bucks lake hazardous fuels reduction project: biological...

Bucks Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project:

Biological Evaluation of Potential Effects to Threatened, Endangered,

and Sensitive Plant Species

Prepared for:

Mt Hough Ranger District

Plumas National Forest

USDA Forest Service

December 2, 2011

Prepared by: /s/ Michelle Coppoletta Date: 12/2/11

Michelle Coppoletta Botanist, Mt Hough Ranger District

Reviewed by: /s/ Jim Belsher-Howe Date: 12/2/11

Jim Belsher-Howe District Botanist, Mt Hough Ranger District

i

Summary of Effects

Alternative B (No Action)

It is my determination that the no-action alternative will not affect Clarkia mildrediae ssp.

mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia), Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady's-slipper), Lupinus

dalesiae (Quincy lupine), Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss), and Penstemon

personatus (closed-throated beardtongue). This determination is based on the negligible

direct and indirect effects to individuals and areas of suitable habitat.

It is my determination that Alternative B (no action) will not affect any other Region 5

Sensitive species or any Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species. This determination

is based on the absence of suitable habitat within the project area for these species and the

lack of individuals known or expected to occur within the project area.

Action Alternatives (A, C, and D)

It is my determination that the Bucks Project action alternatives (A, C, and D) may affect

individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for

Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia). This determination is based on the

potential for impacts to individuals and areas of suitable habitat.

It is my determination that the Bucks Project action alternatives (A, C, and D) will not affect

Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady's-slipper), Lupinus dalesiae (Quincy lupine),

Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss), and Penstemon personatus (closed-throated

beardtongue). This determination is based on the lack of individuals within the project area

and the negligible indirect effects to areas of suitable habitat.

It is my determination that the Bucks Project action alternatives (A, C, and D) will not affect

any other Region 5 Sensitive species or any Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species.

This determination is based on the absence of suitable habitat within the project area for

these species and the lack of individuals known or expected to occur within the project

area.

ii

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulatory Environment, Forest Plan and Other Direction 1

2.1 Regulatory Environment ................................................................................................... 1

2.1.1 Federal Laws ............................................................................................................ 1

2.1.2 Forest Service Manual (FSM) Direction .................................................................. 1

2.2 Forest Plan Direction ........................................................................................................ 2

2.3 Interim Management Prescriptions ................................................................................. 2

3.0 Proposed Project ................................................................................................................. 2

4.0 Effects Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................. 3

4.1 Geographic Area Evaluated .............................................................................................. 3

4.2 Species Analyzed .............................................................................................................. 4

4.3 Specific Methodology ....................................................................................................... 7

4.4 Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 8

5.0 Types and Duration of Impacts ........................................................................................... 8

5.1 Direct Effects .................................................................................................................... 8

5.2 Indirect Effects .................................................................................................................. 8

5.3 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................ 8

5.4 Duration of Effects ............................................................................................................ 9

6.0 Environmental Consequences: Effects on Specific Rare Plant Species ............................. 10

6.1 Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia) ................................................... 10

6.1.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 10

6.1.2 Plumas NF Management Prescription (USDA 2007) ............................................. 11

6.1.3 Environmental Consequences: ............................................................................. 11

6.1.4 Determination for Mildred’s clarkia ...................................................................... 14

6.2 Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady's-slipper) ..................................................... 15

6.2.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 15



iii

6.2.4 Determination for clustered lady's-slipper ........................................................... 18

6.3 Lupinus dalesiae (Quincy lupine) ................................................................................... 18

6.3.1 Affected Environment: Quincy lupine ................................................................... 18


6.3.3 Environmental Consequences: Quincy lupine ...................................................... 20

6.3.4 Determination for Quincy lupine .......................................................................... 21

6.4 Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss) ................................................................ 21

6.4.1 Affected Environment: .......................................................................................... 21



6.4.4 Determination for three-ranked hump-moss ....................................................... 24

6.5 Penstemon personatus (closed-throated beardtongue) ................................................ 25

6.5.1 Affected Environment: closed-throated beardtongue.......................................... 25


6.5.3 Environmental Consequences: closed-throated beardtongue ............................. 26

6.5.4 Determination for closed-throated beardtongue ................................................. 28

7.0 Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................................. 28

8.0 Specific Design Features or Mitigations ............................................................................ 29

8.1 Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia) ................................................... 29

8.2 Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss) ................................................................ 30

9.0 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction ..................................................... 30

10.0 List of Citations .................................................................................................................. 30

11.0 Sensitive Species Maps ..................................................................................................... 32

List of Tables

Table 1. Description of the five alternatives considered in detail. ................................................. 3

Table 2. Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Sensitive species known within proposed

treatment units or the Bucks Botany analysis area. ....................................................................... 5

iv

Table 3. Comparison of Mildred’s clarkia abundance at the global, state, forest, and project

scale. ............................................................................................................................................. 11

Table 4. Estimated number of acres that will change from greater than 60 percent canopy

closure to less than 60 percent following treatment. ................................................................... 12

Table 5. Comparison of clustered lady's-slipper abundance at the global, state, forest, and

project scale. ................................................................................................................................. 16

Table 6. Comparison of Quincy lupine abundance at the global, state, forest, and project scale.

....................................................................................................................................................... 19

Table 7. Comparison of three-ranked hump-moss abundance at the global, state, forest, and

project scale. ................................................................................................................................. 22

Table 8. Comparison of closed-throated beardtongue at the global, state, forest, and project

scale. ............................................................................................................................................. 25

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Botanical Report on Special Interest Species

Appendix B: Bucks Project Plant Protection Plan

Appendix C: Noxious Weed Risk Assessment

Appendix D: Bucks Project Treatment Maps

Appendix E: Description of Alternatives (from Environmental Assessment)

Appendix F: Alternative A-modified Addendum

1

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of this Biological Evaluation is to provide an analysis of the activities proposed

under the Bucks Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project (referred to as the Bucks Project

hereafter) and to determine whether they have the potential to affect any Federally

Endangered, Threatened, Candidate plant species, or Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive plants.

The Bucks Project was developed by the Mt Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National

Forest. Within the project area activities include mechanical harvest of trees in defensible fuel

profile zone (DFPZ) and group selection units; hazard tree removal along roads and within

recreation sites; hand thinning; hand and grapple piling and pile burning; underburning;

mastication; stream restoration; and road reconstruction and decommissioning.

2.0 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulatory Environment, Forest Plan and Other

Direction

2.1 Regulatory Environment

2.1.1 Federal Laws

Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.): This biological evaluation is being prepared

in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.).

Under this act, federal agencies must ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried

out by the agency is not likely to (a) jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species

or (b) result in the destruction or adverse modification of a listed species’ designated

critical habitat. Section 7 of the act requires federal agencies to consult the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service concerning listed (i.e. threatened or endangered) plant species that fall

under their jurisdiction.

2.1.2 Forest Service Manual (FSM) Direction

FSM Section 2670 (USDA 2005): provides policy for the protection of sensitive species and

calls for the development and implementation of management practices to ensure that

species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions. It

requires a review of all activities or programs that are planned, funded, executed, or

permitted for possible effects on federally listed or U.S. Forest Service sensitive species

(FSM 2672.4, USDA 2005). A Biological Evaluation (BE) provides the means to conduct this

review, analyze the significance of potential adverse effects, and determine how negative

impacts will be minimized or avoided for those species whose viability has been identified

as a concern. The objectives of a BE are to:

2

ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired nonnative plant or animal species;

ensure that Forest Service actions do not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of Federally listed species; and

provide a process and standard through which rare plant species receive full consideration throughout the planning process, reducing negative impacts on species and enhancing opportunities for mitigation.

2.2 Forest Plan Direction

Plumas NF Land Management Plan (USDA 1988b, 1999b, 2004b): provides management

direction for all Plumas NF Sensitive plants; that direction is to “maintain viable populations

of sensitive plant species” (USDA 1988b page 4-34). The 1988 Forest Plan also provides

forest-wide standards and guidelines to:

protect Sensitive and Special Interest plant species as needed to maintain viability;

inventory and monitor Sensitive plant populations on an individual project basis; and

develop species management guidelines to identify population goals and compatible management activities / prescriptions that will maintain viability.

Management direction for sensitive plant species on the Plumas NF is also provided in the

Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Forest Recovery Act Final Environmental

Impact Statement (USDA 1999a) and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA)

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 2004a). The standards and

guidelines provided in the SNFPA include conducting field surveys, minimizing or

eliminating direct and indirect impacts from management activities, and adhering to the

Regional Native Plant Policy (USDA 2004a).

