

18, Mt. Diablo Meridian. For a map of the proposed project area, see the 2009 Hi-Grouse EIS.

B. Ethnobotanical Species

Numerous species of traditional use plants likely exist within the project area; those within the 

Central Medicine Lake Highlands were sampled in 2003 (Miller 2004). Traditionally used 

species numbered 260 plant species (see Appendix A, derived from Miller [2004]). Of those, 25 

species (see Table 1) were highlighted in the report to represent the spectrum of plants in the 

highlands and to address tribal interest in the sustainability and enhancement of ethnobotanical 

species under forest management (this includes actions that mimic natural processes, especially 

prescribed fire, and actions that would reduce effects on plants less tolerant of disturbance). 

C. Mushrooms 

Seven mushroom species were identified as traditionally collected species in the Highlands 

(Appendix A). Those and several others have been noted as collected species in modern times. 

According to a 2009 email from Cherie Sanders (who works in sale administration on the Modoc 

NF and previously managed special forest products on the Klamath NF ) when asked about 

mushrooms “Well the whole sale area has mycorrhizal mushrooms (hypha or mycelium type 

mushroom), boletus and or matsutake , and hedgehog. Pink area (Figure 1) has white king bolete 

(Boletus barrowsii), king bolete (Boletus edulis), queen bolete (Boletus aereus) and slippery jack 

(Suillus brevipes). Red area has matsutake (Tricholoma magnivelare or Armillaria ponderosa). 

The whole area has hedgehog (Hydnum scabrosum and H. repandum).

The whole area you can find the yellow coral (Ramaria rasilispora), black and white morels 

(Morchella elata or Morchella esculenta) and the shaggy mane (Coprinus comatus), puff ball 

(Calvatia sculpta) scattered throughout, but these like disturbance or disturbed areas. Shaggy 

mane will come up in the road! These are saprotrophic-type mushroom (living on decaying 

wood)”. 
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

4

Table 1. Highlighted ethnobotanical species from the Central Medicine Lake Highlands Report

Name Life Form Habitat Tolerance to Disturbance Comments 

Incense cedar 

Calocedrus decurrens

Tree Mixed conifer Seeds well in mineral soil, 

seedlings/saplings not fire 

tolerant; old trees fire tolerant

Widespread common 

species 

Sugar pine 

Pinus lambertiana

Tree Mixed conifer Large forest species, 

disturbance tolerant; being 

affected by white pine blister 

rust

Was more common, was 

targeted for logging

Serviceberry 

Amelanchier utahensis

Shrub Montane shrublands, mixed 

conifer, edges of forests

Re-sprouts well after cutting Hardy shrub

Pinemat manzanita 

Arctostahpylos nevadensis

Shrub Conifer forests Seeds need scarification to 

germinate (from fire especially)

Low spreading shrub, gets 

shaded out in dense forests

Mountain sagebrush 

Artemesia tridentata ssp.

