Swan Lake Expansion Project (FERC Project No. 2911)

Botany Resource Report

FINAL

Prepared for: Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District Tongass National Forest

and

Ketchikan, Alaska

Prepared by: Kathryn Beck, Botanist Beck Botanical Services

Karen Brimacombe, Ecologist

McMillen, LLC

January 2014 Botany Resource Report FINAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1 1.2 Regulatory Framework ...... 3 1.2.1 The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) ...... 3 1.2.2 USDA Departmental Regulations 9500-004 ...... 3 1.2.3 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219.19 (2000) ...... 3 1.2.4 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan ...... 3 1.3 Analysis Area ...... 4 2 Action Alternatives and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects ...... 4 2.1.1 No Action Alternative ...... 5 2.1.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 5 2.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Projects...... 9 3 Methodology ...... 9 3.1 Pre-Field Review of Existing Information ...... 9 3.2 Field Surveys ...... 9 3.3 Determination of Effects and Risk Assessment ...... 10 3.4 GIS Analyses ...... 11 4 Affected Environment ...... 11 4.1 Vegetation Resources ...... 11 4.2 Sensitive Plants ...... 12 4.3 Rare Plants ...... 13 4.4 General Vegetation Types ...... 16 4.5 Invasive Plants ...... 18 5 Environmental Consequences ...... 18 5.1 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for Sensitive Plants ...... 18 5.1.1 Spatulate Moonwort (Botrychium spathulatum W.H.Wagner)...... 18 5.1.2 Mountain Lady’s Slipper (Cypripedium montanum Douglas ex Lindl.) ...... 19 5.1.3 Large Yellow Lady’s Slipper Orchid (Cypripedium parviflorum Salisb. var. pubescens (Willdenow) O. W. Knight) ...... 20 5.1.4 Alaska Rein Orchid (Piperia unalascensis (Spreng.) Rydb.) ...... 20 5.1.5 Lesser Round-Leaved Orchid (Platanthera orbiculata (Pursh)) ...... 22 5.2 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for Rare Plants ...... 23 5.2.1 Northern Bugleweed (Lycopus uniflorus Michx.) ...... 23 5.2.2 Pacific Buttercup (Ranunculus pacificus (Hulten) L.D.Benson) ...... 25 5.2.3 Wallace’s Spikemoss (Selaginella wallacei Heiron.) ...... 26 5.2.4 Bog St. John’s-wort (Hypericum anagalloides Cham. & Schltdl.) ...... 26 5.3 Mitigation ...... 27 5.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for General Vegetation ...... 28 5.4.1 Old-Growth Forest ...... 29 5.4.2 Young-Growth Forest ...... 30 5.4.3 Unproductive Forest ...... 30 5.5 Mitigation Measures for General Vegetation ...... 31 6 References ...... 31

Page | i Botany Resource Report FINAL

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Characteristics for the Proposed Action ...... 6 Table 2. Known or Suspected Sensitive Plants in the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District and Presence of Potential Habitat within the Survey Area ...... 12 Table 3. Rare Plants Observed within the Survey Area ...... 14 Table 4. General Vegetation Types in the Survey Area...... 16 Table 5. Acres of Impacts to General Vegetation Types due to the Proposed Action ...... 28

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project Area ...... 2 Figure 2. Project Area Above Dam ...... 7 Figure 3. Project Area Below the Dam ...... 8 Figure 4. Rare Plants Observed within the Survey Area ...... 15 Figure 5. Vegetation Communities in the Survey Area ...... 17

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species List, May 2012 Appendix B Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List Appendix C Current and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects on the Tongass National Forest Appendix D Survey Types Appendix E Description of Populations of Rare Plant Observed in the Survey Area Appendix F Rare Plant Element Occurrence Field Forms Appendix G Response to Agency Comments on the Draft Resource Report

Page | ii Botany Resource Report FINAL

1 Introduction 1.1 Project Description The Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) is the licensee for the Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) No. 2911 (Project), on the northeast side of Carroll Inlet in Southeast Alaska. SEAPA is currently evaluating the engineering feasibility and value of increasing the storage capacity of the Swan Lake reservoir through an increase in the dam height. Around the reservoir, the FERC boundary roughly follows the 350- foot elevation contour on the Project drawings. SEAPA is planning a 15-foot raise in full pool elevation; dam crest elevation would increase from an elevation of 344 feet to 350 feet to accommodate a new Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) of 347 feet. The normal maximum surface area of the reservoir would increase from 330 feet to 345 feet. As a result of the proposed action, the maximum operating pool of the reservoir would change from 330 feet mean sea level (MSL) to 345 feet MSL, thereby increasing the active storage capacity of Swan Lake from 81,704 acre-feet (ac-ft) to 102,467 ac-ft (an increase of approximately 25 percent). It is estimated that there are about 14 miles of shoreline around the reservoir, much of which is moderately to extremely steep (Figure 1). The Project is located in Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 27, Township 72 South, Range 92 East, Copper River Meridian. A portion of the proposed reservoir expansion area will include National Forest System (NFS) lands, particularly in the area of Lost Creek, a tributary that enters the existing reservoir on the northeast side. The Project’s FERC license sets the Project’s boundary around the reservoir at the 350-foot elevation contour. As currently proposed, the increased reservoir will be entirely contained within the existing FERC boundary and there are no plans to seek a change in the boundary with FERC; however, it is possible that in the course of determining necessary mitigation measures a revision of this boundary may be necessary to implement measures sought by the FERC or agencies. These could include measures for recreation, shoreline control, or protection of environmental resources. Any proposed changes to the facilities, the operation of the reservoir, and potential changes to the Project boundary will require amending the Project’s FERC license, a process that includes evaluating the potential impacts to environmental resources from the proposed action. For the Initial Consultation Document (ICD) submitted in April 2013, the FERC boundary above the reservoir, defined as the 350-foot contour on the revised Exhibit K maps dated March 29, 1985, was used and rectified to the extent possible. Since the completion of the ICD and associated study reports, vessel-mounted light detection and ranging (LiDAR) survey was conducted to better assess the actual location of the 350-foot contour around the entirety of the lake. Based on the results of this work, a more refined 350-foot boundary and 330-foot full pool contour were developed for use in better defining potential project level impacts (Tetra Tech 2014a). This Swan Lake Expansion Project Botany Resource Report provides an assessment of the current condition of sensitive and rare plants and general vegetation communities in the survey area and the potential effects of implementing the proposed alternatives on these resources. Invasive plant species are addressed in a separate Invasive Plant Risk Assessment prepared for this project (Tetra Tech 2014b). Two alternatives are evaluated in this report: No Action, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the proposed action. The analysis in this report addresses the potential effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed project and uses existing information from spatial GIS data, field survey results, scientific literature, and other sources, as appropriate.

Page | 1 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Figure 1. Project Area

Page | 2 Botany Resource Report FINAL

The final appendix to this report provides a response to general and resource-specific USDA Forest Service comments on the draft Resource Report. This Final Resource Report incorporates the comments as appropriate. Where changes were not made, they are noted and will be addressed in greater detail in the Environment Assessment for the project as needed. 1.2 Regulatory Framework Management activities on NFS lands are required to comply with the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and federal and state laws. Relevant standards and regulations intended to protect botanical resources are summarized in the subsections below.

1.2.1 The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) states that forest planning must “provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area” (USDA Forest Service 1976).

1.2.2 USDA Departmental Regulations 9500-004 USDA Departmental Regulations 9500-004 states that the National Forest will provide habitats for all existing native and desired non-native plants, fish and wildlife species to maintain at least a viable population of such species (USDA 1983).

1.2.3 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219.19 (2000) 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219.19 (2000) states “For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area.”

1.2.4 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan The Forest Plan is the governing document for management activities that take place within the Tongass National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2008a). It consists of three parts that work together to facilitate the development of management activities. These parts include: forest goals and desired conditions for resources; the management prescriptions for each of the 19 land use designations (LUDs); and the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, which apply to all or most areas of the Forest and provide for the protection and management of forest resources.

Sensitive and Rare Plants

Standards and Guidelines direct the Forest Service to “Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to rare plants and populations during project planning to maintain known distributions throughout the Tongass National Forest.” A sensitive plant is one that is included on the 2012 Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species List (Appendix A). The Forest Plan for the Tongass National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2008a) states that: Rare plants are those with potential conservation concerns on the Tongass National Forest. They may be common elsewhere; however, the edge of their range is known or suspected to be on the Tongass National Forest, or disjunct populations of the plant

Page | 3 Botany Resource Report FINAL

species occur on the Tongass National Forest. The Alaska Natural Heritage Program tracks rare plant species, and gives them a state ranking of S1 to S5. This database will be the basis of the rare plant list for the Tongass National Forest. See the Alaska Natural Heritage plant list for guidance.

Each rare plant in the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP) tracking list has a state ranking (S1 to S5) as well as a global ranking (G1 to G5). An S1 (G1) rank is defined as the most critically imperiled plants in the state (and world), while an S5 (G5) is secure in the state (and world) (AKNHP 2012). The AKNHP 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List, including rankings used by the AKNHP, is provided in Appendix B. The AKNHP plant tracking list changes as previously unknown populations of rare plants are discovered or when taxa new to Alaska are discovered. 1.3 Analysis Area The area analyzed for direct and indirect effects to sensitive and rare plants and general vegetation communities includes the area within the FERC boundary (i.e., survey area) (Figure 1). The survey area includes the area between the current spillway crest elevation (330 feet) and the proposed new dam crest elevation of 350 feet (3 feet of freeboard above the PMF of 347 feet). It is estimated that there are about 14 miles of the Swan Lake reservoir shoreline at the 350-foot elevation contour; including portions of Lost Creek, Track Creek, Mint Creek, and Fry Creek (Figure 2). Although the survey area includes the area up to 350 feet elevation (current FERC boundary as revised by LiDAR and survey), the area of impacts from the proposed project anticipates that the normal maximum surface area of the reservoir would increase from 330 feet to 345 feet. Vessel-mounted sidescan LiDAR was conducted in November 2013 for the area above the dam and this report includes revisions to the ICD and associated study reports. Revisions based on LiDAR did not change any key findings of this report; however, it serves to provide a more refined analysis of potential project impacts above the dam. The survey area also includes a 150-foot buffer around areas where temporary and permanent construction activities (e.g., area around existing dam, existing and proposed staging areas, docks, work garage, existing roads, powerhouse) associated with the proposed project would likely occur (see Section 2.1.2). This area is located below the dam and near existing facilities (Figure 3). The areas described above were selected as the survey area because all project-related disturbance is expected to occur within this area. The area analyzed for cumulative effects to general vegetation includes the survey area and also the entirety of the Tongass National Forest. Therefore, the area analyzed for cumulative effects to sensitive and rare plants includes the survey area, as well as the range of the sensitive or rare plant species where they may occur in suitable habitat on the Forest.

2 Action Alternatives and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects SEAPA owns and operates the Project (FERC No. 2911), on the northeast side of Carroll Inlet in Southeast Alaska (Figure 1). SEAPA is currently evaluating the engineering feasibility and value of increasing the reservoir’s storage capacity through an increase in the dam height. The current normal maximum surface elevation is 330 feet mean sea level (MSL) around the reservoir. SEAPA is proposing to increase the dam height and establish a new maximum operating pool of 345 feet MSL. Around the reservoir, the FERC boundary roughly follows the 350-foot elevation contour. The dam’s crest elevation would increase from elevation 344 feet to 350 feet. The current PMF is elevation 344 feet. The new PMF elevation would be 347 feet.

Page | 4 Botany Resource Report FINAL

2.1.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would be to not modify the existing dam and to continue operating the reservoir as it is currently managed. There would be no inundations of the lake perimeter compared with today’s environment, but system spill would continue and therefore the opportunity to displace on-going diesel generation would be lost. In addition to providing an option for the decision-maker, the No Action Alternative is analyzed to provide a baseline for evaluation of the effects associated with the proposed action.