2.3 Interim Management Prescriptions

Individual species conservation strategies, or species management guidelines, for the

Plumas NF have not been completed for most of the Forest’s Sensitive species. Until these

conservation strategies have been completed, the Plumas NF has developed Interim

Management Prescriptions (USDA 2007) that will be followed to ensure compliance with

the Plumas LRMP. These species-specific prescriptions are provided in Section 6.0 of this

document.

3.0 Proposed Project

Under the Bucks Project, the Mt. Hough Ranger District proposes to:

implement fuel treatments by constructing shaded fuel breaks known as Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs);

3

harvest trees using group selection (harvesting of trees in 0.5- to 2-acre patches);

remove hazard trees along roads and within recreation sites;

perform road system improvement work and decommissioning;

enhance habitat for US Forest Service wildlife species by radial thinning, removal of conifers in aspen stands, underburning, and brush mastication; and

stabilize two sections of stream bank along Bucks Creek and Pat Maloy Ravine.

Underburning, hand thinning, hand and grapple piling, and pile burning are proposed as

primary and follow-up treatments and would be used to construct DFPZs in units with no

commercial timber harvest.

The Mt Hough Ranger District developed four alternatives: the Proposed Action (Alternative A),

the no-action (Alternative B), and two other action alternatives (Alternatives C and D). The five

alternatives considered in detail for this analysis are listed in below in Table 1. A detailed

description of the proposed action and the alternatives considered in this analysis is presented

in Chapter 2 of the “Bucks Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment”.

Maps of the proposed alternatives are provided in Appendix E.

Table 1. Description of the five alternatives considered in detail.

Alternative Description

Alternative A Includes hazard tree abatement, Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs), R5 Forest Service sensitive wildlife species treatments, including aspen enhancement, and watershed treatments.

Alternative B No action

Alternative C Non-commercial funding alternative: excludes any activities other than fuels reduction to meet the proposed purposes and needs. Implements DFPZs only.

Alternative D

Includes hazard tree abatement, DFPZs, group selections (GS), aspen treatments, and watershed treatments. Reduces acres in proposed underburning units; increases acres of drop and leave hazard tree abatement; removes grapple piling and masticating treatments and skyline logging systems; and maintains 30-50 percent canopy cover in all mechanical thinning treatments. Watershed improvement treatments would be implemented using other funding.

4.0 Effects Analysis Methodology

4.1 Geographic Area Evaluated

The area analyzed in this document is referred to as the “Botany analysis area”; it encompasses

approximately 19,570 acres and consists of all proposed treatment units, access roads to the

treatment units, and the area within one mile of treatment unit boundaries (Figure 1). This area

was chosen to capture all rare plants and noxious weeds that occur (a) within the proposed

treatment units or (b) have suitable habitat within the Bucks Project Area as well as a source

population (i.e. potential for seed dispersal) located within close proximity to the proposed

activities.

4

Figure 1. Geographic area used for analysis of effects to botanical resources within the Bucks Project.

4.2 Species Analyzed

Those species present within the Botany analysis area were considered to have the highest

potential to be impacted by the proposed project activities. Conversely, species outside of the

analysis area were not considered to have a high likelihood of being impacted by the proposed

project either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. Table 2 lists all Federally Threatened,

Candidate, and U.S. Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive vascular plant, moss, lichen, and fungi

species that are known or thought to have potential to occur on the Plumas NF. The rare species

analyzed in detail in this document (i.e. those that fall within the Botany analysis area) are also

indicated in the table below.

The only Federally Threatened plant species known to occur on the Plumas NF is Packera

layneae (Layne’s butterweed). This species grows in open rocky areas on gabbro and

serpentine-derived soils that are between 650 and 3,300 feet in elevation. Two additional

species of federal concern that have the potential to occur on the Plumas NF are the Federally

Threatened Orcuttia tenuis (slender Orcutt grass) and the Candidate species Ivesia webberi

(Webber's ivesia). Orcuttia tenuis is limited to relatively deep vernal pools with clay soil. Ivesia

5

webberi is found in open areas of sandy volcanic ash to gravelly soils in sagebrush and eastside

pine. No Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Species are considered likely to occur in the

Botany analysis area.

Due to the ephemeral nature of fungal fruiting bodies, surveys for Sensitive fungi are often

impractical and inconclusive. Therefore, this analysis relied on a spatially explicit Sensitive fungi

habitat model, which was developed to assist managers in the identification of potentially

suitable habitat for Region 5 Sensitive fungi (Hoover and O'Hanlon 2008). Using this model, no

high value suitable habitat was predicted for Sensitive fungi within any of the Bucks Project

proposed treatment units.

Table 2. Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Sensitive species known within proposed treatment units or the Bucks Botany analysis area.

Species Common Name Listing Status

Within Analysis Area

Within Treatment Units

Allium jepsonii Jepson's onion Sensitive

Arabis constancei Constance's rock cress Sensitive

Astragalus lemmonii Lemmon’s milkvetch Sensitive

Astragalus lentiformis lens-pod milkvetch Sensitive

Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis Pulsifer's milkvetch Sensitive

Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae Suksdorf's milkvetch Sensitive

Astragalus webberi Webber's milkvetch Sensitive

Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis

Big scale balsamroot Sensitive

Botrychium ascendens upswept moonwort Sensitive

Botrychium crenulatum scalloped moonwort Sensitive

Botrychium lineare moonwort Sensitive

Botrychium lunaria common moonwort Sensitive

Botrychium minganense Mingan moonwort Sensitive

Botrychium montanum western goblin Sensitive

Botrychium pinnatum northwestern moonwort Sensitive

Bruchia bolanderi Bolander's bruchia Sensitive

Buxbaumia viridis Bug-on-a-stick Sensitive

Calycadenia oppositifolia Butte County calycadenia Sensitive

Calystegia atriplicifolia ssp. buttensis Butte County morning-

glory

Sensitive

6




Clarkia biloba ssp. brandegeae Brandegee's clarkia Sensitive

Clarkia gracilis ssp. albicaulis white-stemmed clarkia Sensitive

Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae Mildred’s clarkia Sensitive x x

Clarkia mosquinii Mosquin's clarkia Sensitive

Cudonia monticola Earth tongue Sensitive

Cypripedium fasciculatum clustered lady's-slipper Sensitive x

Cypripedium montanum mountain lady's-slipper Sensitive

Dendrocollybia racemosa Branched collybia Sensitive

Eleocharis torticulmis Twisted spike rush Sensitive

Eriogonum umbellatum var ahartii Ahart’s buckwheat Sensitive

Fissidens aphelotaxifolius brook pocket moss Sensitive

Fissidens pauperculus minute pocket moss Sensitive

Fritillaria eastwoodiae Butte County fritillary Sensitive

Helodium bandowii Blandow's bog moss Sensitive

Hydrothyria venosa veined water lichen Sensitive

Ivesia aperta var. aperta Sierra Valley ivesia Sensitive

Ivesia sericolueca Plumas ivesia Sensitive

Ivesia webberi Webber's ivesia Federal

Candidate

Lewisia cantelovii Cantelow's lewisia Sensitive

Lewisia kelloggii ssp kelloggii Kellogg’s lewisia Sensitive

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii Hutchison's lewisia Sensitive

Lomatium roseanum Adobe lomatium Sensitive

Lupinus dalesiae Quincy lupine Sensitive x

Meesia longiseta long-seta hump-moss Sensitive

Meesia triquetra three-ranked hump-moss Sensitive x

Meesia uliginosa broad-nerved hump-moss Sensitive

Mielichhoferia elongata Elongate copper moss Sensitive

Monardella follettii Follett’s monardella Sensitive

7




Monardella stebbinsii Stebbin's monardella Sensitive

Orcuttia tenuis slender Orcutt grass Federally

Threatened

Oreostemma elatum Plumas alpine-aster Sensitive

Packera eurycephalus var. lewisrosei cut-leaved ragwort Sensitive

Penstemon personatus closed-throated

beardtongue

Sensitive x

Penstemon sudans Susanville beardtongue Sensitive

Phaeocollybia olivacea Olive phaeocollybia Sensitive

Pyrrocoma lucida sticky pyrrocoma Sensitive

Sedum albomarginatum Feather River stonecrop Sensitive

Senecio layneae Layne's butterweed Federally

Threatened

4.3 Specific Methodology

The analysis of effects on rare plant species was a three-step process (FSM 2672.43; USDA

2005). In the first step, all listed or proposed rare species that were known or were believed to

have potential to occur in the analysis area were identified. This list was developed by reviewing

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife List for the Plumas NF (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011), USDA

Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species list (USDA 2006), Plumas NF rare plant records and

vegetation maps, and California Natural Diversity Database records (CNDDB 2011).