vayseyana

Shrub Edges of meadows, open 

areas

Not fire tolerant, however 

frequent “cool” fires likely keep 

available habitat open

Widespread across the great 

basin and intermountain west

Curl-leaf mountain mahogany 

Cercocarpus ledifolius

Shrub Generally dominates sites, 

usually rocky ridges with other 

shrubs

Not fire tolerant, however 

frequent “cool” fires likely keep 

available habitat open

Widespread across the west 

and intermountain west

Bitter cherry 

Prunus emarginata

Shrub Edges of mixed conifer, low 

seral sites, with other shrubs

Tolerant of disturbance, can 

dominate sites

Widespread and common 

across the west

Western chokecherry 

Prunus virginiana var. demissa

Shrub Edges of mixed conifer, lowseral sites, with other shrubs, 

also rocky sites

Tolerant of disturbance, can 

dominate sites

Widespread and common 

across the west

Wax currant 

Ribes cereum

Shrub Edges of conifer forests, with 

other shrubs

Disturbance tolerant–seeds in 

disturbed areas

Common in the Sierras and 

southern Cascades

Lemmon’s willow 

Salix lemmonii

Shrub Wet areas, typically with some 

sand in the substrate

Re-sprouts after disturbance, 

seeds into bare mineral soil as 

long as it remains wet long 

enough

Common, widespread
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

5

Scouler’s willow 

Salix scouleriana

Shrub Wet areas, typically with some 

sand in the substrate

Re-sprouts after disturbance, 

seeds into bare mineral soil as 

long as it remains wet long 

enough

Common, widespread

Blue elderberry 

Sambucus Mexicana

Shrub Generally found in low seral 

shrub communities

Seeds distributed by animals, 

often one of the first to seed 

into grassy areas that are 

transitioning back to 

shrublands and forest

Common, widespread

Yarrow 

Achillea millefolium

Herb Low-seral sites (usually 

meadows), often with regular 

disturbance

Seeds into disturbed areas, 

especially meadows or similar 

situations

Very common, very 

widespread globally

Small onion 

Allium parvum

Herb Stony sites with clay, and on 

talus slopes

Generally found in areas with

little vegetative competition

Can be common on rocky 

sites in the Sierras and 

Cascades

Arnica 

Arnica mollis

Herb Riparian, generally meadow 

edge

Not likely a plant that tolerates 

disturbance or grazing 

pressure

Occasional in the Pacific 

States

Prince’s pine

Chimophila umbellata

Sub-shrub Conifer forests–higher canopy 

closure

Does not tolerate fire well, not 

does it likely strong sunlight; 

activities such as repeated 

very light fire or occasional tree 

thinning could benefit the plant

Common in the Sierras and 

southern Cascades

Little prince’s pine 

Chimophila menziesii

Sub-shrub Conifer forests–higher canopy 

closure

Does not tolerate fire well, not 

does it likely strong sunlight; 

activities such as repeated 

very light fire or occasional tree 

thinning could benefit the plant

Common in the Sierras and 

southern Cascades

Mountain strawberry 

Fragaria virginiana

Herb Recently disturbed areas and 

meadows

Spreads by seeds and 

runners; often invades recently 

disturbed areas provided they 

are not too dry

Common in the Sierras and 

southern Cascades

Spotted mission bells 

Fritillaria atropurpurea

Herb Pine forests, sagebrush, 

meadow edges

Spreads by seed, slow to 

mature; vulnerable to grazing

Common in the Great Basin 

and east side of the Sierras 

and Cascades

Gray’s lomatium 

Lomatium grayii

Herb Rocky areas Generally does not compete 

well with other plants

Only known from California 

from this region, very 

widespread in the west and 

Rocky Mountains States
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

6

Mountain pennyroyal Herb Conifer forest, open areas, 

meadows

Invades into disturbed areas Widespread in the montane 

west

Sedge 

Carex angustata

Herb Meadows and wet areas Tolerant of sediment 

depositions

Pacific States from northern 

California to Washington and 

Idaho

Lady Fern 

Athyrium felix-femina

Herb Wet areas Disturbance tolerance 

unknown; can re-sprout after 

cool fires, and needs bare 

mineral substrate to establish

Pacific States to Alaska

Black moss 

Bryoria fremontii

Lichen Tree branches Not disturbance tolerant Pacific States, often older 

forests

Sculptured puff ball 

Calvatia sculpta

Fungi Conifer forests and sometimes 

compacted areas such as road 

edges

Unknown Pacific States in the higher 

elevations
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

7

Figure 1. Mushroom collection 

II. Current Management 

Discussions with members of the public and scoping have not yielded any issues related to 

ethnobotanical species. While favored locations for traditional gathering or modern collecting 

may exist within the project area, none have been identified. 

III. Description of Proposed Action

A. Proposed Action

The Goosenest Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest (KNF) proposes to restore

ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest types, thin, and use fuel reduction techniques on 

approximately 5,109 acres within the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area (AMA). The 

proposed actions were designed to address the purpose and need components and move towards 

the desired conditions while meeting plan standards and guidelines. This project involves altering 

stand density, structure, and species compositions, and the abatement of fuels generated from 

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

treatment activities are included in the proposed action. Many fuels treatments overlap within any 
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

8

given silvicultural treatment. For example, thinning may be followed by both fuels abatement and 

underburning; and fuel treatment corridors may overlap other treatments. Silvicultural and fuels 

treatments and road actions are summarized in the EIS, following the discussion of all 

alternatives.