2.1.2 Proposed Action Alternative The existing Swan Lake Dam consists of a 174-foot-high concrete arch dam creating an 81,704 ac-ft active storage reservoir. Water passes through a concrete power tower located on the right abutment upstream of the dam, and passes through a 2,300-foot-long power tunnel to the powerhouse. The tunnel feeds an indoor-type powerhouse fitted with two 12,500 kilovolt ampere (kVA) generating units. Power is transmitted from the powerhouse to Ketchikan, Wrangell, and Petersburg, Alaska. Dam, Spillway, and Intake The Swan Lake Dam is a double curvature elliptical arch dam with a crest elevation of 344.0 feet, which is 174 feet above the lowest foundation line. A 100-foot-wide ungated ogee spillway located in the center of the dam. Flow passes over the ogee crest at elevation 330.0 feet and passes over a concrete chute spillway that flips the flow downstream from the dam toe into an excavated plunge pool. The intake consists of a concrete monolith structure located on the right (north) abutment upstream of and separate from the dam. The trashrack sill elevation of the intake entrance is at elevation 232.0 feet. The proposed action would raise the crest of the dam to 350 feet. The hard crest of the spillway would remain at 330 feet MSL. A 15-foot-high Obermeyer gate system would be installed to achieve the new maximum normal operating pool level of 345 feet. The existing spillway gate structure would be extended upstream an additional 5 to 7 feet to accommodate the increased gate length. The intake structure would need to be raised to contain the maximum operating pool of 347.0 feet. This would require raising the concrete intake structure, relocating the gate hoist equipment, increasing the gate lift shaft, and modifying the right abutment. Much of these modifications would be accomplished using a floating barge platform. On the right abutment, a new concrete dam section will have to be extended across the existing access road and tie into the exposed rock abutment. This will require selective removal of the existing access road and fill area to expose undisturbed bedrock. Reservoir Construction of the Swan Lake Dam raised the level of natural Swan Lake from elevation 236.0 feet to a normal maximum elevation of 330.0 feet. The minimum reservoir surface elevation is now at elevation 271.5 feet, which provides an active storage of 81,704 ac-ft. Using the results of the LiDAR study, the reservoir has a surface area of 1,474 acres when at the full pool level of 330.0 feet. The proposed action would increase the new normal maximum surface elevation to 345 feet MSL; however, for the purposes of the Resource Report, potential impacts are assessed using the refined (LiDAR-based) 350-foot elevation contour. Based on the slightly more conservative impact assessment up to the 350-foot elevation, the impoundment would inundate an additional 93 acres. The active storage of the Project would increase by approximately 25 percent to 102,467 ac-ft. The PMF elevation would increase to 347 feet. The existing FERC boundary

Page | 5 Botany Resource Report FINAL

follows the 350-foot contour around the reservoir and would not be modified. Figure 2 shows the project area above the dam, including the area of inundation as a result of the proposed action. Table 1 presents the key hydrological and reservoir data under existing and proposed conditions. Table 1. Summary of Characteristics for the Proposed Action Proposed Item Existing Conditions Conditions Reservoir Data Surface Area (acres) 1/ 1,474 1,567 Normal Pool El. (MSL) 330.0 345.0 Minimum Operating Pool El. 271.5 271.5 Active Storage (ac-ft) 81,704 102,467 1/ Surface area revised based on LiDAR study results conducted in November 2013 (Tetra Tech 2014a). Other Sources: Swan Lake Project Final Reports, Four Dam Pool Agency, Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project, Supporting Technical Information Document, February 2005.

Additional Facilities and Modifications Additional modifications and facilities necessary to support construction and operation of the expanded dam include: • Raising existing access road, by filling with granular material, to cross the new dam at an elevation of 350 feet. • Re-grading of existing access roads in the area. • Rebuilding the reservoir boat dock which would be submerged by any reservoir raise. • Raising or modifying the equipment room and hoist to allow them to be submerged during flooding events. • Use of existing staging areas for construction activities associated with the proposed action. Figure 3 shows the layout of the area below the dam where construction activities would occur. Proposed temporary staging areas, required for dam modification and assembly of the Obermeyer gates, would be located on flat benches along existing access roads below (west) of the existing dam. These areas would consist primarily of staging and laydown areas from original construction. Materials such as trailers, free-draining rock and gravel, and temporary electrical would be barged in and offloaded at the existing boat dock.

Page | 6 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Figure 2. Project Area Above Dam

Page | 7 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Figure 3. Project Area Below the Dam

Page | 8 Botany Resource Report FINAL

2.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Projects Known current and reasonably foreseeable future projects on the Tongass National Forest are listed in Appendix C. These projects include timber harvest and pre-commercial thinning, road maintenance, decommissioning and storage, and restoration and habitat improvement activities.

3 Methodology 3.1 Pre-Field Review of Existing Information Prior to field surveys, a pre-field review of the survey area was conducted (Tetra Tech 2012) and approved by Rick Turner, USDA Forest Service Ecologist. No species on the Alaska Region Sensitive Plant List have previously been documented in the survey area although several species have previously been documented on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District. Habitat information in the survey area was assessed based on information obtained from GIS, reviews of aerial photographs, and discussions with resource specialists. Habitat types likely to occur in the survey area include forest edge, coniferous forest, rocky areas, rock outcrops, ridgetops, cliffs, gravel, seeps, wet areas, riparian areas, streambanks, ponds, shallow freshwater marshes, muskeg, waterfalls, lake margins, fens, and sandy areas. Based on the variety of habitats present, it was determined that five of the sensitive species on the Alaska Region Sensitive Plant List (Appendix A) have a reasonable potential to occur in the survey area. 3.2 Field Surveys Field surveys for botanical resources, including sensitive and rare plants, were conducted August 6-10, 2012. Surveys were conducted within the survey area (i.e., FERC boundary) which included the shoreline of Swan Lake and along the banks of Lost Creek up to the 350-foot elevation level. Surveys were dispersed throughout the survey area in a variety of habitat types, elevations and aspects. The surveys were done primarily by boat because steep terrain and dense vegetation restricted the ability to survey the majority of the shoreline on foot. The boat traveled close to the shore and binoculars were used to search the shore. At the time of the survey, the water level was at its current maximum height of 330 feet, giving surveyors an optimal view. Botanists and ecologists walked the shoreline and creek margins in the limited areas where slope and vegetation density allowed. Surveys for sensitive and rare plants and general vegetation communities were focused on the area above the dam between the 330-foot and 350-foot elevation contours and below the dam and near existing facilities in an effort to gather baseline information to address potential impacts from construction activities. Focused intuitive controlled surveys for sensitive and rare plants were conducted within the survey area (see Appendix D for a general description of botanical survey types) to the degree possible. This survey type involves identifying suitable habitat for targeted species and then focusing the survey effort within those identified habitats. The field surveys were conducted from August 6 to 10, 2012, an appropriate time of year to identify targeted species. No populations of sensitive plant species were identified in the survey area during field surveys. Populations of two rare plant species were identified and mapped as a result of field surveys for this project. Additionally, two plant species not included on the 2012 AKNHP Rare Vascular Plant List but considered species of interest for the Tongass National Forest were observed in the survey area (see Section 3.3). Based on field surveys, the location of each rare plant population was mapped and digitized and a plant count or estimate was made for each (Appendix E). Plant Survey Field forms and a spreadsheet identifying all plant species observed in the survey area

Page | 9 Botany Resource Report FINAL

were also prepared and are included in the project record. Additionally, Region 10 (R10) Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES) Plant Element Occurrence field forms were completed according to protocol for the Alaska Region for rare plants in the survey area and are included in Appendix F. 3.3 Determination of Effects and Risk Assessment The project has the potential to have direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on rare and sensitive plants and general vegetation. Direct effects are those that would occur immediately or soon after the implementation of the action (Dillman et al. 2009). Direct effects of the project may include the following: • Inundation – Individual plants, entire populations, or habitat may be lost due to inundation from the 15-foot rise in maximum pool elevation. • Physical Damage – Individual plants, entire populations, or habitat may be destroyed or damaged through crushing by construction equipment and personnel, or placement of fill material during construction of the new dam, temporary staging areas, and improvements and modifications to existing access roads. Road modifications and use of existing roads could bury or remove plants if they were located in the road bed or along the perimeter of the road. Indirect effects are those effects that are reasonably likely to occur at a later point in time after the project has been implemented (such as changes in hydrology or intensified or decreased of solar radiation) (Dillman et al. 2009). Indirect effects of the Swan Lake Expansion Project could include the following: • Hydrology – Changes to the water table resulting from rising pool levels may indirectly effect plants adjacent to, but not directly inundated by the rising water level. Modifications to existing access roads may alter the hydrology, as surface and ground water may be redirected and channelized by roadside ditches, altering the hydrologic regime. Increased water levels may result in the death or decline in vigor of plants not adapted to a high water table. Conversely, plants adapted to wetland conditions may become dessicated by a decrease in water availabilty. • Light Levels – Partial or complete removal of the tree canopy results in an increase in the light levels in the understory, potentially resulting in light levels beyond the tolerance for some shade dependent species (Heithecker and Halpern 2007). • Invasive Plants – Increased light levels associated with loss of tree cover due to inundation, modifications to the existing road network, and other ground disturbing activities can result in the introduction of invasive plants. Invasive species can outcompete native species and colonize preferred habitat. See the Invasive Plants Risk Assessment prepared for this project for additional information on the effects of invasive plants (Tetra Tech 2014b). Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts are the sum of the direct and indirect impacts from the Swan Lake Expansion Project plus other projects that have occurred in the past, are presently occurring, or are expected to occur in the foreseeable future. Individually these impacts may be minor, but together can result in cumulative impacts over time. Known reasonably foreseeable projects on the Tongass National Forestare identified in Appendix C. These projects include timber harvest and pre-commercial thinning, ongoing road

Page | 10 Botany Resource Report FINAL

activities (maintenance and decommissioning), and restoration and habitat improvement activities. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the project are used to determine the risk of the Project to each sensitive and rare plant species that may potentially be affected by the project. This is conducted through a risk assessment, which considers two factors: 1) the consequences of adverse (or beneficial) effects on the population, and 2) the likelihood or probability that these effects will occur. The Forest Service has developed criteria for each of these factors, which are included as Appendix D to the Biological Evaluation for Plants prepared for this project (Tetra Tech 2014c). 3.4 GIS Analyses GIS layers were created for general vegetation and observed sensitive and rare plants in the survey area. Using this information, effects on general vegetation and populations and individuals of sensitive and rare plants were estimated. A direct effect was identified if part of a sensitive or rare plant population polygon or a general vegetation type occurred within the disturbance footprint for the project. General vegetation types were mapped using the Tongass National Forest Cover Type GIS layers and the Tongass’s Size and Density Mapping Model (SD7 model). Direct effects to vegetation types were based on the acres of each vegetation type that occurred within the disturbance footprint for the project.

4 Affected Environment The Swan Lake survey area is located on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District on Revillagigedo Island in southeast Alaska. The Tongass National Forest, including Revillagigedo Island, is dominated by temperate rainforest. The maritime climate is characterized by cool, wet summers and mild winters with significant precipitation as snow and rainfall. In Ketchikan, approximately 23 miles southwest of the study area, typical summer temperatures average 60-65° F, while winter temperatures average 39-44°F. The year-round average temperature is 51.6° F. Annual precipitation as rainfall averages 117 inches, with the least precipitation (16 percent) occurring from May through July. The wettest month is October with an average of more than 22 inches accumulation. Snowfall accumulation averages 37 inches per year, with the most snow accumulating in January (35 percent) (Western Regional Climate Center 2012). The study area lies about 300 to 350 feet higher in elevation than Ketchikan. 4.1 Vegetation Resources The Swan Lake Expansion Project survey area is located on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District on Revillagigedo Island in southeast Alaska, 22 miles northeast of Ketchikan. The Tongass National Forest, including Revillagigedo Island, is covered primarily by temperate rainforest consisting of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), with lesser amounts of mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), Alaska yellow cedar (Callitropsis [Chamaecyparis] nootkatensis), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). Common understory species include oval-leaf blueberry (Vaccinium ovalifolium), Alaska blueberry, (Vaccinium alaskanse), Devil’s club (Oploplanax horridum), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), twisted-stalk (Streptopus spp.), queen’s cup (Clintonia uniflora), three-leaf foamflower (Tiarella trifoliata), and lady fern (Athyrium filix- femina).