The second step was field reconnaissance surveys. To date, field surveys have been conducted

on approximately 3,355 acres within the Botany analysis area; this includes all of the proposed

treatment units (Dittes and Guardino 2000, USDA 2011). For those areas outside of the

surveyed areas, but within the Botany analysis area, species occurrence information was

compiled using Plumas NF rare plant records and the California Natural Diversity Database

(2011).

Field surveys were designed around the flowering period and ecology of the rare plant species

identified in step one. For each rare plant site found, information was collected that described

the size of the occurrence and habitat characteristics and identified any existing or potential

threats. Location information was collected using a Global Positioning System (GPS).

8

All of this information was used in step three of the analysis—effects analysis. Data were

imported into a Global Information System (GIS) and used to analyze proximity to the proposed

treatments, identify direct and indirect effects, and develop mitigation measures.

4.4 Data Sources

Basic information describing the life history, ecology, pollination biology, and specific habitat

requirements is lacking for most of the Sensitive species that occur within the Botany analysis

area. The scientific literature and internal government documents (i.e. species-specific

Conservation Assessments) were utilized for the analysis whenever available; however more

frequently the analysis of effects was based on observations by qualified individuals, field

experience, unpublished monitoring results, and studies of comparable species.

5.0 Types and Duration of Impacts

5.1 Direct Effects

Direct effects occur when plants are physically impacted. Examples of proposed treatment

activities that have the potential to directly affect rare plants include timber falling; crushing by

vehicles or equipment; application of borax; temporary road and landing construction; and

prescribed fire treatments. These actions can result in death, altered growth, or reduced seed

set through physically breaking, crushing, burning, scorching, or uprooting plants.

5.2 Indirect Effects

Indirect effects are separated from an action in either time or space. These effects, which can

be beneficial or detrimental to rare species, may include changes in vegetation composition,

successional patterns, fire regimes, or the distribution and abundance of noxious weeds.

Adverse indirect effects are more likely to occur to those species that are intolerant of

disturbance and tend to occupy interior forest habitats with high canopy cover. In contrast, for

those species that tolerate or are dependent upon some level of disturbance and inhabit gaps

and forest openings, treatments may have beneficial indirect effects. For all rare species,

negative effects may occur if prescribed burns are too hot; this has the potential to kill the

seedbank and sterilize the soil. Burning hand or machine piles can also alter soil biotic and

chemical properties for a number of years (Korb et al. 2004), which in turn greatly influences

the degree and type of plant colonization into the fire-scarred site.

5.3 Cumulative Effects

A cumulative effect can result from the incremental effect of the current action when added to

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. These effects are

considered regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other actions and regardless of

9

land ownership on which the other actions occur. An individual action when considered alone

may not have a significant effect, but when its effects are considered in sum with the effects of

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the effects may be significant

(40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8 and FSH 1909.15 section 15.1).

One crucial step in assessing cumulative impacts on a particular resource is to compare the

current condition of the resource (i.e. rare plants) and the projected changes as a result of

management activities (i.e. timber harvest) to the natural variability in the resources and

processes of concern (MacDonald 2000). This assessment is particularly difficult for rare plant

species because long-term data are often lacking. In addition, the habitats in which many rare

plant species are presently found have a long history of disturbance, making an undisturbed

reference difficult to find. For some rare plants, particularly those that do not tolerate

disturbance or are found under dense canopy conditions, minimizing on-site change is an

effective way of reducing the potential for larger-scale cumulative impact (MacDonald 2000). If

the greatest impact on a rare species is both local and immediate, then this is the scale at which

the effect is easiest to detect (MacDonald 2000).

Undeniably, past, present, and future activities have and will continue to alter rare plant

populations and their habitats to various degrees; however, the approach taken in this analysis

is that, if direct and indirect adverse effects on rare plant species in the Bucks project are

minimal or would not occur, then they would not contribute substantially to cumulative effects

on the species. In addition, the effects of future projects would likely be minimal or similar to

those described in this analysis if existing management guidelines (such as field surveys,

protection of known rare species locations, and noxious weed mitigations) remain in place

5.4 Duration of Effects

It is difficult to state with certainty when the effects of the proposed treatments would no

longer be altering the life history dynamics (i.e. germination, seed production, etc.) of the rare

species considered in this analysis. One method to estimate duration of effects is to assume that

the effects of the action alternatives last as long as they are, singly or in combination with other

anticipated effects, distinguishable from the effects of the no-action alternative. Using this as an

assumption, the duration used to estimate effects in this analysis, is the recovery time of the

vegetation to near baseline (current) conditions, which is approximately 100 years for group

selection treatments and 50 years for fuel treatments.

The additive effects of past actions (such as wildfires, wildfire suppression, timber harvest,

mining, nonnative plant introductions, and ranching) have shaped the present landscape and

corresponding populations of rare plants; however, data describing the past distribution and

abundance of rare plant species is extremely limited, making it impossible to quantify the

effects of historic activities on the resources and conditions that are present today.

10

Undoubtedly, some plant species have always been rare due to particular ecological

requirements or geographic isolation. It is also likely that past actions have caused some species

to become rarer and encouraged others to become more common. Within the Botany analysis

area, documentation of rare plant surveys began in the early 1980s; therefore, the baseline

used for the effects analysis of past activities is 30 years.

6.0 Environmental Consequences: Effects on Specific Rare Plant Species

The following section provides a discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects

specific to the five Sensitive species that are within the proposed treatment units. The effects of

the treatments on rare species were similar across all action alternatives; therefore, this

discussion is organized to highlight differences between the no-action alternative and the

action alternatives A, C, and D.

6.1 Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia)

6.1.1 Affected Environment

Mildred’s clarkia is an annual species that is geographically limited to eastern Butte County and

western Plumas County. There are approximately 33 occurrences of Mildred’s clarkia on the

Plumas NF, the majority of which are located in the Feather River Canyon (Table 3). Nine of the

ten occurrences that have been documented outside of the forest boundary occur on private

lands.

Mildred’s clarkia is commonly found on sandy, granitic soils in cismontane woodland and lower

montane coniferous forest. Wildfire suppression has likely restricted the amount of suitable

habitat for this species. As a result, most of the Plumas NF occurrences are found on road cut

banks or previously disturbed sites, where there is minimal plant competition and open light

conditions. The current trend for this species is unknown; however most occurrences appear to

be stable.

Distribution within the Analysis Area: A portion (roughly 59 acres) of one large Mildred’s

clarkia occurrence overlaps with the Botany analysis area; approximately four acres of this

occurrence falls within Treatment Unit 5. This unit is proposed for skyline hazard tree removal

under Alternative A and hazard tree drop and leave under Alternative D. Road improvement

activities are proposed under both Alternatives A and D.

This large Mildred’s clarkia occurrence (CLMIM_001) extends beyond the Botany analysis area

boundary; it covers a total area of over 200 acres and extends for roughly 6.5 miles along the

NFS Road 24N24. Within this occurrence, patches of Mildred’s clarkia have been found on the

road berms and cut-banks, in pull-outs, and on the slopes above and below the road.

11

Table 3. Comparison of Mildred’s clarkia abundance at the global, state, forest, and project scale.

Species Global Ranking

Number of Occurrences

California Plumas NF

Bucks Analysis Area

Treatment Units

Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae G31

43 33 1 1

1 G3 = Vulnerable: moderate risk of extinction due to restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.

6.1.2 Plumas NF Management Prescription (USDA 2007)

Protect occurrences from ground disturbance before seed set. Evaluate ground disturbance

outside the growing season; however in general, disturbance (without major habitat alteration)

after plants had set seed could occur. Canopy removal in and adjacent to occurrences is

encouraged to open the habitat.

Investigate the use of prescribed fire as a management tool and monitor effects. To the extent

possible, avoid ignitions within occurrences and avoid building fire control lines in or near

occurrences. Also, allow fire to creep or back into occurrences from adjacent terrain if the fuel

loading permits. Evaluate other activities on a site-by-site basis considering species abundance,

population size, geographic distribution, and known species ecology.

6.1.3 Environmental Consequences:

6.1.3.1 Alternative B – No-action Alternative

Direct Effects. No direct effects are anticipated because no project-related activities would

occur.

Indirect Effects. The indirect effects of not implementing the proposed project would be

negligible. The suppression of wildfire over the past century has likely reduced the amount of

suitable habitat for this species across the landscape. Consequently, most occurrences are

restricted to road cut banks or areas of past disturbance, such as clearcuts or wildfires, where

there is minimal plant competition and open light conditions (L. Janeway, personal

communication, 2011). Although Mildred’s clarkia has been found in undisturbed sites, less

than one percent has been documented in dense forested stands with canopy closure greater

than 60 percent.