IV. Existing Environment

The ethnobotanical species occur in a wide variety of habits including disturbed areas, fire areas, 

older forests, rocky areas, meadows, and riparian or wet areas. A few of the species such as 

lichens and fungi occur on trees and rocks or on decomposing wood. Most of these conditions 

are found within the analysis area. The results of the pre-field and field surveys did not yield any 

particularly notable locations of ethnobotanical species within the Hi-Grouse Project area. 

V. Effects of the Alternatives 

A. Interactions Important to Analysis – General

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

associated plant environments can affect plants 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 to 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 and their effects on plants can be both long term and short term. 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 plant populations.

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

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

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

habitat modification. The alternatives are typically evaluated in terms of how they would affect 

sensitive plant species viability in the context of the above factors. While some direct and 

indirect effects are noted below, long-term cumulative effects are not anticipated for the following 

reasons:

• Most species are widespread or common in the region and across the west.

• Most species evolved with some form of disturbance such as fire or tree windthrow.

• No rare species that are also ethnobotanical species would be impacted because field 

surveys have cleared the project of rare plants. 

• No traditional ethnobotanical gathering sites are known from the project area.

• Treatments would not occur in riparian areas or rocky areas where many of the less 

common species exist. 
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

9

B. Effects of the No-Action Alternative 

No direct effects to ethnobotanical plants are anticipated by not implementing any of the action 

alternatives. Indirect effects on the species that prefer some form of disturbance or lower-seral 

state (Table 1) could occur. As noted in Miller (2004) the effects of fire suppression may be 

reducing the numbers or distribution of ethnobotanical species in the region. 

C. Effects of All Action Alternatives 

Species that inhabit riparian areas, meadows, or rocky areas would not be affected as treatments 

would not occur in those sites. The treatments would be within the range of possible natural 

disturbance (such as windthrow of trees or wildfire) in the analysis area, and would not 

encompass every acre in the project area. Some direct effects to ethnobotanical species would 

likely occur during mechanical treatments. The species that re-sprout or seed into disturbed areas 

may have lower amounts of available material to collect, but would be available for the longer 

term as a result of treatment. Species that prefer any form of fire (such as morel mushrooms) 

would be more available than are currently. 

Other species that do not tolerate disturbance or prefer closed canopy conditions—especially 

some of the lichens and fungi and their host plants—may take longer to recolonize from adjacent 

untreated areas. 

VI. Determination Of Effects

An adequate botanical assessment has been completed for this project that assessed rare plants 

(no anticipated effects) and possible effects from noxious weeds on the ecosystem (and the weed 

risk is low). No herbicides are proposed in this project that would affect plants or their 

availability to collect. Effects to ethnobotanical plants from the action alternatives vary by their 

habitat. There would be no effect to plants that inhabit riparian areas, meadows, or rocky areas 

and talus slopes. Plants that occur in the forest types proposed for treatment could be affected. 

Some may benefit from the disturbance from prescribed fire or opening the canopy. Other plants 

may be fewer until they re-establish on the treated areas. Many of the treatments are focused on 

improving older forest conditions and lessening the risk of stand-replacing fires. The species that 

occur in those ecosystems would benefit in the long term from those treatments. 
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

10

References

Miller, T. 2004. Ethnobotanical Surveys of the Central Medicine Lake Highlands.

USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Land and Forest 

Resource Management Plan. Klamath National Forest.

USDA-Forest Service. 2007b. 2670: Sensitive Plant Survey reports, Hi-Grouse Project. 

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

USDA-Forest Service. 2009. Hi-Grouse Project EIS. Goosenest Ranger District, Klamath 

National Forest, Macdoel, CA.
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

11

Appendix A: Medicine Lake Highlands Botanical 

Species List
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

12
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

13
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

14
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

15
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

16
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

17
Supplemental Botany Report for Ethnobotanical Species Hi-Grouse Project EIS

18