Page | 11 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Red alder (Alnus rubra) and Sitka alder (Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata) occupy riparian areas and other sites, such as avalanche chutes, where bare mineral soils are exposed. On Revillagigedo Island, extensive forest areas have been logged. Plant communities in these areas have changed to early successional types that differ in character than old growth forests. Regeneration is rapid and most of the logged areas are covered by dense stands of young growth. Most of the lake perimeter, including the banks of the four main creeks entering the lake, is characterized by very steep forested slopes. Rock outcrops, avalanche chutes, and waterfalls also occur along the lake perimeter. The vegetation growing on the steep slopes is primarily coniferous forest with a dense shrub understory. Shrublands and areas of herbaceous vegetation typically occur in or adjacent to avalanche chutes and waterfalls. In addition to forest and shrublands, there is a riparian vegetation community associated with Lost Creek. Various wetland types are also found dispersed throughout the survey area (see the Wetland Resource Report prepared for this project for further details; Tetra Tech 2014d). Plant communities in the survey area are largely unaltered by human activity. 4.2 Sensitive Plants A total of 18 plant species and 1 lichen have been designated as Sensitive on the Alaska Regional Forester’s list; 16 of these are known or suspected to occur on the Tongass National Forest (Appendix A). Of these 16 species, 4 have been documented on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District and seven are suspected to occur on the District (Table 2). Table 2 summarizes the general habitat requirements of the 11 sensitive plant species that are either known or suspected to occur on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District (District) and lists whether potential habitat for these species may be present within the Swan Lake survey area. None of the 11 species listed in Table 2 are known to occur within the survey area, and no populations of sensitive species were located during surveys of the survey area. Table 2. Known or Suspected Sensitive Plants in the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District and Presence of Potential Habitat within the Survey Area Presence of Potential Presence in Habitat Scientific Common Ranger within Survey Name Name District1/ Area2/ Habitat3/ Botrychium Spatulate Suspected Small areas of Maritime and upper beach meadows, spathulatum moonwort marginal well drained open areas, limestone, habitat present. alpine habitats, disturbed areas Cirsium edule Edible thistle Known No suitable Moist to mesic meadows, open var. macounii habitat present. forests, and talus slopes in subalpine to alpine areas Cypripedium Mountain Suspected Suitable Open forest, upper beach meadows, montanum lady’s slipper habitat present beach/forest ecotone, wet meadows Cypripedium Large yellow Suspected Small areas of Peatlands, on limestone substrates, parviflorum lady’s slipper marginal dry to wet meadows var. habitat present. pubescens Ligusticum Calder’s Suspected No suitable Wet to moist sites and forest edges in calderi lovage habitat present. subalpine and alpine areas, rock habitats and limestone

Page | 12 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table 2. Known or Suspected Sensitive Plants in the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District and Presence of Potential Habitat within the Survey Area (continued) Presence of Potential Presence in Habitat Scientific Common Ranger within Survey Name Name District1/ Area2/ Habitat3/ Lobaria Lichen Known No suitable Growing primarily on Sitka spruce, amplissima habitat present. western hemlock, and western crabapple (Malus fusca) in the beach/forest ecotone Piperia Alaska rein Suspected Suitable Forested areas, dry to mesic unalascensis orchid habitat present meadows, roadsides, streamsides, and muskegs Platanthera Lesser round- Known Suitable Mesic areas of coniferous forest, orbiculata leaved orchid habitat present forested wetlands, old-growth hemlock forests, and near open water or boggy areas. Polystichum Kruckeberg’s Known No suitable Sheltered cracks on ultramafic rock kruckebergii swordfern habitat present outcrops, talus slopes. Sidalcea Henderson’s Suspected No suitable Estuarine habitats at the ecotone of hendersonii checkermallow habitat present the estuary and forest Tanacetum Dune tansy Suspected No suitable Upper beach meadow, sand dunes bipinnatum habitat present ssp. huronense 1/ Known -- known to occur in the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District. Suspected -- suspected to occur in the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District. 2/ None of these species have known occurrences within the survey area. 3/ Habitats based on USDA Forest Service 2009 and 2012.

Six of the 11 species known or suspected to occur on the District (Table 2), edible thistle, Calder’s lovage, Lobaria amplissima, Kruckeberg’s swordfern, Henderson’s checkermallow, and dune tansy, do not have any suitable habitat within the survey area; therefore, these six species will not be discussed further in this report. 4.3 Rare Plants The target rare plant species list for this project is the AKNHP 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (Appendix B). The list includes species with a State Ranking of S1, S2, and S3. The list changes periodically with plants added or dropped as additional information on plant viability, distribution, and taxonomy is learned. Populations of two rare plant species: northern bugleweed (Lycopus uniflorus) and Pacific buttercup (Ranunculus pacificus), were found during surveys within the survey area (Table 3; Figure 4). Populations of two plant species that have not previously been documented in Alaska, Wallace’s spikemoss (Selaginella wallacei) and bog St. John’s-wort (Hypericum anagalloides), were observed in the survey area. Sources checked for distribution of these species include: the Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria (2012), Plants National Database (USDA NRCS 2012), and the University of Alaska Museum of the North Herbarium (2012). Specimens of

Page | 13 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Wallace’s spikemoss were collected and sent to Peter Zika, Museum Research Associate, at the University of Washington Herbarium (WTU) for taxonomic verification. A portion of this collection, part of the K.A. Beck 2012 collection, remains at the WTU and portion of the collection was sent to the University of Alaska Museum Herbarium (ALA) in Fairbanks. Specimens of the bog St. John’s-wort were not collected; however, this species has been observed by botanists conducting surveys for the Project in many other portions of its range. The taxonomy of this species was verified by one of the survey botanists, Kathryn Beck, using Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973. Although Wallace’s spikemoss and bog St. John’s-wort are not on the AKNHP 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List, they are addressed as rare plants for purposes of this Project, due to rarity and conservation concerns (see Section 1.2.4), as they are currently the only known populations in Alaska. Locations and descriptions of rare plant populations observed in the survey area, including Wallace’s spikemoss and bog St. John’s-wort, are included in Appendix E. Table 3. Rare Plants Observed within the Survey Area Global Common Rank/ Population Location in Name Scientific Name State Rank Typical Habitat the Survey area Bog St. Hypericum NA1/ Wet or moist ground 2 populations; 1 observed John’s-wort1/ anagalloides from sea level to high on floating log mat on elevations open water of Swan Lake; 1 in the vicinity of Lost Creek. Northern Lycopus uniflorus G5 / S3S42/ Wet meadows, 2 populations; 1 scattered bugleweed streambanks, around shore of Swan roadside ditches Lake and 1 along an existing road in the portion of the survey area located below the existing dam. Pacific Ranunculus G3 /S3S4 Along streams and 1 small population in the buttercup pacificus meadows Lost Creek area. Wallace’s Selaginella NA1/ On dry, exposed 1 population observed spikemoss1/ wallacei cliffs, rocky slopes, along the north shore of rocky knolls, or Swan Lake. sandy-gravelly soil or on moist, shaded, rocky banks or in meadows 1/ Species not on the AKNHP 2012 list; however, it is newly documented in Alaska and is considered a rare plant species for purposes of this report. 2/ Indicates that the rank is preliminary (AKNHP 2012) Sources: Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973; Hulten 1968.

Page | 14 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Figure 4. Rare Plants Observed within the Survey Area

Page | 15 Botany Resource Report FINAL

4.4 General Vegetation Types Four general vegetation types are present in the survey area: old-growth, young-growth, unproductive forest, and forested muskeg (Table 4; Figure 5). The majority of the area (approximately 91 percent) consists of open water associated with the Swan Lake Reservoir within the FERC boundary. General vegetation types were mapped using the Tongass National Forest Cover Type GIS layers. Old growth was further described using the Tongass’s Size and Density Mapping Model (SD7 model) that categorizes vegetation into seven categories which is discussed in more detail in the Wildlife and Subsistence Resource Report (Tetra Tech 2014d). Table 4. General Vegetation Types in the Survey Area Acres on Total Acres in the Percent of the Vegetation Type NFS Land Survey area 3/ Survey area Old Growth 1/ 10.9 109.9 6.8 Young Growth 0.0 10.6 0.7 Forested Muskeg 0.0 3.9 0.2 Unproductive Forest 15.1 16.4 1.0 Water2/ 0.0 1479.9 91.3 Total 26.0 1620.7 100 1/ Data come from the Tongass NF tree Size and Density mapping model (SD7). 2/ This area is based on GIS analysis and is primarily the result of resolution of map layers; includes the area of Lost Creek within the FERC boundary. This excludes the area of open water associated with the current maximum reservoir level of Swan Lake. 3/ Surface area revised based on LiDAR study results conducted in November 2013 (Tetra Tech 2014a).

The predominant upland vegetation type in the survey area is old-growth forest that makes up approximately 110 acres, or 78.1 percent, of the survey area (Table 4). Approximately 16.4 acres (11.6 percent) of the survey area consist of unproductive forest. Unproductive forest is defined as forest land incapable of producing at least 20 cubic feet of wood fiber per acre per year or having less than 8,000 board feet per acre of standing volume (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Many unproductive forest stands are consistent with old-growth definitions, but the trees are typically small and stunted, less than 40 feet in height, and the canopy is open with 10 to 40 percent canopy closure (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Young growth forest comprises approximately 10.6 acres (7.5 percent) of the survey area. Young growth characteristics vary with age; the youngest stands are typically densely vegetated with a mix of young saplings and a dense shrub layer. As these stands progress in age, they develop a canopy that is predominantly closed and consequently has limited understory vegetation. Approximately 3.9 acres (2.8 percent) of the survey area was mapped as forested muskeg. Although forested muskeg is considered a wetland type, wetlands described in the Wetlands Resource Report for this project do not use the category of forested muskeg. Wetlands in the survey area were mapped using a combination of the Tongass National Forest wetland layers, the hydric soils layers from the Ketchikan area soil survey for the Tongass National Forest, and wetland boundaries delineated during field surveys of the survey area in August 2012 versus the SD7 model). The majority of the areas delineated as forested muskeg by the SD7 Model (Figure 5) were delineated as a different wetland category using the mapping layers described above (see the Wetland Resource Report prepared for this project for further details). Therefore, the forested muskeg vegetation type is not further discussed in this report.

Page | 16 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Figure 5. Vegetation Communities in the Survey Area

Page | 17 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Approximately 26 acres are identified as NFS lands based on the Tongass ownership GIS layer within the 350-foot elevation contour in Lost Creek area (Table 4). Approximately 11 acres of old-growth forest, 15 acres of unproductive forest, and less than an acre of young-growth forest are mapped as occurring on NFS lands. 4.5 Invasive Plants Surveys for invasive plants were conducted for this project in conjunction with surveys for general vegetation and sensitive and rare plants (August 6 to 10, 2012). Prevention measures for invasive plants would follow the Tongass National Forest protocols specified in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2000-National Forest Resource Management, Chapter 2080-Noxious Weed Management, Tongass National Forest Supplement–R10-TNF-2000-20007-1. A separate Invasive Plant Risk Assessment prepared for this project describes the invasive plants present in the survey area, proposed mitigation measures, and risk of spread by alternative as a result of this project (Tetra Tech 2014b).

5 Environmental Consequences This section describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on rare and sensitive plants and general vegetation from the proposed action. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are estimated for rare and sensitive plants based on the impacts to known populations and suitable habitat from the proposed project. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for general vegetation are estimated based on the acres of the survey area that would be temporarily or permanently impacted by the proposed project. Potential mitigation measures for the project are included in Section 5.3. 5.1 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for Sensitive Plants The No Action Alternative would have no effect on sensitive plants in the survey area because the proposed dam expansion would not be built and there would be no resulting increase in the maximum reservoir pool elevation. Eleven sensitive plant species have been documented on or are suspected to occur on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District (Section 4.2; Table 2). Five of these 11 species (spatulate moonwort, mountain lady’s slipper, large yellow lady’s slipper, Alaska rein orchid, and lesser round-leaved orchid) have at least small areas of marginal habitat within the survey area. These five species, and the potential Project effects, are briefly described below. Although they have the potential to occur in the survey area, none of these species were located during field surveys of the survey area for the Swan Lake Expansion Project.

5.1.1 Spatulate Moonwort (Botrychium spathulatum W.H.Wagner) On the Tongass National Forest, spatulate moonwort grows in upper beach meadows, well drained open areas, limestone, alpine habitats, and disturbed areas (USDA Forest Service 2009; USDA Forest Service 2012). Although not known from, this species is suspected on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District. It was not observed during field surveys conducted for the proposed Project. The survey area does not include beach habitat, limestone or open drained areas, and is located well below the alpine zone. There are some disturbed areas associated with the immediate area around dam and existing roadways, thus, a limited amount of potential habitat

Page | 18 Botany Resource Report FINAL

is present within the survey area. However, these disturbed areas were surveyed and this species was not observed.

Direct and Indirect Effects The project would have no direct or indirect effects to known populations or habitat of spatulate moonwort, and therefore would have no impact on spatulate moonwort.

Cumulative Effects No direct or indirect effects from the project are expected and, therefore, the project would not represent an incremental addition to potential cumulative effects to this species.