Under the no-action alternative, the number of trees within stands would continue to increase,

resulting in areas with greater canopy closure, reduced light to the understory, and increased

duff and litter deposition. Within the proposed treatment units, there are almost 300 acres that

are currently classified as being at or above 60 percent canopy closure (see Table 4). In the

absence of treatments, this could result in a loss of suitable habitat for Mildred’s clarkia across

the landscape over time.

12

Table 4. Estimated number of acres that will change from greater than 60 percent canopy closure to less than 60 percent following treatment.

Target Canopy Cover

(after treatment)

Number of Acres that Change from >60% Canopy Cover to <60% Canopy Cover

Alternative A Alternative C Alternative D

30-40% 129.4 129.4

40-50% 60.0 20.9 60.0

50-60% 109.6 13.9 95.7

TOTAL 298.9 34.8 285.1

The effects of wildfire on Mildred’s clarkia are not well understood; however observations

suggest that even high intensity wildfires do not appear to negatively impact the following

year’s population numbers and may even enhance habitat by decreasing shrub and canopy

cover (L. Janeway, personal communication, 2011).

Cumulative Effects. The effect of past projects on Mildred’s clarkia is largely unknown. This

species was added to the Plumas NF Sensitive species list in 2006; prior to that it had been

identified as a Special Interest, or watch list species, since 1996. Because of its relatively recent

listing, projects implemented more than 18 years ago may not have avoided or mitigated

effects to known occurrences.

The one documented Mildred’s clarkia occurrence within the Botany analysis area has likely

been impacted by both past management activities and natural disturbance processes. Within

the past 18 years, at least one large wildfire (Bucks Fire 1999), one roadside hazard tree project,

and one road improvement project have occurred within the known occurrence. In addition,

individual plants are situated directly adjacent to NFS Road 24N24, which is regularly

maintained and frequently used by forest visitors for recreation.

The amount of suitable, but unoccupied habitat, within the analysis area has not been

quantified; however the ability of Mildred’s clarkia to colonize previously disturbed sites

suggests that this species has and will continue to benefit from management activities that

create open conditions and increase light reception to the understory. Under the no-action

alternative, treatments would not be implemented and additional areas of potential habitat

would not be created. Overall, there would be negligible cumulative effects to Mildred’s clarkia

from the no-action alternative due to the lack of direct effects and minor indirect effects to this

species’ potential habitat.

6.1.3.2 Action Alternatives (A, C, and D)

Direct Effects. Some individuals of Mildred’s clarkia may be directly impacted by the hazard

tree and watershed improvement treatments proposed under Alternatives A and D; however

13

the percentage of individuals with the potential to be affected is very low (estimated at less

than 2 percent) compared to the population as a whole.

Direct effects from hazard tree treatments are more likely to occur under Alternative A, which

proposes hazard tree removal, rather than dropping the trees and leaving them in place (which

is proposed under Alternative D). Because hazard trees by definition are those that are likely to

fall within one year, dropping and leaving them in place can be considered an acceleration of a

natural ecological process; therefore the direct effects to individuals under Alternative D would

be similar to those that could occur under the no-action alternative.

The road treatments proposed under Alternatives A and D could directly impact individuals of

Mildred’s clarkia. Within the documented occurrence, plants have been observed in close

proximity to the road, which greatly increases the potential for direct impacts from road

treatments and maintenance activities. Implementation of a limited operating period (i.e. after

seed set) or designation of control areas will greatly reduce the potential for direct impacts to

individuals.

Indirect Effects. The indirect effect of implementing the action alternatives would be minor to

negligible and may be beneficial.

Mildred’s clarkia is an annual species; it germinates, flowers, and dies in a single year or season.

As a result, the long-term persistence of the population is highly dependent upon the ability of

the plants to set seed. Treatments that occur after seed set (i.e. after mid to late August) will

have a much smaller effect on the following year’s population than those that are implemented

prior to seed set. Even in the absence of the proposed mitigation measures (described in

Section 8.0), the indirect effects to Mildred’s clarkia are considered minor due to the low

intensity of the proposed treatments within the known occurrence, the patchy distribution of

plants, and the species’ positive response to past management activities.

At the landscape scale, the proposed treatments could have a minor beneficial indirect effect to

Mildred’s clarkia. Observations have demonstrated that this species tolerates and even thrives

in areas of past disturbance. Mildred’s clarkia has been found along road cut-banks, forest

edges, in past clearcuts, and within the boundary of high intensity wildfires, where there is

minimal plant competition and open light conditions (L. Janeway, personal communication,

2011). Although Mildred’s clarkia has been found in undisturbed sites, less than one percent

has been documented in dense forested stands with canopy closure greater than 60 percent.

Taking these factors into consideration, it is expected that the proposed thinning and

prescribed fire treatments, would result in the creation of additional areas of suitable habitat

for Mildred’s clarkia. In general, Alternatives A and D will create a larger area of potential

suitable habitat for Mildred’s clarkia than Alternative C; this is primarily due to the number of

acres within proposed treatment units that are expected to decrease from an existing canopy

14

closure of greater than 60 percent (i.e. a dense forest canopy) to less than 60 percent (i.e. a

more open forest canopy) (Table 4).

Cumulative Effects. The single occurrence of Mildred’s clarkia within the Botany analysis area

represents a small fraction (two percent) of all known occurrences in California. In addition, the

portion (four acres) of Mildred’s clarkia that overlaps with Treatment Unit 5 is less than two

percent of the total area occupied by the occurrence. Therefore, there is low potential for the

proposed treatments to have substantial negative impacts to the species as a whole, and even

more specifically to the occurrence within the analysis area.

The effect of past projects on Mildred’s clarkia is largely unknown. This species was added to

the Plumas NF Sensitive species list in 2006; prior to that it had been identified as a Special

Interest, or watch list species, since 1996. Because of its relatively recent listing, projects

implemented more than 18 years ago may not have avoided or mitigated effects to known

occurrences.

The one documented Mildred’s clarkia occurrence within the Botany analysis area has likely

been impacted by both past management activities and natural disturbance processes. Within

the past 18 years, at least one large wildfire (Bucks Fire1999), one roadside hazard tree project,

and one road improvement project have occurred within the known occurrence. In addition,

individual plants are situated directly adjacent to NFS Road 24N24, which is regularly

maintained and frequently used by forest visitors for recreation.


quantified; however the ability of Mildred’s clarkia to colonize previously disturbed sites

suggests that this species has and will continue to benefit from management activities that

create open conditions and increase light reception to the understory. Alternatives A, C, and D

propose treatments that could create additional areas of suitable habitat for this species.

Although implementation of these action alternatives may have some minor direct and indirect

impacts on individuals, cumulatively, these effects will not lead to a trend toward listing for

Mildred’s clarkia. This is based on the small percentage of individuals with potential to be

directly impacted, the species’ high tolerance to disturbance, and the creation of additional

areas of suitable habitat through implementation of the proposed treatments.

6.1.4 Determination for Mildred’s clarkia

No-action Alternative (B): It is my determination that the no-action alternative will not affect

Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia). This determination is based on the

negligible direct and indirect effects to individuals and areas of suitable habitat.

Action Alternatives (A, C, and D): It is my determination that the Bucks Project action

alternatives (A, C, and D) may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward

15

Federal listing or loss of viability for Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia). This

determination is based on the potential for impacts to individuals and areas of suitable habitat.

6.2 Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady's-slipper)

6.2.1 Affected Environment

This orchid has a wide distribution that extends from British Columbia, south to the Sierra

Nevada and Coast Ranges of California, and east to the Rocky Mountains. While the distribution

of this species is broad, occurrences are often small and widely scattered. In California, the

highest distribution of clustered lady’s-slipper is on the Klamath and Plumas National Forests.

There are close to 150 occurrences on the Plumas NF; these range in size from one to over

3,000 stems. A total of 200 occurrences have also been recorded on the Six Rivers, Shasta-

Trinity, Klamath, Mendocino, and Tahoe National Forests (Kaye and Cramer 2005).

In California, clustered lady’s-slipper is most commonly associated with mixed conifer forests in

the mid-to-late stages of successional development. On the Plumas NF, plants most frequently

occur in microsites with moist soils, steep slopes, sufficient dogwood (Cornus nuttallii) cover,

and a relatively open overstory canopy (Brown 2008). Clustered lady’s-slipper orchids lack

physiological adaptations to regulate and tolerate drought and heat stress; therefore they

depend on species, such as dogwoods, to limit the amount of direct solar radiation that reaches

the forest floor (Brown 2008). Mycorrhizal fungi play a pivotal role in the biology of orchids and

several stages in the orchid’s life-cycle, particularly the early stages of seedling development,

depend on mycorrhizal fungal symbioses.

Clustered lady’s-slipper appears intolerant of disturbances that directly reduce the duff layer

and expose or damage the plant’s rhizomes (underground stems) or mycorrhizal symbionts. It is

usually found in areas that have not been disturbed, or in areas where the disturbance was light

or in the distant past. Clustered lady’s-slipper orchids appear to tolerate, and in some cases

even benefit from, low severity fires. In contrast, high severity fires that eliminate the duff layer

or destroy the overstory canopy have been shown to severely impact or kill individuals (Vance

2005).

The overall trend for this species is thought to be declining. In a recent population viability

analysis of Oregon occurrences, Thorpe et al. (2010) determined that 59 percent of clustered

lady’s slipper populations had declined in size and 31 percent fell to zero. They also determined

that smaller populations (less than 10 individuals) had a higher rate of extinction compared to

larger populations. The primary threat to this species is disturbance that severely alters the

light and soil moisture regime at the microsite level. Examples of other threats include: timber

harvest activities that remove most of the overstory canopy; soil compaction from equipment

and vehicles; high intensity, stand-replacing wildfires; and illegal collection (Vance 2005).

16

Clustered lady’s-slipper orchids can also be negatively impacted by dense, homogenous stand

conditions where fire has been excluded for over a century (Brown 2008).

Distribution within the Analysis Area: Three occurrences of clustered lady’s-slipper, covering

approximately 29 acres, fall within the Botany analysis area. No occurrences are within any of

the proposed treatment units. The closest occurrence (CYFA_122) is within 0.3 miles of a

proposed treatment unit.

Table 5. Comparison of clustered lady's-slipper abundance at the global, state, forest, and project scale.




Bucks Analysis Area

Treatment Units

Cypripedium fasciculatum G41

3512

151 3 0

1 G4 = Apparently Secure: Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors 2 This species is not tracked in CNDDB; therefore the number of occurrences in California is an estimate that is based the literature.


Buffer all plant occurrences by approximately 100 feet from ground disturbance to maintain

canopy closure, hydrologic conditions, and mycorrhizal relationships. Keep hand piles at least

50 feet from plants to protect individuals, seedbank, and mycorrhizae from excessive heat.

Avoid scattering slash on plants. Evaluate potential effects of prescribed fire on a site-by-site

basis considering factors such as population size, fuel load, season of burn, predicted intensity

and duration of burn, and risk of wildfire vs. potential effects from prescribed fire. Develop

monitoring plans to evaluate fire effects on individuals and populations before prescribed

burning operations. To the extent possible, avoid ignitions within occurrences and avoid

building fire control lines in or near occurrences. Also, allow fire to creep/back into occurrences

from adjacent terrain if the fuel loading permits. Do not advertise locations, to minimize

poaching. Evaluate other activities on a site-by-site basis considering species abundance,

population size, geographic distribution, and known species ecology.




occur.

Indirect Effects. The three clustered lady’s-slipper sites that occur within the Botany analysis

area are more than 0.3 miles from the proposed project units; therefore the indirect effect to

individual plants is considered negligible. At the landscape scale, the no-action alternative

could reduce the amount of suitable habitat for this species. Under this alternative, the stands

within the Bucks project area would continue to become dense and overcrowded, which would

17

increase the risk of high-intensity wildfire within these forested habitats. Severe wildfires could

create areas of unsuitable habitat for clustered lady’s-slipper by removing the overstory canopy

and adversely impacting soil conditions.

Cumulative Effects. Clustered lady’s-slipper has likely lost individuals and a considerable

amount of suitable habitat over the last 100 years due to human activities related to mining,

logging, road building, fire suppression, and homesteading. These activities have, to one extent

or another, resulted in a reduction in canopy cover, modification of stand dynamics, alteration in

fire frequency and intensity, and change in microclimate conditions.

Clustered lady’s-slipper has been designated as a Plumas NF Sensitive or Special Interest species

since the early 1980’s; therefore it is expected that projects implemented over the past 30 years

would have avoided or mitigated negative effects to known occurrences. Within the Botany

analysis area, at least four timber sales (salvage logging, hazard tree removal, and commercial

thinning) have occurred within the documented lady’s-slipper occurrences. A revisit to one of

the occurrences (CYFA_004) after the 1999 Bucks wildfire found that the occurrence continued

to support healthy plants and appeared stable. These past projects and wildfire events

underscore the fact that management activities have occurred within the Botany analysis area

and have potentially impacted clustered lady’s-slipper occurrences and areas of suitable habitat.

There would be no cumulative effects from the no-action alternative because the direct and

indirect effects are expected to be negligible. The effects of future projects on clustered lady’s-

slipper would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing

management guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare species locations, and

noxious weed mitigations) remain in place.


Direct Effects. No direct effects will occur because all of the clustered lady’s-slipper orchid

occurrences are outside of the proposed treatment units.

Indirect Effects. The indirect effect of implementing the proposed action alternatives would be

minor to negligible and may be beneficial. The three occurrences of clustered lady’s-slipper

orchid that occur within the Botany analysis area are greater than 0.3 miles from the proposed

project units; therefore it is unlikely that the proposed treatments would have any significant

indirect effect on individuals or suitable habitat.

The optimal site conditions for clustered lady’s-slipper orchids are undisturbed forested sites, in

the mid-to-late stages of successional development. Consequently, the proposed treatments

could result in a short-term loss of unoccupied suitable habitat by reducing canopy cover and

increasing areas of ground disturbance over the landscape. This negative indirect effect would

be counterbalanced by the positive effect of reduced risk of high-intensity wildfire.

18

Cumulative Effects. Clustered lady’s-slipper has likely lost individuals and a considerable

amount of suitable habitat over the last 100 years due to human activities related to mining,

logging, road building, fire suppression, and homesteading. These activities have, to one extent

or another, resulted in a reduction in canopy cover, modification of stand dynamics, alteration in

fire frequency and intensity, and change in microclimate conditions.

Clustered lady’s-slipper has been designated as a Plumas NF Sensitive or Special Interest species

since the early 1980’s; therefore it is expected that projects implemented over the past 30 years

would have avoided or mitigated negative effects to known occurrences. Within the Botany

analysis area, at least four timber sales (salvage logging, hazard tree removal, and commercial

thinning) have occurred within the documented lady’s-slipper occurrences. A revisit to one of

the occurrences (CYFA_004) after the 1999 Bucks wildfire found that the occurrence continued

to support healthy plants and appeared stable. These past projects and wildfire events

underscore the fact that management activities have occurred within the Botany analysis area

and have potentially impacted clustered lady’s-slipper occurrences and areas of suitable habitat.

No adverse cumulative effects are anticipated for clustered lady’s-slipper, primarily because

there are no occurrences within the treatment units. The three occurrences within the Botany

analysis area represent less than one percent of all known occurrences in California (Table 5).

Overall, the proposed treatments are expected to have a slightly beneficial indirect effect within

areas of potential suitable habitat. The effects of present and future projects on this species

would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing management

guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare species locations, and noxious weed

mitigations) remain in place.

6.2.4 Determination for clustered lady's-slipper

No-action Alternative (B): It is my determination that the no-action alternative will not affect

Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady's-slipper). This determination is based on the



alternatives (A, C, and D) will not affect Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady's-slipper). This

determination is based on the lack of individuals within the project area and the negligible

indirect effects to areas of suitable habitat.

6.3 Lupinus dalesiae (Quincy lupine)

6.3.1 Affected Environment: Quincy lupine

This perennial lupine species is known to occur in Plumas County and in isolated occurrences in

Sierra and Yuba counties in California. Within this limited range, Quincy lupine is locally

19

abundant. There are currently 266 occurrences documented on the Plumas NF. Outside of the

Plumas NF, there are 22 occurrences, all of which occur on lands adjacent to the National

Forest.

Quincy lupine is found in a variety of habitats that include undisturbed and disturbed sites (such

as old skid trails and road cut banks), openings in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, and mixed

conifer forests. Recent visits to old project areas have shown that this species tolerates and

even thrives on disturbance; however the intensity, extent, or frequency of the disturbance

associated with these occurrences has not been quantified in a manner that facilitates the

development of prescriptions that consistently mimic historical disturbance regimes.

The trend for this plant is stable. The California Native Plant Society recently lowered the listing

status of Quincy lupine (from List 1B to List 4) based on the number of mapped occurrences in

the California Fish and Game’s California Native Diversity Data Base (CNDDB).

Distribution within the Analysis Area: One occurrence of Quincy lupine (LUDA_093), covering

approximately 0.02 acres, has been documented within the Bucks Botany Analysis Area. No

occurrences are within any of the proposed treatment units.

Table 6. Comparison of Quincy lupine abundance at the global, state, forest, and project scale.