5.1.2 Mountain Lady’s Slipper (Cypripedium montanum Douglas ex Lindl.) Mountain lady’s slipper may be found in a variety of habitats on the Tongass National Forest, including upper beach meadows, the edge of the beach/forest ecotone, open forest, and wet meadows (USDA Forest Service 2009; USDA Forest Service 2012). The mountain lady’s slipper is suspected, but not known, to occur on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District. Although potential habitat is present in areas of open forest in the survey area, this plant was not observed during field surveys.

Direct and Indirect Effects The project would have no adverse effects to known populations of mountain lady’s slipper. Although potential habitat is present, this plant is not known to occur in the survey area and was not located during field surveys conducted for this project. Inundation, dam construction, and associated activities under the proposed action could adversely affect potential habitat for this species, and thus, potentially adversely affect undetected populations. Direct adverse effects could occur through inundation, damage by construction machinery or personnel, placement of fill materials, road modifications and maintenance, or vegetation clearing. Indirect adverse effects are also possible, potentially occurring as a result of light level changes, soil moisture changes resulting from inundation, or introduction of invasive plant species. The likelihood of adverse effects to this plant is low, as no populations of this species are known from the survey area and only small areas of potential open forest habitat occur in the survey area. The overall risk to this plant is moderate since not all suitable habitat was surveyed and undetected individuals could potentially be impacted by inundation. Due to the low likelihood of adverse effects, the proposed project may adversely impact undetected individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Tongass National Forest, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to mountain lady’s slipper due to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects are possible. Past projects, primarily construction of the existing dam and associated inundation, may have impacted undetected individuals or habitat in the survey area. Similarly, past activities and current or future projects that involve habitat disturbance, such as timber harvest and road construction, maintenance, and decommissioning activities, may have adversely affected or could adversely affect individuals or habitat of mountain lady’s slipper. Mountain lady’s slipper is known from two occurrences on the Tongass National Forest, one on the Wrangell, and one on the Juneau Ranger Districts. Additionally, this species is suspected on

Page | 19 Botany Resource Report FINAL

the Admiralty, Hoonah, Petersburg, and Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger Districts. Based on GIS analysis, past timber harvest and associated road construction activities on the Forest have not overlapped in space with documented occurrences of mountain lady’s slipper. Therefore, past Forest Service activities are not known to have adversely impacted documented populations of this species. However, past activities may have adversely impacted undocumented individuals or populations of mountain lady’s slipper across its known and/or suspected range on the Forest. The two known occurrences of mountain lady’s slipper on the Forest do not occur in the Value Comparison Units (VCUs) where future projects on the Forest are planned to occur (Appendix C). Therefore, reasonably foreseeable projects on the Forest would not impact the two known occurrences of mountain lady’s slipper. However, reasonably foreseeable projects have the potential to impact undocumented occurrences of this species on the Forest. An accurate model determining suitable habitat for mountain lady’s slipper on the Tongass National Forest has not been developed, thus, the extent of suitable habitat for this species on the Forest is unknown. Due to the lack of data on suitable habitat, the extent of impacts to this species habitat from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects is unknown. Because past activities are not known to have impacted and foreseeable future projects are not expected to impact documented occurrences of this mountain lady’s slipper, the overall risk to this plant on the Tongass National Forest as a result of this project viewed in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects is low.

5.1.3 Large Yellow Lady’s Slipper Orchid (Cypripedium parviflorum Salisb. var. pubescens (Willdenow) O. W. Knight) On the Tongass National Forest, large yellow lady’s slipper orchid grows in peatlands on limestone substrates (USDA Forest Service 2009). It may also potentially occur in dry to wet meadows (USDA Forest Service 2012). There are no known populations of this plant on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District; however, it is suspected to occur. This species was not observed during field surveys conducted for the proposed project. Additionally, only small areas of marginally suitable habitat, in noncalcareous peatland, are present within the survey area.

Direct and Indirect Effects The project would have no direct or indirect effects to known populations of large yellow lady’s slipper. The project would have no direct or indirect effects to preferred potential habitat of large yellow lady’s slipper orchid because preferred potential habitat for this species (peatlands on calcareous substrates) does not occur within the survey area. In addition, all (noncalcareous) peatland habitats in the survey area were searched during field surveys. It is therefore, unlikely that undetected populations would be affected. There is no risk of adverse effects to this plant, as no individuals of this species were observed during surveys of all potentially suitable habitats present in the survey area.

Cumulative Effects No direct or indirect effects from the project are expected and, therefore, the project would not represent an incremental addition to potential cumulative effects to this species.

5.1.4 Alaska Rein Orchid (Piperia unalascensis (Spreng.) Rydb.) On the Tongass National Forest, this orchid grows in dry, open sites, under tall shrubs in riparian zones, mesic meadows and drier areas in coniferous and mixed evergreen forests, and bogs and heath habitat from low elevation to subalpine areas (USDA Forest Service 2009). Alaska rein orchid is not known from, but is suspected on, the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District.

Page | 20 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Although it was not observed during field surveys conducted for the proposed project, potential habitat is present in forested areas, riparian areas along Lost Creek, and moss muskegs within the survey area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alaska rein orchid is not known to occur in the survey area and was not located during field surveys conducted for this project; therefore, the project would have no adverse effects to known populations of Alaska rein orchid. Not all potential habitat for this species was surveyed; however, inundation, dam construction, and associated activities under the proposed action could adversely affect potential habitat or undetected populations of this species. Direct adverse effects could occur through inundation, damage by construction machinery or personnel, placement of fill materials, road modifications and maintenance, or vegetation clearing. Indirect adverse effects are also possible, potentially occurring as a result of light level changes or soil moisture changes as a result of inundation or road modification activities. Because this plant may grow in a variety of habitats, much of the proposed disturbance that would result from the project has the potential to disturb habitat and undetected individuals of this species. In particular, approximately 93 acres of forested and muskeg vegetation would be inundated due to rising reservoir levels (Section 5.4 – Table 5). However, not all of this acreage contains suitable habitat for Alaska rein orchid. Due to the coarse nature of the vegetation mapping, it is difficult to determine exactly how much of the survey area contains suitable habitat. The overall risk to this plant is moderate since not all habitat was surveyed and undetected specimens could potentially be impacted by inundation and dam construction and associated activities. Because no populations of this species are known from the survey area and none were observed during surveys of the area, the proposed project may adversely impact undetected individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to the Alaska rein orchid due to past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects are possible. Past projects, primarily construction of the existing dam and associated inundation, may have impacted undetected individuals or habitat in the survey area. Similarly, past activities and current or future projects that involve habitat disturbance, such as timber harvest and road construction, maintenance, and decommissioning activities, may have adversely affected or could adversely affect individuals or habitat of Alaska rein orchid. There are eight known occurrences of Alaska rein orchid on the Tongass National Forest, two on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords and six on the Sitka Ranger Districts. However, this species is suspected on all Ranger Districts on the Forest. Based on GIS analysis, past timber harvest and associated road construction and improvement activities on the Forest have not overlapped in space with the eight known occurrences of Alaska rein orchid. These past activities on the Forest, therefore, are not known to have adversely impacted documented populations of this species. However, past activities may have adversely impacted undocumented individuals or populations of Alaska rein orchid on the Forest. The eight known occurrences of Alaska rein orchid on the Forest do not occur in the VCUs where future projects on the Forest are planned to occur (Appendix C). Therefore, reasonably foreseeable projects on the Forest would not impact known occurrences of Alaska rein orchid. However, these reasonably foreseeable projects have the potential to impact undocumented occurrences of this species.

Page | 21 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Although past activities are not known to have impacted documented populations of Alaska rein orchid, past activities have affected suitable habitat for this species on the Forest. GIS analysis compared the locations and extent of past timber harvest and associated road construction activities with locations and acres of suitable habitat modeled for Alaska rein orchid on the Forest. Based on this analysis, approximately 27,684 acres (or 8.5%) of modeled suitable habitat for this species on the Forest has been affected by past activities. Foreseeable future timber harvest activities on the Forest could impact approximately 1,784 additional acres of suitable habitat. The overall risk to the Alaska rein orchid on the Forest as a result of this project viewed in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects is low to moderate.

5.1.5 Lesser Round-Leaved Orchid (Platanthera orbiculata (Pursh)) On the Tongass National Forest, lesser round-leaved orchid is found in mesic areas of coniferous forests, forested wetlands, old-growth hemlock forests with high bryophyte cover and a red cedar component, along the edges of forested muskeg, and near open water or boggy areas (USDA Forest Service 2009; USDA Forest Service 2012). The lesser round-leaved orchid is documented on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District; however, this plant was not observed during field surveys. Potential habitat for lesser round-leaved orchid is present in the survey area.

Direct and Indirect Effects The project would have no adverse effects to known populations of lesser round-leaved orchid. Although potential habitat is present, this plant is not known to occur in the survey area and was not located during field surveys conducted for this project. Inundation, dam construction, and associated activities under the proposed action could adversely affect potential habitat for this species and thus potentially adversely affect undetected populations. Direct adverse effects could occur through inundation, damage by construction machinery or personnel, placement of fill materials, road modifications and maintenance, or vegetation clearing. Indirect adverse effects are also possible, potentially occurring as a result of light level changes or soil moisture changes as a result of inundation, and introduction of invasive plant species due to ground disturbing activities. Disturbance that would result from the proposed project, particularly inundation of approximately 93 acres of forested and muskeg vegetation (Section 5.4 – Table 5), has the potential to disturb habitat for and undetected individuals of lesser round-leaved orchid. However, not all of this acreage contains suitable habitat for lesser round-leaved orchid. Due to the coarse nature of the vegetation mapping, it is difficult to determine exactly how much of the survey area contains suitable habitat. The overall risk to this species is moderate since not all potential habitat was surveyed and undetected specimens could potentially be impacted by inundation and dam construction and associated activities. Because no populations of lesser round-leaved orchid are known from the survey area and none were observed during surveys of the area, the proposed project may adversely impact undetected individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to the lesser round-leaved orchid due to past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects are possible. Past projects, primarily construction of the existing dam and associated inundation, may have impacted undetected individuals or habitat in the survey area. Similarly, past activities and current or future projects that involve habitat disturbance, such as timber harvest and road construction, maintenance, and decommissioning activities, may have adversely affected or could adversely affect individuals or habitat of lesser round-leaved orchid.

Page | 22 Botany Resource Report FINAL

There are 298 documented occurrences of lesser round-leaved orchid on the Tongass National Forest including 5 on the Craig, 123 on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords, 136 on the Thorne Bay, and 34 on the Wrangell Ranger Districts. This species is also suspected to occur on the Petersburg Ranger District. Based on GIS analysis, past timber harvest and road construction activities on the Forest have occurred in areas with documented occurrences of lesser round-leaved orchid. These past activities have overlapped in space with 42 mapped element occurrences of this species and, therefore, may have adversely impacted individuals and populations of lesser round-leaved orchid. Past activities may have also adversely impacted undocumented populations of this species. Based on GIS analysis of available information on upcoming timber harvest projects on the Forest, 17 element occurrences of lesser-round-leaved orchid could potentially be impacted by timber harvest proposed for Margaret Creek -Traitor’s Cove, Shrimp Bay, and Big Thorne Stew (Appendix C). Additionally, several other element occurrences could be impacted by timber harvest activities in the Greater Staney Area and on Wrangell Island (Appendix C). In addition to potential adverse impacts to known populations of lesser round-leaved orchid from past activities, suitable habitat for this species has potentially been adversely impacted. GIS analysis compared the locations and extent of past timber harvest and road construction activities with locations and acres of suitable habitat modeled for lesser round-leaved orchid on the Forest. Approximately 307,212 acres (10.7%) of this species’ suitable habitat on the Forest (based on GIS models) has been impacted by past timber harvest and road construction activities. Foreseeable future timber harvest activities on the Tongass could impact approximately 13,448 additional acres of suitable habitat for lesser round-leaved orchid. The overall risk to this plant on the Forest as a result of this project viewed in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects is moderate due to past impacts and potential future adverse effects to populations and habitat of this species. 5.2 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for Rare Plants Populations of two rare plant species, northern bugleweed and Pacific buttercup, were observed in the survey area. Additionally, two species which have not previously been documented from Alaska, bog St. John’s-wort and Wallace’s spikemoss, were also observed in the survey area. The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to these four species are discussed in the followings sections.