Bucks Analysis Area

Treatment Units

Lupinus dalesiae G31

288 266 1 0

1 G3 = vulnerable to extirpation or extinction; 21 to 80 occurrences, OR 3,000 to 10,000 individuals, OR 10,000 to 50,000 acres


Protect 30 percent of known occurrences within a project area from ground disturbance. Favor

protection of locations that have open tree and shrub canopies (less than 50 percent cover)

over those with closed tree and shrub canopies. In control areas, keep hand piles at least 20

feet from plants to protect individuals and seedbank from excessive heat. Avoid scattering slash

on plants. Evaluate potential effects of prescribed fire on a site-by-site basis considering factors

such as population size, fuel load, season of burn, predicted intensity and duration of burn, and

risk of wildfire vs. potential effects from prescribed fire. Develop monitoring plans to evaluate

fire effects on individuals and populations before prescribed burning operations. Favor allowing

ground disturbance and prescribed fire in areas of dense shrub or tree cover. Evaluate other

activities on a site-by-site basis considering species abundance, population size, geographic

distribution, and known species ecology.

20

6.3.3 Environmental Consequences: Quincy lupine



occur.

Indirect Effects. This species is most commonly associated with open habitats, many of which

have been previously disturbed. Although Quincy lupine has been found in undisturbed sites, it

has not been documented in dense forest stands with high overstory canopy cover. Under the

no-action alternative, the number of trees within stands would continue to increase, resulting in

areas with greater canopy cover, reduced light to the understory, and increased duff and litter

deposition. Over time, this would decrease the amount and quality of suitable habitat for

Quincy lupine across the landscape.

Cumulative Effects. The amount of suitable, but unoccupied habitat, within the analysis area

has not been quantified; however the ability of Quincy lupine to colonize both previously

disturbed and undisturbed sites, and tolerate and even thrive on disturbance, suggests that this

species has and will continue to benefit from management activities that create open

conditions and increase light reception to the understory. The Quincy lupine occurrence within

the Botany analysis area is situated on a road cut bank and is within the boundary of two past

timber sales; signs of previous logging activity were noted at the time of the last visit.

Under the no-action alternative, treatments would not be implemented and additional areas of

potential habitat would not be created. Overall, there would be no direct effects from the no-

action alternative and minor indirect effects to this species’ potential habitat. The effects of

present and future projects on this species would likely be minimal or similar to those described

in this analysis if existing management guidelines (such as field surveys and protection of

known rare species locations) remain in place. Cumulatively, these effects will not lead to a

trend toward listing for Quincy lupine.


Direct Effects. No direct effects will occur because all of the Quincy lupine occurrences are

outside of the proposed treatment units.

Indirect Effects. The proposed project activities are expected to have a minor beneficial indirect

effect on Quincy lupine. This species is most commonly associated with open habitats; it is not

found under dense forest canopies. Quincy lupine has been shown to readily colonize disturbed

sites such harvest units, skid trails, and old roads. Past observations also demonstrate that

populations respond favorably to both thinning and prescribed fire treatments. Based on these

factors, the proposed treatments are expected to increase the amount of suitable habitat for

Quincy lupine across the landscape.

21

Cumulative Effects. The single occurrence of Quincy lupine within the Botany analysis area

represents a small fraction (less than one percent) of all known occurrences on the Plumas NF

and in California (Table 6); therefore, the potential for substantial negative impacts to the

species as a whole, and even more specifically to the occurrence within the analysis area, is low.


quantified; however the ability of Quincy lupine to colonize both previously disturbed and

undisturbed sites, and tolerate and even thrive on disturbance, suggests that this species has

and will continue to benefit from management activities that create open conditions and

increase light reception to the understory. The Quincy lupine occurrence within the Botany

analysis area is situated on a road cut bank and is within the boundary of two past timber sales;

signs of previous logging activity were noted at the time of the last visit.

Under the proposed alternatives, treatments would be implemented and additional areas of

potential habitat created. Overall, there would be no direct effects to the known Quincy lupine

occurrence and a minor beneficial indirect effect of creating additional areas of suitable habitat

for this species. The effects of present and future projects on this species would likely be

minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing management guidelines (such as

field surveys and protection of known rare species locations) remain in place. Overall, the

cumulative effects to this species are anticipated to be beneficial.

6.3.4 Determination for Quincy lupine

No-action Alternative (B): It is my determination that Alternative B (no action) will not affect

Lupinus dalesiae (Quincy lupine). This determination is based on the negligible direct and

indirect effects to individuals and areas of suitable habitat.

Action Alternatives (A, C and D): It is my determination that the Bucks Project action

alternatives (A, C, and D) will not affect Lupinus dalesiae (Quincy lupine). This determination is

based on the lack of individuals within the project area and the negligible indirect effects to

areas of suitable habitat.

6.4 Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss)

6.4.1 Affected Environment:

Although three-ranked hump-moss is well distributed in the northern hemisphere, it is

geographically limited in California where the majority of occurrences are found in the Sierra

Nevada Mountains (Dillingham 2005). Ten occurrences of three-ranked hump-moss have been

documented on the Plumas NF; of the remaining occurrences in California, 24 occur on the

Sierra NF and 25 occur on the Lassen NF.

22

Three-ranked hump-moss is most commonly associated with montane fen habitats

(groundwater-fed wetland ecosystems). These habitats are considered significant resources due

to their unique hydrologic characteristics (USDA 2004a); ability to support high levels of

biodiversity, including rare species such as three-ranked hump-moss (USDA 2004a); relative

rarity across the Sierra Nevada (Bartolome et al. 1990); and ability to remain relatively stable

for long periods of time, storing plant and climatic data over millennia (Chimner et al. 2002).

The abundance and distribution of three-ranked hump-moss is strongly tied to hydrological

processes within fens. It has been demonstrated that small-scale disturbances caused by

management actions, such as timber harvest and road construction, can have substantial

negative impacts on rare fen species and their habitat (Cooper et al. 1998, Weixelman and

Cooper 2009).

Distribution within the Analysis Area: Three occurrences of three-ranked hump-moss,

occupying less than 100 square feet, fall within the Botany analysis area. No occurrences are

within any of the proposed treatment units; however one occurrence (METR_009) is within 10

feet of Treatment Unit 87, which is proposed for mechanical thinning, biomass removal, and

underburning.

Table 7. Comparison of three-ranked hump-moss abundance at the global, state, forest, and project scale.




Bucks Analysis Area Treatment Units

Meesia triquetra G51

75 10 3 1 (within 10’ of unit boundary)

1 G5 = Demonstrably Secure: Common; widespread and abundant


Protect occurrences from all ground disturbances. Maintain bank stability and hydrologic

conditions. Evaluate activities and use mitigations consistent with Riparian Management

Objectives (HFQLG FEIS) or Riparian Conservation Objectives (Sierra Nevada Forest Plan

Amendment ROD, pp. 32-35) as appropriate. If the establishment of a no-disturbance buffer is

appropriate, consider the following when determining the size and shape of the buffer: site

conditions, topographic position, slope, aspect, stand structure (including canopy height),

intensity of the proposed management activity, and proximity to water.




occur.

23

Indirect Effects. The no-action alternative is expected to have a negligible effect on three-

ranked hump-moss This species grows in fens where high soil moisture levels during the fire

season and the dominance of fine fuels (i.e. sedges and rushes) greatly reduce the likelihood of

high-severity fire (Dwire and Kauffman 2003). Based on this, the lack of treatments in adjacent

stands is not expected to significantly alter the future wildfire risk or intensity within three-

ranked hump-moss occurrences or areas of unoccupied suitable habitat.

Cumulative Effects. Three-ranked hump-moss has likely lost individuals and a considerable

amount of suitable habitat over the past 100 years due to land use activities such as water

diversions, habitat type conversion (i.e. meadow to annual grassland), intense grazing by

domestic livestock, and construction of roads and trails. This species was added to the Plumas

NF Sensitive species list relatively recently in 1998; therefore it is unknown whether projects

implemented more than 14 years ago avoided or mitigated negative effects to known

occurrences. One occurrence (METR_006) falls within the boundary of three past projects

(salvage logging, commercial thinning, and prescribed fire), while another (METR_003) is in

close proximity to Bucks Summit, which is a popular recreation destination. With the exception

of some land use activities (such as off highway vehicle use, fire suppression, etc.), protection

measures for meadows have generally been in place for nearly 25 years (USDA 1988b). Based

on this, it is likely that the three three-ranked hump-moss occurrences have received little

impact from management activities in the past few decades.


indirect effects are expected to be negligible. The effects of future projects on three-ranked

hump-moss would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing

management guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare species locations, and

noxious weed mitigations) remain in place.


Direct Effects. No direct effects will occur because the three-ranked hump-moss occurrences

will be avoided during project implementation. The occurrence that is within 10 feet of

Treatment Unit 87 will be flagged for avoidance; the remaining two occurrences are greater

than 0.25 mile from the treatments and will not be directly affected by project activities.

Indirect Effects. The indirect effects from the action alternatives are anticipated to be negligible.

Three-ranked hump-moss is found in wet meadows and fens. These types of habitats differ from

their surrounding uplands in moisture regime, microclimate, and vegetative composition (Pettit

and Naiman 2007). In general, high soil moisture levels and the dominance of grass-like species

(i.e. fine fuels) greatly reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire within these habitats. Based on

this, the thinning and underburning treatments in adjacent stands are not expected to

24

significantly alter the future wildfire risk or intensity within three-ranked hump-moss

occurrences or unoccupied suitable habitat.

Positive effects of the proposed thinning treatments may include increased water percolation

and groundwater, which could slightly increase the water availability within adjacent meadow

and fen habitats where three-ranked hump-moss is found. Occurrences and suitable habitat for

three-ranked hump-moss will be avoided during project implementation; therefore the

proposed activities are not expected to negatively affect the timing or hydrologic regime within

areas of suitable habitat.

Cumulative Effects. Three-ranked hump-moss has likely lost individuals and a considerable

amount of suitable habitat over the past 100 years due to land use activities such as water

diversions, habitat type conversion (i.e. meadow to annual grassland), intense grazing by

domestic livestock, and construction of roads and trails. This species was added to the Plumas

NF Sensitive species list relatively recently in 1998; therefore it is unknown whether projects

implemented more than 14 years ago avoided or mitigated negative effects to known

occurrences. . One occurrence (METR_006) falls within the boundary of three past projects

(salvage logging, commercial thinning, and prescribed fire), while another (METR_003) is in

close proximity to Bucks Summit, which is a popular recreation destination. With the exception

of some land use activities (such as off highway vehicle use, fire suppression, etc.), protection

measures for meadows have generally been in place for nearly 25 years (USDA 1988b). Based

on this, it is likely that the three three-ranked hump-moss occurrences have received little

impact from management activities in the past few decades.

The three occurrences in the Botany analysis area represent four percent of the three-ranked

hump-moss occurrences in California (Table 7). All of these occurrences will be avoided during

implementation of the action alternatives. In addition, areas of suitable habitat will be

protected through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The effects of future

projects on three-ranked hump-moss would likely be minimal or similar to those described in

this analysis if existing management guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare

species locations, and noxious weed mitigations) remain in place.

Based on these protection measures, as well as the negligible direct and indirect effects to

three-ranked hump-moss no adverse cumulative effects are anticipated from implementation of

the action alternatives.

6.4.4 Determination for three-ranked hump-moss

No-action Alternative (B): It is my determination that No-action alternative (B) will not affect

Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss). This determination is based on the negligible

direct and indirect effects to individuals and areas of suitable habitat.

25


alternatives (A, C, and D) will not affect Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss). This

determination is based on the negligible direct and indirect effects to individuals and areas of

suitable habitat.

6.5 Penstemon personatus (closed-throated beardtongue)

6.5.1 Affected Environment: closed-throated beardtongue

Closed-throated beardtongue is a rare species that is presently known from 42 occurrences in

four counties in the northern portion of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Most of the closed-

throated beardtongue occurrences (79 percent) are found within the boundary of the Plumas

NF where this rhizomatous perennial occurs in 33 large but localized populations that vary in

size from thousands of individuals to less than 10.

Closed-throated beardtongue occurs in west-side mixed conifer and red fir plant communities.

Past observations suggest that this species may tolerate or even benefit from some timber

harvest activities (i.e. mechanical thinning) that reduce the forest canopy, as long as the

activities do not change the microhabitat or result in high levels of ground disturbance (Urie et

al. 1989, Coppoletta et al. 2010). Monitoring has demonstrated that some high intensity

treatments, such as clearcuts, can result in a significant decline in closed-throated beardtongue

frequency within the first three years following treatment (Coppoletta et al. 2010). Closed-

throated beardtongue appears able to tolerate a wide range of canopy and light conditions.

While it occurs in areas with moderate to dense overstory canopy, some studies have shown

that open canopy conditions can promote flowering and growth of individuals (Urie et al. 1989).

Although there are may be local fluctuations in population size, the overall trend for this species

appears stable. General threats to this species include road construction and maintenance,

timber site preparation and release, landing construction, grazing, mining, and off-highway

vehicle use.

Distribution within the Analysis Area: Three large closed-throated beardtongue occurrences,

encompassing 21 sub-occurrences, have been recorded within 242 acres of the Bucks Botany

analysis area (Table 8). None of these occurrences occur within any of the proposed treatment

units.

Table 8. Comparison of closed-throated beardtongue at the global, state, forest, and project scale.




Bucks Analysis Area

Treatment Units

Penstemon personatus G2 1

42 33 3 0

1 G2 = imperiled; 6-20 viable occurrences, OR 1,000 to 3,000 individuals, OR 2,000 to 10,000 acres (NatureServe 2009).

26


Use guidance in the Preferred Alternative of the approved Penstemon personatus Species

Management Guide of 1987 to develop a set of key Penstemon personatus Areas (occurrences

or portions of occurrences) within each metapopulation, which will be protected from

management disturbances. These key areas would be established within occupied habitat to

maintain the species' geographic distribution. Priority for the delineation of key areas would be

given to those occurrences that currently exhibit a diversity of habitat types. Avoid building

landings or temporary roads through known occurrences. Avoid sub-soiling through known

occurrences. Strive to apply mechanical treatments after seed-set. Avoid machine piling within

known occurrences. To the degree possible, lop-and-scatter hand fuel and mechanical fuel

treatments to avoid creating piles within known occurrences. If other resource issues

necessitate pile burning, work with the District Botanist to avoid placing piles on individual

plants within the occurrence to the degree feasible. Strive to apply prescribed fire in the fall.

Evaluate other activities on a site-by-site basis considering species abundance, population size,

geographic distribution, and known species ecology.

6.5.3 Environmental Consequences: closed-throated beardtongue



occur.

Indirect Effects. Closed-throated beardtongue is able to tolerate a relatively wide range of

habitat conditions; it is found in disturbed and undisturbed sites, and within open and densely

shaded forests. Although monitoring indicates that this species is able to tolerate and even

increase in abundance or vigor following ground disturbance, it is not required for regeneration

or survival. Based on these ecological characteristics the indirect effects of the no-action

alternative are expected to be negligible.

Cumulative Effects. Suitable habitat for closed-throated beardtongue has been impacted by

past timber management practices, which generally favored removal of larger, more dominant

trees (i.e. overstory removal). This management practice, as well as the suppression of wildfire,

has resulted in a greater number of dense forests that are dominated by small trees and a

reduction in open forest habitat across the landscape. The ability of closed-throated

beardtongue to colonize both previously disturbed and undisturbed sites suggests that this

species may have benefited from past management activities that created open conditions and

increased light reception to the understory.

This species has been on the regional sensitive species list since at least 1979 and the

Penstemon personatus Species Management Guide has been in place since 1987. A review of

27

past projects indicates that at least nine projects, with activities ranging from commercial

thinning to underburning, have occurred within 16 (or 76 percent) of the documented sub-

occurrences within the Botany analysis area. None of these projects occurred prior to 1980;

therefore it is expected that they would have avoided or mitigated negative effects to known

occurrences.


indirect effects are expected to be negligible. The effects of present and future projects on this

species would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing

management guidelines (such as field surveys and protection of known rare species locations)

remain in place.


Direct Effects. No direct effects will occur because all of the closed-throated beardtongue

occurrences are outside of the proposed treatment units.

Indirect Effects. As mentioned above, closed-throated beardtongue is able to tolerate a wide

range of habitat conditions. Monitoring suggests that this perennial plant is able to tolerate and

even benefit from thinning activities that open up the forest canopy if ground disturbance is

minimized (Coppoletta et al. 2010). Past observations have also noted morphological

differences between plants growing in deep shade and full sun. Populations in areas with

greater than 60 percent overstory canopy cover tend to have fewer flowering individuals and

fewer flowers per plant; individuals also have thinner leaves and are generally shorter in stature.

These observations suggest that the proposed thinning treatments could have a minor

beneficial effect on areas of unoccupied suitable habitat, particularly for the two occurrences

(PEPE3_007M1 and PEPE3_007O) that are less than 200 feet from the project unit boundary. In

general, based on the distance to the proposed treatment units, which are on average greater

than 0.5 mile away, as well as the species’ ability to tolerate a range of habitat conditions, the

overall impact of the action alternatives is considered negligible.