5.2.1 Northern Bugleweed (Lycopus uniflorus Michx.) Northern bugleweed is a rhizomatous perennial herb in the mint family with square stems and tiny white flowers. Its habitat includes a variety of wet habitats. It is widely distributed across North America (USDA NRCS 2012). Northern bugleweed has been assigned the preliminary rank of S3S4 in Alaska (AKNHP 2012). The Rank S3S4 indicates that within the State of Alaska this plant is vulnerable in the state due to restricted range, relatively few populations, recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation (S3)/ apparently secure; uncommon but not rare (S4). It is known from 22 occurrences on the Tongass National Forest, including 13 locations on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District (AKNHP 2013a). In the survey area, one large population of several hundred individuals of northern bugleweed was documented and includes multiple locations in moist or inundated areas around Swan Lake. An additional population of approximately 20 to 40 individuals was observed in the survey area below the dam. This population was observed adjacent to the dam and associated parking area, and in other moist disturbed sites including existing roads and wet ditches. Additional undetected

Page | 23 Botany Resource Report FINAL

subpopulations in the survey area are possible because the shoreline of the entire survey area was not searched.

Direct and Indirect Impacts The proposed action would likely have direct adverse effects on many rhizomatous clones of individuals in the observed populations of northern bugleweed. In addition to individuals observed above the reservoir level, many observed individuals and clones were under water during field surveys in August 2012; however, they would be exposed when reservoir levels are lower. Individuals underwater but close to the water surface were observable; however, it is not known how far vertically downslope this species was or is able to grow with the current hydrological fluctuation regime. If the dam pool was raised 15 vertical feet it is likely that many of the individuals observed underwater at the current maximum reservoir level would not survive. Additionally, approximately 42.1 acres of wetland habitat would be inundated due to rising reservoir levels under the proposed action (Tetra Tech 2014e). It is probable; however, that this species would be able to recolonize the new reservoir margin, depending on the habitat that would be adjacent to the new maximum pool level. Direct adverse effects to the population of this species observed in the survey area below the dam could occur through damage by construction machinery or personnel, placement of fill material, construction of temporary staging areas, and road modifications and maintenance. Indirect adverse effects to plants are also possible, potentially occurring as a result of light level changes or water table level changes resulting from inundation, as well as the introduction of invasive plant species from construction and operation of the expanded dam and associated facilities. The risk of adverse effects to this species is high, as permanent impacts to individuals and potential habitat are likely to result from the Project.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to northern bugleweed due to past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects are possible. Past projects, primarily construction of the existing dam and associated inundation, may have adversely impacted undetected individuals or habitat in the survey area. Similarly, past activities, as well as, current or future projects that involve habitat disturbance, such as timber harvest and road construction and maintenance activities on Forest land, may have adversely affected or could adversely affect individuals or habitat of northern bugleweed. Based on GIS analysis of available information, past timber harvest and road construction activities on the Forest have occurred in areas with documented occurrences of northern bugleweed. Two known occurrences of Pacific buttercup may have been impacted by these activities in the Thorne Bay Ranger District. Reasonably foreseeable projects on the Forest that could potentially impact known occurrences of northern bugleweed include timber harvest, pre- commercial thinning, road construction, maintenance and decommissioning, and restoration and enhancement activities. Based on available information, including GIS layers, upcoming timber harvest activities on the Forest would not impact known occurrences of northern bugleweed. However, five known occurrences of northern bugleweed occur in VCUs on the Forest where reasonably foreseeable future activities are proposed to occur (Appendix C). This includes activities proposed for Shrimp Bay and Saddle Lakes on the Ketchikan-Misty fiords Ranger District and Neck and Twin Lakes on the Thorne Bay Ranger District (Appendix C). The proposed project viewed in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would contribute to cumulative effects to this species based on possible adverse effects to habitat, known and potentially unknown populations, as well as direct impacts that would likely occur under the Swan Lake Expansion Project.

Page | 24 Botany Resource Report FINAL

5.2.2 Pacific Buttercup (Ranunculus pacificus (Hulten) L.D.Benson) Pacific buttercup is a perennial buttercup species with large yellow flowers and dissected leaves. Its habitat is along streams and in meadows (FNA 1993). It is an Alaskan endemic known from southeast Alaska and the Aleutian chain (USDA NRCS 2012). Pacific buttercup has been assigned a rank of S3S4 in Alaska (AKNHP 2012). The Rank S3S4 indicates that within Alaska this plant is vulnerable due to restricted range, relatively few populations, recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation (S3); apparently secure; uncommon but not rare (S4). Pacific buttercup is known from 19 occurrences on the Tongass National Forest; however, none of them are on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District (AKNHP 2013b). A small Pacific buttercup population was located in the survey area, growing on mossy log with a number of other forb species on the riparian terrace of Lost Creek. Approximately 10 individuals were observed in this population.

Direct and Indirect Impacts The proposed project would likely have direct adverse effects on the 10 plants in the observed population because most of the population would be inundated by the 15-foot increase in maximum full pool elevation. Additionally, approximately 26 acres of potential habitat, in the area along Lost Creek, would be impacted due to rising reservoir levels (Section 5.4 – Table 5). Indirect adverse effects to plants and potential habitat not inundated are also possible, potentially occurring as a result of light level changes or water table level changes resulting from inundation. The presence of additional undetected populations in the survey area is possible, but unlikely, because the survey area includes only limited additional unsurveyed habitat for this species. The risk of adverse effects to this species is high, as permanent impacts to individuals and potential habitat are likely to result from the Project.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to Pacific buttercup due to past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects are possible. Past projects, primarily construction of the existing dam and associated inundation, may have adversely impacted undetected individuals or habitat in the survey area. Similarly, past activities as well as current or future projects that involve habitat disturbance, such as road maintenance activities on Forest land, may have adversely affected or could adversely affect individuals or habitat of Pacific buttercup. Based on GIS analysis of available information, past timber harvest and road construction activities on the Forest have occurred in areas with documented occurrences of Pacific buttercup. Three known occurrences of Pacific buttercup may have been impacted by past timber harvest and associated road construction activities on the Thorne Bay Ranger District. Reasonably foreseeable projects on the Forest that could potentially impact known occurrences of Pacific buttercup include timber harvest, pre-commercial thinning, road construction, maintenance and decommissioning, and restoration and enhancement activities. Based on available information including GIS layers, upcoming timber harvest activities on the Forest would not impact known occurrences of Pacific buttercup. However, six known occurrences of Pacific buttercup occur in VCUs on the Forest where reasonably foreseeable future activities are proposed to occur (Appendix C). This includes activities proposed for Neck and Twin Lakes, Koz VMP, and the Greater Staney Area on the Thorne Bay Ranger District (Appendix C). The proposed project viewed in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would contribute to cumulative effects to this species based on possible adverse effects to habitat, known and potentially unknown populations, as well as direct impacts that would likely occur under the Swan Lake Expansion Project.

Page | 25 Botany Resource Report FINAL

5.2.3 Wallace’s Spikemoss (Selaginella wallacei Heiron.) Wallace’s spikemoss is a trailing, herbaceous, spore-producing species that typically grows in open mats on exposed rocky sites (Hitchcock et al. 1973). Its range includes western North America up to British Columbia (USDA NRCS 2012). The farthest north a previously documented population is from near Prince Rupert in British Columbia, approximately 110 miles southeast of Swan Lake. A small Wallace’s spikemoss population was located in the survey area. One sterile, trailing plant was observed along the reservoir margin on a seepy, southeast-facing cliff with thick moss. The survey area; however was incompletely surveyed for this species and this habitat type is common within the survey area. The specimen was verified by botanist P. Zika (Peter Zika, Museum Research Associate, WTU Herbarium, personal communication, October 2012). Collections of this species will be deposited at the University of Alaska Museum of the North Herbarium and the University of Washington Herbarium.

Direct and Indirect Impacts The proposed project would likely have direct adverse effects on the one observed individual of Wallace’s spikemoss because at least a portion of the plant would be inundated by the 15-foot dam pool raise. Indirect adverse effects to the portions of the plant that are not inundated are also possible. This could potentially occur as a result of light level changes. Direct adverse effects due to inundation could also occur to undetected individuals or habitat of this species as the presence of additional undetected populations in the survey area is likely because exposed rocky habitat is common and the survey area was not completely surveyed for this species. The risk of adverse effects to this species is high, as permanent impacts to individuals and potential habitat are likely to result from the Project.

Cumulative Effects Because this species has not been previously documented in Alaska, its range and distribution in Alaska and in the vicinity of the proposed project is unknown. Cumulative effects to Wallace’s spikemoss due to past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects are possible. Past projects, primarily construction of the existing dam and associated inundation, may have impacted undetected individuals or habitat in the survey area. Similarly, current or future projects that involve disturbance to potential habitat for this species, such as timber harvest, precommercial thinning, road maintenance, decommissioning, and storage activities on Forest land, could affect undetected individuals or habitat. Assuming additional undocumented populations of this species occur on the Forest, the proposed project viewed in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would contribute to cumulative effects to this species based on possible adverse effects to potential habitat or unknown populations, as well as direct impacts that would likely occur under the Swan Lake Expansion Project.

5.2.4 Bog St. John’s-wort (Hypericum anagalloides Cham. & Schltdl.) Bog St. John’s-wort is a small, perennial herb in the St. John’s-wort family with matted stems and tiny, orangish-yellow flowers. Habitat for this species includes a variety of moist to wet habitats including meadows, marshes, seeps, springs, streambanks, and lake margins (Baldwin et al. 2012) . It is widely distributed across western North America (USDA NRCS 2012). The most northern population previously documented is on McCauley Island in British Columbia, approximately 160 miles south of Swan Lake. In the survey area, two populations of bog St. John’s-wort were observed. One population of approximately 10 to 20 individuals was growing on a large floating log mat on open water in

Page | 26 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Swan Lake. The other population of approximately 10 to 20 individuals was observed in the vicinity of Lost Creek. The taxonomy of this species was verified by Kathryn Beck, one of the botanists conducting surveys for the Project, using Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973. Additionally, Ms. Beck is very familiar with this species, having observed it several times in other portions of its range. Voucher specimens of this species were not collected.

Direct and Indirect Impacts The proposed project would likely have direct adverse effects on the bog St. John’s-wort population near Lost Creek because at least some of the plants would be inundated by the 15-foot dam pool raise. The population on the floating log mat would likely keep floating amidst the 15- foot dam pool raise. Approximately 84.6 acres of potential habitat (i.e., forested wetlands, emergent wetlands, and moss muskegs) would be inundated due to rising reservoir levels under the proposed action (Tetra Tech 2014e). Indirect adverse effects to plants not inundated are also possible, potentially occurring as a result of light level changes or water table level changes resulting from inundation. The presence of additional undetected populations in the survey area is likely because suitable habitat for this species is common in the and the survey area was not completely surveyed for this species. The risk of adverse effects to this species is high, as permanent impacts to individuals and potential habitat are likely to result from the Project.

Cumulative Effects Because this species has not been previously documented in Alaska, its range and distribution in Alaska and in the vicinity of the proposed project is unknown. Cumulative effects to bog St. John’s-wort due to past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects are possible. Past projects, primarily construction of the existing dam and associated inundation, may have impacted undetected individuals or habitat in the survey area. Similarly, past activities, and current or future projects that involve habitat disturbance, such as timber harvest, precommercial thinning, and road maintenance and decommissioning activities on Forest land, could affect undetected individuals or habitat of bog St. John’s-wort. Assuming additional undetected populations of this species occur on the Forest, the proposed project viewed in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would contribute to cumulative effects to this species based on possible adverse effects to potential habitat or unknown populations, as well as direct impacts that would likely occur under the Swan Lake Expansion Project. 5.3 Mitigation As most populations of the rare plants observed in the survey area would likely be inundated with rising reservoir levels, avoidance of impacts to these populations is not feasible. The following measures are suggested mitigation measures for the impacts to rare species in the survey area. Final mitigation measures would be developed in collaboration with Forest Service botanist/ecologists. • Conduct pre-construction surveys (completed) for rare plants in areas of potential habitat in the survey area to obtain population estimates for each rare plant species observed. • Exclusion fencing/flagging will be placed around rare plant populations, outside of the inundation zone, to protect plants during construction. Salvage populations of rare plants from inundation zones and transplant into appropriate habitat, to the extent possible. • If any previously undiscovered rare or sensitive plants are encountered at any time prior to or during implementation of this project, the Forest Service botanist/ecologist shall be

Page | 27 Botany Resource Report FINAL

notified. Following review of the population, avoidance measures or mitigation measures will be applied. These may include the measures listed above. If rare plant populations are observed in areas that won’t be inundated but may be impacted by project construction the following measures may be implemented:

o Construction activities will be sited to avoid populations of rare plants to the extent possible.

o Exclusion fencing/flagging will be placed around rare plant populations to protect plants during construction. • Use of certified weed-free fill material for dam construction and modifications to existing access roads. 5.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for General Vegetation There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to general vegetation types as a result of the No Action Alternative. Impacts to old-growth, young-growth, and unproductive forest from the proposed Project are described below. Impacts to general vegetation types are summarized in Table 5. As described in Section 4.5, impacts to areas mapped as forested muskeg habitat are discussed in the Wetlands Resource Report prepared for this project. Table 5. Acres of Impacts to General Vegetation Types due to the Proposed Action Acres Impacted by Construction Acres Impacted Acres Total Acres in Activities by Inundation Impacted on Vegetation Type 1/ Survey area (below the dam)2/ (above the dam) 3/ NFS Land Old Growth 109.9 0.0 62.9 10.9 Young Growth 10.6 0.0 9.8 0.0 Forested Muskeg 3.9 0.0 3.9 0.0 Unproductive Forest 16.4 0.0 16.4 15.1 Water4/ 1479.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 1620.7 0.0 93.0 26.0 1/ Data come from the Tongass National Forest tree Size and Density mapping model (SD7) and the Tongass National Forest Cover Type GIS layers. 2/ Although 54 acres are mapped as old growth, young growth, unproductive forest, and forested muskeg within the FERC boundary below the dam, the majority of construction activities associated with expansion of the new dam would occur in areas already disturbed or developed for construction of the existing dam. 3/ Surface area revised based on LiDAR study results conducted in November 2013 (Tetra Tech 2014a). 4/ This area is based on GIS analysis and is primarily the result of resolution of map layers; includes the area of Lost Creek within the FERC boundary.