Cumulative Effects. Suitable habitat for closed-throated beardtongue has been impacted by

past timber management practices, which generally favored removal of larger, more dominant

trees (i.e. overstory removal). This management practice, as well as the suppression of wildfire,

has resulted in a greater number of dense forests that are dominated by small trees and a

reduction in open forest habitat across the landscape. The ability of closed-throated

beardtongue to colonize both previously disturbed and undisturbed sites suggests that this

species may have benefited from past management activities that created open conditions and

increased light reception to the understory.

28

This species has been on the regional sensitive species list since at least 1979 and the

Penstemon personatus Species Management Guide has been in place since 1987. A review of

past projects indicates that at least nine projects, with activities ranging from commercial

thinning to underburning, have occurred within 16 (or 76 percent) of the documented sub-

occurrences within the Botany analysis area. None of these projects occurred prior to 1980;

therefore it is expected that they would have avoided or mitigated negative effects to known

occurrences.

The two occurrences of closed-throated beardtongue within the Botany analysis area represent

a fraction (seven percent) of all known occurrences in California (Table 8). The potential for

substantial negative impacts to the species as a whole, and even more specifically to the

occurrences within the analysis area, is low.

Under the proposed alternatives, treatments would be implemented and additional areas of

potential habitat created. Overall, there would be no direct effects to the known closed-

throated beardtongue occurrences and a minor beneficial indirect effect of creating additional

areas of suitable habitat for this species. The effects of present and future projects on this

species would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing

management guidelines (such as field surveys and protection of known rare species locations)

remain in place. Overall, the cumulative effects to this species are anticipated to be negligible.

6.5.4 Determination for closed-throated beardtongue

No-action Alternative (B): It is my determination that Alternative B (no action) will not affect

Penstemon personatus (closed-throated beardtongue). This determination is based on the


Action Alternatives (A, C and D): It is my determination that the Bucks Project action

alternatives (A, C, and D) will not affect Penstemon personatus (closed-throated beardtongue).

This determination is based on the lack of individuals within the project area and the negligible

indirect effects to areas of suitable habitat.

7.0 Comparison of Alternatives

The no-action alternative will not affect any Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Region 5

Sensitive plant species. This determination is based on the negligible direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects to individuals and areas of unoccupied suitable habitat.

Some individuals of Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia) may be directly

impacted by the hazard tree and watershed improvement treatments proposed under

Alternatives A and D; however, this species’ ability to tolerate and even thrive in disturbed

areas, suggests that these two alternatives could also have a beneficial indirect effect by

creating additional areas of suitable habitat for Mildred’s clarkia. Alternative C would have no

29

direct effects and negligible indirect effects on this species. None of the three action

alternatives would result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for Mildred’s

clarkia.

Alternatives A, C, and D would not affect Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss) or any

other Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Region 5 Sensitive species. This determination is

based on the negligible direct and indirect effects to individuals or areas of suitable habitat; lack

of individuals known or expected to occur within the project area; or absence of suitable

habitat within the project area for these species.

8.0 Specific Design Features or Mitigations

Sensitive plant species within the proposed treatment units would be protected under

Alternatives A, C, and D through the designation of Control Areas. The following species-specific

protection measures and design features were developed using the guidance provided in the

Plumas NF interim management prescriptions (USDA 2007), which are described above (Section

6.0). Maps of these locations and prescriptions are also provided in Section 11.0. Rare species

within the Botany analysis area, but greater than 200 feet outside of the proposed treatment

units, do not require specific design features or mitigations for protection. Additional mitigation

measures for Special Interest species are included the Bucks Project Plant Protection Plan

(Appendix B).

8.1 Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia)

The occurrence within Treatment Unit 5 will be protected using one of the following two

options:

1. Option 1: Implement the hazard tree removal portion of the project and road

treatments after individuals have set seed; there is no protection measure required

for felling hazard trees. Utilize the Limited Operating Period (LOP) already in place

for the spotted owl, which limits treatments until after August 15.

2. Option 2: Implement the project prior to seed set with the following design features

in place:

o During project implementation, minimize direct impacts to individuals

wherever possible. Flag Control Areas for avoidance prior to implementation.

o Do not pile or dump material within flagged areas without prior approval

from the botanist.

NOTE: No protection measures are required for drop and leave treatments.

30

8.2 Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss)

The occurrence situated within 10 feet of Treatment Unit 87 will be designated as control areas

where all ground disturbing activities will be prohibited.

9.0 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

All of the alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan and other direction. Under these

alternatives, sensitive plant species are protected as needed to maintain viability.

10.0 List of Citations

Bartolome, J. W., D. C. Erman, and C. F. Schwarz. 1990. Stability and Change in Minerotrophic Peatlands, Sierra-Nevada of California and Nevada. Usda Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Research Paper:R2-11.

Brown, M. R. 2008. Predicting the Persistence of a Rare Forest Orchid (Cypripedium fasciculatum) Under Simulated Land Management. University of California, Davis.

California Natural Diversity Database. 2011. RareFind Version 4. California Department of Fish and Game.

Chimner, R. A., D. J. Cooper, and W. J. Parton. 2002. Modeling carbon accumulation in Rocky Mountain fens. Wetlands 22:100-110.

Cooper, D. J., L. H. MacDonald, S. K. Wenger, and S. W. Woods. 1998. Hydrologic restoration of a fen in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA. Wetlands 18:335-345.

Coppoletta, M., K. Merriam, C. Dillingham, and L. Hanson. 2010. The effect of timber management activities on Penstemon personatus on the Plumas National Forest. USDA Forest Service.

Dillingham, C. 2005. Conservation Assessment for Meesia triquetra (L.) Aongstr. (three-ranked hump-moss) and Meesia uliginosa Hedwig (broad-nerved hump-moss) in California with a focus on the Sierra Nevada Bioregion.

Dittes, J., and J. Guardino. 2000. Botanical Investigation Conducted for the Waters Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (WDFPZ) Project, Plumas National Forest, Mt Hough District, Plumas County, California.

Dwire, K., and J. Kauffman. 2003. Fire and riparian ecosystems in landscapes of the western USA. Forest Ecology and Management 178:61-74.

Endangered Species Act (ESA). 1973. Public Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544.

Hoover, L. D., and R. O'Hanlon. 2008. Northern California Fungi Habitat Modeling - A Proof of Concept.

Kaye, T. N., and J. R. Cramer. 2005. Conservation Assessment for Cypripedium fasciculatum and Cypripedium montanum; September 2005; Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Region 5. Institute for Applied Ecology.

Korb, J., N. Johnson, and W. Covington. 2004. Slash pile burning effects on soil biotic and chemical properties and plant establishment: Recommendations for amelioration. Restoration Ecology 12:52-62.

31

MacDonald, L. 2000. Evaluating and managing cumulative effects: Process and constraints. Environmental Management 26:299-315.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.

Pettit, N., and R. Naiman. 2007. Fire in the Riparian Zone: Characteristics and Ecological Consequences. Ecosystems 10:673-687.

Thorpe, A. S., R. T. Massatti, R. Newton, and T. N. Kaye. 2010. Population Viability Analysis for the clustered lady’s slipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum). Institute for Applied Ecology.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that occur in or may be affected by projects in Lassen or Plumas Counties. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.

Urie, S., R. Tausch, and L. Hanson. 1989. A Statistical Analysis of Penstemon personatus. USDA Forest Service, Plumas NF.

USDA. 1988a. Plumas National Forest Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.

USDA. 1988b. Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, Quincy, CA.

USDA. 1999a. Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Final Environmental Impact Statement. Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests, USDA Forest Service, Quincy.

USDA. 1999b. Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Record of Decision and Summary. Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe National Forests, USDA Forest Service, Quincy, CA.

USDA. 2004a. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.

USDA. 2004b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.

USDA. 2005. Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2670. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Animals.

USDA. 2006. 2006 Sensitive Plant List, Pacific Southwest Region, Region 5. Letter from Regional Forester Weingardt. File Code: 2670. Dated July 27, 2006.

USDA. 2007. Plumas National Forest Interim Management Prescriptions for Threatened, Endangered, and Special Interest Plants. Plumas National Forest, Region 5.

USDA. 2011. U.S. Forest Service Botanical Surveys, Bucks Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project: 2008-2011.

Vance, N. 2005. Conservation Assessment for Cypripedium fasciculatum Kellogg ex S. Watson.in O. a. W. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, editor.

Weixelman, D. A., and D. Cooper. 2009. Assessing proper functioning condition for fen areas in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade ranges in California, a user guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. R 5:4-4.

32

11.0 Sensitive Species Maps

bucks lake hazardous fuels reduction project: biological...

Documents