It should be noted that the actual amount of old growth that may be impacted by the proposed project will be further refined using LiDAR. It is anticipated that overall impacts will be less than reported here (analyzed at the 350-foot elevation) and the proposed elevation change up to 345- foot elevation.

Page | 28 Botany Resource Report FINAL

5.4.1 Old-Growth Forest

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct impacts to old-growth forest would result from inundation from the 15-foot increase in maximum full pool reservoir levels. Impacts to old-growth forest from rising reservoir levels would result in the permanent loss of old-growth trees that would be submerged. It is assumed that all old growth within the survey area above the dam (approximately 63 acres) would be lost over time. This includes approximately 11 acres on NFS land. Rising reservoir levels could also indirectly alter the nature and stability of the adjacent forest. Indirect effects on old growth could occur through changes in hydrology and soil structure and stability not only from rising reservoir levels but also from fluctuating reservoir levels. This could result in additional loss of old-growth trees and/or a change in species composition in areas subjected to rising and fluctuating reservoir levels. Plant species adapted to greater soil moisture and occasional inundation would become established in areas adjacent to the new maximum pool level. Although unlikely, due to the lack of invasive plant species currently present in the survey area above the dam, indirect effects to old-growth forest could also occur from invasive plant spread. Disturbance to or adjacent to old-growth forest could increase the risk for invasive plant establishment. Impacts due to invasive species from the proposed project are addressed in the Invasive Plant Risk Assessment prepared for this project (Tetra Tech 2013a). Although mapped as old-growth, the majority of construction activities associated with expansion of the new dam would occur in areas already disturbed or developed for construction of the existing dam. Therefore, old-growth forest would not be impacted by construction activities. In portions of the survey area within state lands, it is assumed that all merchantable trees within the inundation zone would be cut (stumps left intact) and removed where feasible and/or required by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. A timber cruise/timber volume calculation will be conducted to estimate the actual amount of timber that would be cut and removed, and a logging plan would be developed and approved by the appropriate agency. Within those areas of the project that are within the Tongass National Forest, there will be no timber removal. A timber cruise would be conducted at the appropriate time to estimate the amount of merchantable timber that could be lost, and a settlement with the Forest Service will be concluded. However, as noted above, the survey area includes the area up to 350 feet elevation, the area of impacts from the proposed project anticipates that the normal maximum surface area of the reservoir would increase from 330 feet to 345 feet.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to old growth would occur as a result of past, present, and future projects. The proposed action would contribute to approximately 63 acres of cumulative impact to old-growth forest. Past projects, primarily timber harvest and construction of the existing dam and associated inundation impacted old-growth forest in the survey area. Similarly, current or future projects, such as timber harvest and road maintenance activities on, could old-growth forest on the Tongass National Forest (see Appendix C for additional information on current and reasonably foreseeable projects).

Page | 29 Botany Resource Report FINAL

5.4.2 Young-Growth Forest

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct impacts to young growth would result from inundation due to rising reservoir levels. It is assumed that all young growth within the survey area above the dam (approximately 10 acres) would be lost. This includes approximately less than 1 acre on NFS lands. Similar to old-growth forest, rising reservoir levels would result in the permanent loss of young growth trees that would be submerged. Rising reservoir levels could also indirectly alter the nature and stability of the adjacent forest. Indirect effects on young-growth forest could occur through changes in hydrology and soil structure and stability not only from rising reservoir levels but also from fluctuating reservoir levels. Although unlikely, due to the lack of invasive plant species currently present in the survey area above the dam, indirect effects to young-growth forest could also occur from invasive plant spread. Disturbance to or adjacent to young-growth forest could increase the risk for invasive plant establishment. Impacts due to invasive species from the proposed project are addressed in the Invasive Plant Risk Assessment prepared for this project (Tetra Tech 2014b). As stated above, the majority of construction activities associated with expansion of the new dam would occur in areas already disturbed or developed for construction of the existing dam which consists primarily of bare ground or herbaceous species. Therefore, only minimal young-growth forest would likely be impacted by construction activities.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to young growth would occur as a result of past, present, and future projects. The proposed project would contribute to approximately 11 acres of cumulative impacts to young-growth forest in the survey area. Past projects, primarily timber harvest and construction of the existing dam and associated inundation likely impacted young-growth forest in the survey area. Similarly, current or future projects such as timber harvest and road maintenance activities, could impact young-growth forest on the Tongass National Forest (see Appendix C for additional information on current and reasonably foreseeable projects).

5.4.3 Unproductive Forest

Direct and Indirect Effects Similar to old-growth and young-growth forest, rising reservoir levels would result in the permanent loss of vegetation in unproductive forest that would be submerged. It is assumed that all areas unproductive forest within the survey area above the dam (approximately 16.4 acres) would be lost. This includes approximately 15.1 acres of unproductive forest on NFS land. Rising reservoir levels could also indirectly alter the nature and stability of the adjacent forest. Indirect effects on unproductive forest could occur through changes in hydrology and soil structure and stability not only from rising reservoir levels but also from fluctuating reservoir levels. As discussed above, although unlikely, due to the lack of invasive plant species currently present in the survey area above the dam, indirect effects to unproductive forest could also occur from invasive plant spread. Disturbance to or adjacent to unproductive forest could increase the risk for invasive plant establishment. Impacts due to invasive species from the proposed project are addressed in the Invasive Plant Risk Assessment prepared for this project (Tetra Tech 2013a). No unproductive forest is mapped in the survey area below the dam; therefore, there would be no impacts to unproductive forest due to activities associated with construction of the expanded dam.

Page | 30 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to unproductive forest areas would occur as a result of past, present, and future projects. The proposed project would contribute to approximately 16.4 acres of cumulative impacts to unproductive forest in the survey area. Past projects, primarily timber harvest and construction of the existing dam and associated inundation likely impacted young-growth forest in the survey area. Similarly, current or future projects such as road maintenance activities could impact unproductive forest on the Tongass National Forest (see Appendix C for additional information on current and reasonably foreseeable projects). 5.5 Mitigation Measures for General Vegetation Avoidance of impacts to productive old-growth, young-growth, and unproductive forest resulting from the proposed 15-foot increase in pool elevation would not be feasible. In portions of the survey area within state lands; however, it is assumed that all merchantable trees within the inundation zone would be cut (stumps left intact) and removed where feasible and/or required by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. A timber cruise will be conducted to estimate the actual amount of timber that would be cut and removed, and a logging plan would be developed and approved by the appropriate agency. Approximately 26 acres have been identified in the Lost Creek area (within the 350-foot elevation contour), which were not part of the original conveyed lands. The entirety of this area is owned by the Forest Service. Within areas of the Project that are within the Tongass National Forest, there will be no timber removal. A cruise, using a stratified design, would be conducted at the appropriate time to estimate the amount of merchantable timber that could be lost, and a settlement with the Forest Service will be concluded. A small amount of NFS lands (1.6 acres) is mapped below the existing dam stemming from minor differences in the FERC and Tongass ownership boundaries; however, no NFS lands below the dam will be impacted from the proposed project construction activities.

6 References AKNHP. 2012. Alaska Natural Heritage Program Rare Vascular Plant Tracking List. Available online at: http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/rare-plants-species-lists/2012-rare- vascular-plant-list. AKNHP. 2013a. Alaska Natural Heritage Program Rare Vascular Plant List: Occurrences for Lycopus uniflorus. Available online at: http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/rare-plants- species-lists/rare-vascular-hulten/#content AKNHP. 2013b. Alaska Natural Heritage Program Rare Vascular Plant List: Occurrences for Ranunculus pacificus. Available online at: http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/rare- plants-species-lists/rare-vascular-hulten/#content Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Pattterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. Second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 1568 pp. Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria. 2012. Herbarium Specimens from the Pacific Northwest. Available online at: http://www.pnwherbaria.org/index.php

Page | 31 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Dillman, K.L., P.C. Crosse, and C. Sever. 2009. Tongass National Forest-Guidance for Biological Evaluations: Sensitive Plants. USDA Forest Service. Tongass National Forest. March. FNA (Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds). 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 16+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 1, 1993; vol. 2, 1993; vol. 3, 1997; vol. 4, 2003; vol. 5, 2005; vol. 7, 2010; vol. 8, 2009; vol. 19, 2006; vol. 20, 2006; vol. 21, 2006; vol. 22, 2000; vol. 23, 2002; vol. 24, 2007; vol. 25, 2003; vol. 26, 2002; vol. 27, 2007. Heithecker, T. and C. Halpern. 2007. Edge-related Gradients in Microclimates in Forest Aggregrates Following Structural Retention Harvests in Western Washington. Forest and Ecology Management 248 (2007) 163-173. May 8, 2007. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London. Hulten, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Swan Lake Project Final Reports. 2005. Part 12-Independent Consultant Inspection Report, Supporting Technical Information Document, and Potential Failure Mode Analysis Report, prepared for the Four Dam Pool Power Agency, February 2005. Tetra Tech. 2012. Pre-Field Review Worksheet for Sensitive Plants. Prepared for the Ketchikan- Misty Fiords Ranger District, Tongass National Forest by Kathryn Beck and Steve Negri, Tetra Tech. July. Tetra Tech 2014a. Swan Lake Multibeam Bathymetric and Vessel-Mounted LiDAR Survey Technical Memorandum–Survey Results. Prepared for: McMillen, LLC and the Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA). 69 pp. January. Tetra Tech. 2014b. Final Invasive Plant Risk Assessment: Swan Lake Expansion Project. Prepared for the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, Tongass National Forest by Karen Brimacombe, Tetra Tech. January. Tetra Tech. 2014c. Final Biological Evaluation for Plants: Swan Lake Expansion Project. Prepared for the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, Tongass National Forest by Kathyrn Beck, Beck Botanical Services and Karen Brimacombe, Tetra Tech. January. Tetra Tech. 2014d. Wildlife and Subsistence Resource Report. Swan Lake Expansion Project. Prepared for the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, Tongass National Forest by Brita Woeck and Steve Negri, Tetra Tech. January. Tetra Tech. 2014e. Final Wetlands Resource Report: Swan Lake Expansion Project. Prepared for the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, Tongass National Forest by Karen Brimacombe, Tetra Tech. January. University of Alaska Museum of the North. 2012. Herbarium (ALA). Available online at: http://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/herb/ USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 1983. Fish and Wildlife Policy. Departmental Regulation 9500-004. April 28. Available online at: http://www.ocio.usda.gov/directives/doc/DR9500-004.pdf

Page | 32 Botany Resource Report FINAL

USDA Forest Service (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1976. National Forest Management Act. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/NFMA1976.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Tongass National Forest: Land and Resource Management Plan. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Alaska Region: USDA Forest Service, Tongass Land Management Planning Team, Juneau. USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Plan Amendment. Volume I. USDA Forest Service R10- MB-603c. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. USDA Forest Service. 2009. Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species List, Assessment and Proposed Revisions to the 2002 List. Tongass National Forest, Alaska. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species List. Tongass National Forest, Alaska. May. USDA NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2012. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, September 2012). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC.

Page | 33 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Appendix A – Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species List, May 2012

Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table A-1. Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species List, May 2012 Ranger Tongass Plant Name General Habitat District NF

1/

USDA

drained open areas

Plant

Scientific Name Code Common Name Human disturbance historic well drained Maritime beach Upper beach meadow Well Tall shrubland ecotone forest Beach/ edge Forest Forest forest Open riverbank Streamside, Bog Heath meadow Dry meadow Wet Alpine and subalpine Talus slopes outcrop Rock Ultramafic Calcareous KETCHIKAN NATIONALTONGASS FOREST Aphragmus APES Eschscholtz's X X S eschscholtzianus little nightmare Botrychium BOSP4 Spatulate X X X X S K spathulatum moonwort Botrychium tunux BOTU3 Moosewort fern X X X X X K Botrychium BOYA Moonwort fern, X X X X K yaaxudakeit no common name Cirsium edule var. CIEDM Edible thistle X X X K K macounii Cochlearia COSE8 Sessileleaf X sessilifolia scurvygrass Cypripedium CYGU Spotted lady’s X X X guttatum slipper Cypripedium CYMO2 Mountain lady’s X X X X S K montanum slipper Cypripedium CYPAP3 Large yellow parviflorum lady’s slipper X X X S K var. pubescens Ligusticum calderi LICA15 Calder’s lovage X X X X S K

Lobaria LOAM6 Lichen, no X K K amplissima common name Papaver PAAL5 Pale poppy X X X X S alboroseum

Page | A-1 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table A-1. Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species List, May 2012 (continued) Ranger Tongass Plant Name General Habitat District NF

1/

USDA

drained open areas

Plant Common

Scientific Name code Name Human disturbance historic well drained Maritime beach Upper beach meadow Well Tall shrubland ecotone forest Beach/ edge Forest Forest forest Open riverbank Streamside, Bog Heath meadow Dry meadow Wet Alpine and subalpine Talus slopes outcrop Rock Ultramafic Calcareous KETCHIKAN NATIONALTONGASS FOREST Piperia PIUN3 Alaska rein X X X X X S K unalascensis orchid Platanthera PLOR4 Lesser round- X X X X K K orbiculata leaved orchid Polystichum POKR Kruckeberg’s X X X K K kruckebergii swordfern Romanzoffia ROUN Unalaska mist- X X X K unalaschcensis maid Sidalcea SIHE4 Henderson’s X X S K hendersonii checkermallow Tanacetum TABIH Dune tansy bipinnatum X S K subsp. huronense 1/ K=Known occurences S=Suspected to occur X=Known occurences

Page | A-2 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Appendix B – Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List

Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Abies amabilis Douglas ex Picea amabilis Douglas ex Loudon, Pinus amabilis Douglas G5 S3* J. Forbes Agoseris Agoseris angustissima Greene, A. arachnoidea Rydberg, A. carnea Rydberg, A. gaspensis Fernald, A. G5T4T5 S1S2 aurantiaca (Hooker) gracilens (A. Gray) Greene, A. gracilens var. greenei (A. Gray) S. F. Blak, A. greenei (A. Gray) Rydberg, A. Greene var. aurantiaca howellii Greene, A. lackschewitzii Douglas M. Henderson & R. K. Moseley, A. nana Rydberg, A. naskapensis J. Rousseau & Raymond, A. prionophylla Greene, A. subalpina G. N. Jones, A. vulcanica Greene, Troximon aurantiacum Hooker Agoseris glauca (Pursh) Agoseris altissima Rydberg, A. aspera (Rydberg) Rydberg, A. eisenhoweri B. Boivin, A. G5 S2S3Q Rafinesque glauca ssp. aspera (Rydberg) Piper, A. glauca var. aspera (Rydberg) Cronquist, A. glauca var. pumila (Nuttall) Garrett, A. glauca ssp. scorzonerifolia (Schrader) Piper, A. glauca var. villosa (Rydberg) G. L. Wittrock, A. isomeris Greene, A. lacera Greene, A. lanulosa Greene, A. lapathifolia Greene, A. leontodon Rydberg var. aspera Rydberg, A. leontodon var. pygmaea Rydberg, A. longissima Greene, A. longula Greene, A. maculata Rydberg, A. microdonta Greene, A. procera Greene, A. pubescens Rydberg, A. pumila (Nuttall) Rydberg, A. scorzonerifolia (Schrader) Greene, A. turbinata Rydberg, A. vestita Greene, A. vicinalis Greene, A. villosa Rydberg, Troximon glaucum Pursh, Troximon glaucum var. dasycephalum Torrey & A. Gray Agrostis clavata Trin. None G4G5 S1S2 Allium victorialis L. Allium victorialis ssp. platyphyllum Hultén G5 S1* Alyssum obovatum (C. A. Alyssum americanum Greene, A. biovulatum N. Busch, A. fallax Nyárády, Odontarrhena obovata C. A. Mey. G5 S2S3 Mey.) Turcz. Ambrosia Ambrosia chamissonis var. bipinnatisecta (Lessing) J. T. Howell, Franseria chamissonis Lessing, F. G4G5 S2 chamissonis (Lessing) chamissonis ssp. bipinnatisecta (Lessing) Wiggins & Stockwell Greene Antennaria densifolia A. E. Antennaria ellyae A. E. Porsild G3 S2 Porsild Antennaria dioica (L.) Antennaria hyperborea D. Don, A. insularis Greene, Gnaphalium dioicum L. G5 S2S3 Gaertner Apocynum Apocynum ambigens Greene, A. androsaemifoliumssp. pumilum (A. Gray) B. Boivin, A. G5 S3 androsaemifolium L. androsaemifoliumvar. glabrum Macoun, A. androsaemifoliumvar. griseum (Greene) Bég. & Beloserky, A. androsaemifoliumvar. incanum A. DC., A. androsaemifoliumvar. intermedium Woodson, A. androsaemifoliumvar. pumilum A. Gray, A. androsaemifoliumvar. tomentellum (Greene) B. Boivin, A. androsaemifoliumvar. woodsonii B. Boivin, A. pumilum (A. Gray) Greene, A. pumilum var. rhomboideum (Greene) Bég. & Beloserky, A. scopulorum Greene ex Rydb. Arenaria longipedunculata None G3G4Q S3S4 Hultén

Page | B-1 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Arnica lonchophylla Greene Arnica angustifolia ssp. lonchophylla (Greene) G. W. Douglas & Ruyle-Douglas G4T4 S1S2 ssp. lonchophylla Arnica mollis Hooker None G5 S2Q Arnica ovata Greene Arnica diversifolia Greene, A. latifolia var. viscidula A. Gray G5 S3S4Q Artemisia aleutica Hultén None G1 S1 Artemisia dracunculus L. Artemisia aromatic A. Nelson, A. dracunculina S. Watson, A. dracunculoides Pursh, A. G5 S1S2 dracunculoides ssp. dracunculina (S. Watson) H. M. Hall & Clements, A. glauca Pallas ex Willdenow, A. glauca var. megacephala B. Boivin Artemisia Artemisia globularia ssp. lutea (Hultén) L. M. Shultz G4TNR S2 globularia var. lutea Hultén Artemisia rupestris L. Absinthium viridifolium var. rupestre (L.) Besser, Artemisia rupestris ssp. woodii Neilson G3? SP Artemisia Ajania senjavinensis (Bess.) Poljakov, Artemisia androsacea Seem. G3 S3 senjavinensis Bess. Artemisia tanacetifolia L. Artemisia laciniata auct. non Willd., Artemisia laciniatiformis auct. non Kom. GNR S3 Asplenium trichomanes None G5T5? S2S3 ssp. quadrivalens D. E. Meyer Astragalus agrestis Douglas Astragalus danicus var. dasyglottis (Fisch. ex DC.) B. Boivin, Astragalus dasyglottis Fisch. ex DC., Astragalus G5 S1 ex G. Don goniatus Nutt., Astragalus hypoglottis Hook. Astragalus robbinsii ssp. Astragalus harringtonii (Rydb.) Coville & Standl. ex Hultén, Astragalus robbinsii ssp. harringtonii (Rydb.) G5T3 S3 harringtonii (Rydb.) Hultén, Atelophragma harringtonii Rydb. Barneby Astragalus williamsii Rydb. None G4 S3 Bidens tripartita L. Bidens comosa (A. Gray) Wiegand G5 S1 Blysmopsis rufa (Hudson) Blysmus rufus (Hudson) Link, Schoenus rufus Hudson, Scirpus rufus (Hudson) Schrader, S. GNR SH* Oteng-Yeboah rufus var. neogaeus Fernald Boechera calderi (G. A. Arabis calderi G. A. Mulligan G4? S1 Mulligan) Windham & Al- Shehbaz Boechera Arabis drepanoloba Greene, A. drummondii var. oreophila (Rydberg) M. Hopkins, A. G4? S1 drepanoloba (Greene) lemmonii var. drepanoloba (Greene) Rollins, A. oreophila Rydberg Windham & Al-Shehbaz

Page | B-2 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Boechera lemmonii (S. Arabis lemmonii S. Watson, A. bracteolata Greene, A. canescens var. latifolia S. Watson, A. codyi G. A. G5 S1S2 Watson) W. A. Weber Mulligan, A. egglestonii Rydberg, A. kennedyi Greene, A. latifolia (S. Watson) Piper, A. oreocallis Greene, A. polyclada Greene, A. semisepulta Greene Bolboschoenus Schoenoplectus maritimus (L.) Lye, Scirpus maritimus L. GNRTN S3* maritimus ssp. paludosus R (A. Nelson) T. Koyama Botrychium None G2G3 S3 alaskense Wagner & Grant Botrychium ascendens W. None G2G3 S2S3 H. Wagner Botrychium lineare W. H. None G2? S1 Wagner Botrychium montanum W. None G3 S1 H. Wagner Botrychium robustum Rupr. Botrychium multifidum var. robustum (Rupr.) C. Christens. G4G5 S1S2 Botrychium None G3 S1 spathulatum W. H. Wagner Botrychium None G2G3 S2 tunux Stensvold & Farrar Botrychium Botrypus virginianus (L.) Holub, Botrychium virginianum var. europaeum Ångstr., B. G5 S3 virginianum (L.) Swartz virginianum ssp. europaeum (Ångstr.) R. T. Clausen, Osmunda virginiana L Botrychium None G2 S2 yaaxudakeit Stensvold & Farrar Brasenia schreberi J. F. Brasenia peltata Pursh G5 S1* Gmel. Cardamine angulata Hook. Cardamine angulata var. alba Torrey & A. Gray, C. angulata var. hirsuta O. E. Schulz, C. G5 S1S2 angulata var. pentaphylla O. E. Schulz, Dentaria grandiflora Rafinesque Cardamine Cardamine microphylla ssp. blaisdellii (Eastwood) D. F. Murray & S. Kelso, C. G3G4 S3S4 blaisdellii Eastwood microphylla var. blaisdellii (Eastwood) Khatri Cardamine microphylla M. Cardamine microphylla M. F. Adams aff. microphylla, Cardamine minuta Willd. ex. DC. G3G4 S2 F. Adams

Page | B-3 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Cardamine Cardamine flexuosa ssp. pensylvanica (Muhl. ex Willd.) O. E. Schulz, C. hirsuta var. pensylvanica (Muhl. ex G5 S1 pensylvanica Muhl. ex Willd.) P. W. Graff, C. multifolia Rydberg, C. pensylvanica var. brittoniana Farwell, C. Willd. rotundifolia var. diversifolia O. E. Schulz, Dracamine pensylvanica (Muhl. ex Willd.) Nieuwland Carex adelostoma V. I. Carex buxbaumii var. alpicola Hartman, C. buxbaumii var. alpina Hartman, C. G4 S1S2* Krecz. buxbaumii var. mutica Hartman, C. buxbaumii ssp. mutica (Hartman) Isoviita, C. morrisseyi A. E. Porsild Carex atherodes Spreng. None G5 S3S4* Carex athrostachya Olney None G5 S1* Carex atratiformis Britt. C. atrata L. ssp. atratiformis (Britt.) Kükenthal, C. atratiformis ssp. raymondii (Calder) A. E. Porsild, C. G5 S3* ovata Rudge, C. raymondii Calder Carex bebbii Olney ex Carex tribuloides var. bebbii L. H. Bailey G5 S1S2* Fernald Carex None G5T3T4 SU* brunnescens ssp. alaskana Kalela Carex Carex deflexa var. deanii L. H. Bailey G5 S2S3* deflexa Hornem. var. deflex a Carex deweyana Schwein. None G5 S2S3* var. deweyana Carex eburnea Boott None G5 S3* Carex Carex angustior Mack., C. angustior var. gracilenta R. T. Clausen & Wahl, C. cephalantha (L. H. Bailey) E. P. G5T5 S1S2* echinata Murray ssp. echin Bicknell, C. echinata var. angustata (Carey) Bailey, C. hawaiiensis H. St. John, C. josselynii (Fern.) Mack. ex ata Pease, C. laricina Mack. ex Bright, C. leersii Willd., C. muricata var. angustata (Carey) Carey ex Gleason, C. muricata var. cephalantha (Bailey) Wieg. & Eames, C. muricata var. laricina (Mack. ex Bright) Gleason, C. ormantha (Fern.) Mack., C. phyllomanica var. angustata (Carey) Boivin, C. phyllomanica var. ormantha (Fern.) Boivin, C. stellulata, C. svensonis Skottsb. Carex glareosa ssp. Carex lagopina var. pribylovensis (Macoun) Kükenthal, C. pribylovensis Macoun G4G5T2 S2* pribylovensis (Macoun) G. T3 Halliday & Chater Carex heleonastes Ehrh. ex Carex carltonia Dewey, C. curta var. robustior (Kük.) B. Boivin, C. heleonastes L. f. ssp. heleonastes, C. G4 S3* L. f. heleonastes ssp. neurochlaena (T. Holm) Böcher, C. neurochlaena T. Holm Carex hoodii Boott None G5 S1* Carex interior L. H. Bailey Carex interior ssp. charlestonensis Clokey, C. interior ssp. keweenawensis F. J. Herm. G5 S3* Carex lapponica O. Lang Carex canescens var. subloliacea Laestadius G4G5Q S3S4*

Page | B-4 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Carex laxa Wahlenberg None G5? S1S2* Carex Carex jimcalderi B. Boivin G5T4T5 SU* leptalea ssp. pacifica Calder & R. L. Taylor Carex parryana Dewey Carex arctica Dewey, C. parryana ssp. hallii (Olney) D. F. Murray, C. parryana ssp. idahoa (L. H. Bailey) D. G4 S2* F. Murray, C. parryana var. brevisquama F. J. Herm., C. parryana var. hallii (Olney) Kük., C. parryana Dewey var. parryana, C. parryana var. unica L. H. Bailey Carex peckii Howe Carex clivicola Fernald & Weatherby, C. nigromarginata var. elliptica (Boott) Gleason, C. G4G5 S2* nigromarginata var. minor (Boott) Gleason Carex phaeocephala Piper None G4 S3* Carex praegracilis W. Boott Carex camporum Mack. G4 SP* Carex preslii Steud. None G4 S1* Carex Carex leiophylla Mack G5 SP* sabulosa ssp. leiophylla (Mack.) A. E. Porsild Carex sartwellii Dewey Carex sartwellii Dewey var. sartwellii, C. sartwellii var. stenorrhyncha F. J. Herm. G4G5 SP* Carex sprengelii Dewey ex Carex longirostris Torrey G5? S1* Spreng. Carex stipata Muhl. ex Carex stipata var. crassicurta Peck, C. stipata var. subsecuta Peck G5 S2* Willd. var. stipata Carex sychnocephala J. None G4 S2* Carey Carex tahoensis Smiley Carex eastwoodiana Stacey G3G4Q S1* Carex xerantica L. H. None G5 S1* Bailey Castilleja None G4G5 S2S3* hyetophila Pennell Castilleja Castilleja dixonii Fernald, Castilleja miniata var. dixonii (Fernald) A. Neslon & J. F. Macbr. G5TNR SU* miniata ssp. dixonii (Fernal d) Kartesz Catabrosa aquatica (L.) P. Aira aquatica L. G5 S1S2 Beauv. Cerastium aleuticum Hultén Cerastium beeringianum var. aleuticum (Hultén) S. L. Welsh G3 S3

Page | B-5 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Ceratophyllum demersum Ceratophyllum apiculatum Cham., C. demersum var. apiculatum (Cham.) Aschers., C. G5 S3S4 L. demersum var. apiculatum (Cham.) Garcke Chamaerhodos erecta (L.) Chamaerhodos erecta var. nuttallii Pickering ex Rydb., C. erecta var. parviflora (Nutt.) C. L. Hitchc., C. G5 S2S3* Bunge nuttallii Pickering ex Rydb., C. nuttallii var. keweenawensis Fern., Sibbaldia erecta L. Chenopodium glaucum Chenopodium glaucum (Standley) Aellen, C. salinum Standley G5T5 S3S4 var. salinum (Standley) B. Boivin Chimaphila umbellata (L.) Chimaphila acuta Rydb., C. occidentalis Rydb., C. umbellata ssp. acuta (Rydb.) Hultén, C. G5T5 S2* W. P. C. umbellata var. acuta (Rydb.) S. F. Blake, C. umbellata ssp. cisatlantica (S. F. Blake) Hultén, C. Barton ssp. umbellata umbellata var. cisatlantica S. F. Blake, C. umbellata ssp. occidentalis (Rydb.) Hultén, C. umbellata var. occidentalis (Rydb.) S. F. Blake Chrysosplenium Chrysosplenium alternifolium var. rosendahlii (Packer) B. Boivin G4G5Q S1S2* rosendahlii Packer Cicuta bulbifera L. None G5 S3 Cirsium Carduus macounii Greene, Cirsium macounii (Greene) Petrak G4TNR SU edule var. macounii (Green e) D. J. Keil Cirsium None G3? S2 kamtschaticum Ledeb. ex DC. Claytonia arctica Adams None G3 S1S2 Claytonia None G1 SP ogilviensis McNeill Cochlearia Cochlearia officinalis var. sessilifolia (Rollins) Hultén G1G2Q S2Q sessilifolia Rollins Corispermum ochotense Corispermum ochotense var. alaskanum Mosyakin, C. ochotense Ignatov var. ochotense G3G4 S3 Ignatov Crassula Bulliarda aquatica (L.) DC., Crassula saginoides (Maximowicz) M. Bywater & Wickens, Hydrophila aquatica G5 S1S2 aquatica (L.) Schönland (L.) House, Tillaea angustifolia Nutt., T. aquatica L., T. ascendens Eat., Tillaeastrum aquaticum (L.) Britt. Crataegus Crataegus douglasii var. suksdorfii Sarg. GNR SH* suksdorfii (Sarge) Kruschke Cryptantha Cryptantha shacklettiana L. C. Higgins G1Q S1 shackletteana L. C. Higgins

Page | B-6 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Cryptogramma stelleri (S. Pteris stelleri S.G. Gmel. G5 S3S4 G. Gmel.) Prantl Cypripedium None G4 S2* montanum Douglas ex Lindl. Cypripedium None G5 S2S3* parviflorum var. exiliens Sheviak Cypripedium Cypripedium calceolus var. planipetalum (Fernald) Victorin & J. Rousseau, C. calceolus var. pubescens (Willd.) G5TNR S1* parviflorum var. pubescens Correll, C. flavescens DC., C. parviflorum var. planipetalum Fernald, C. pubescens Willd., C. (Willd.) Knight veganum Cockerell, P. Barker & M. Barker Cypripedium Cypripedium guttatum ssp. yatabeanum (Makino) Hultén, C. guttatum var. yatabeanum (Makino) Pfitzer GNR S1* yatabeanum Makino Cypripedium x alaskanum None GNR S1S2* P. M. Brown Danthonia spicata (L.) P. Avena spicata L. G5 S1 Beauv. ex Roem. & Schult. Douglasia arctica Hook. Douglasia nivalis var. glabra Duby G3 S3* Douglasia beringensis S. Androsace beringensis (S. Kelso, Jurtzev, & D. F. Murray) Cubey G2 S2 Kelso, Jurtzev, & D. F. Murray Douglasia laevigata A. Androsace laevigata (A. Gray) Wendelbo, Doulgasia laevigata ssp. ciliolata (Constance) Calder & Roy L. G3 SP* Gray Taylor, D. laevigata var. ciliolata Constance Draba aleutica Ekman Draba behringii Tolmatchev G2 S2 Draba chamissonis G. Don Draba frigida var. kamtschatica Ledeb., D. kamtschatica (Ledeb.) N. Busch, D. GNR S1Q lonchocarpa ssp. kamtschatica (Ledeb.) Calder & R. L. Taylor, D. nivalis var. kamtschatica (Ledeb.) Pohle Draba densifolia Nuttall Draba caeruleomontana Payson & H. St. John, D. caeruleomontana var. piperi Payson & H. St. John, D. G5 S2S3Q glacialis var. pectinata S. Watson, D. globosa var. sphaerula (J. F. Macbride & Payson) O. E. Schulz, D. mulfordiae Payson, D. nelsonii J. F. Macbride & Payson, D. oligosperma var. pectinata (S. Watson) Jepson, D. pectinata (S. Watson) Rydberg, D. sphaerula J. F. Macbride & Payson Draba incerta Payson Draba exalata E. Ekman, D. incerta var. laevicapsula (Payson) Payson & H. St. John, D. G5 S3 incerta var. peasei (Fernald) Rollins, D. laevicapsula Payson, D. peasei Fernald Draba macounii O. E. None G3G4 S3 Schulz

Page | B-7 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Draba micropetala Hook. Draba adamsii auct. non Ledeb., Draba alpina var. micropetala Durand, Draba oblongata auct. non R. Brown GNR S1S2 ex DC., D. oblongata ssp. minuta V. V. Petrovsky, D. pauciflora var. micropetala (Hooker) O. E. Schulz Draba mulliganii Al- None GNR S3 Shehbaz Draba murrayi G. A. None G2 S2S3 Mulligan Draba ogilviensis Hultén None G3 S1 Draba pauciflora R. Brown Draba adamsii Ledeb., D. micropetala auct. non Hook., D. oblongata auct. non R. Brown ex DC. G4 S2 Draba praealta Greene Draba cascadensis Payson & H. St. John, D. columbiana Rydberg, D. dolichopoda O. E. Schulz, D. lapilutea A. G5 S1Q Nelson, D. lonchocarpa var. dasycarpa O. E. Schulz, D. praealta var. yellowstonensis (A. Nelson) O. E. Schulz, D. yellowstonensis A. Nelson Draba subcapitata Simmons None G4 S1S2 Draba yukonensis A. E. None G1 SP Porsild Eleocharis nitida Fernald None G3G4 S1S2* Eleocharis Eleocharis pauciflora var. fernaldii Svenson G5 S2* quinqueflora ssp. fernaldii (Svenson) Hultén Elymus Agropyron dasystachyum var. psammophilum (J. M. Gillett & H. Senn) E. G. Voss, A. psammophilum J. M. G3G4 S1S2 lanceolatus ssp. psammophi Gillett & H. Senn, A. psammophilum f. aristatum J. M. Gillett & H. Senn, Elymus calderi Barkworth, Elytrigia lus (J. M. Gillett & H. Senn) dasystachya var. psammophila (J. M. Gillett & H. Senn) Cronquist, E. dasystachya ssp. psammophila (J. M. A. Löve Gillett & H. Senn) D. R. Dewey Erigeron Erigeron kamtschaticus DC., Erigeron acris var. kamtschaticus (DC.) Herder G5T4T5 SP acris ssp. kamtschaticus (DC.) H. Hara Erigeron muirii A. Gray Erigeron grandiflorus ssp. muirii (A. Gray) Hultén G2 S2S3 Erigeron ochroleucus Nutt. Erigeron laetevirens Rydberg, E. montanus Rydberg, E. ochroleucus var. scribneri (Canby ex Rydberg) G5 S1S2 Cronquist, E. scribneri Canby ex Rydberg, E. tweedyanus Canby & Rose Erigeron porsildii G. L. Erigeron grandiflorus ssp. arcticus A. E. Porsild, not E. arcticus Rouy G3G4 S3S4 Nesom & D. F. Murray Erigeron Erigeron glabellus var. yukonensis (Rydberg.) Hultén G2G4 SU yukonensis Rydberg

Page | B-8 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Eriogonum None G5T2 S2 flavum var. aquilinum Rev eal Eriophorum Eriophorum latifolium var. viridicarinatum Engelm. G5 S2S3* viridicarinatum (Engelm.) Fernald Erysimum capitatum var. Erysimum asperum var. purshii Durand, Cheiranthus alpestris (Cockerell) A. Heller, C. argillosus Greene, C. G5T1 S2 purshii (Durand) Rollins aridus A. Nelson, C. asperrimus Greene, C. bakeri Greene, C. nivalis Greene, C. nivalis var. amoenus Greene, C. oblanceolatus (Rydberg) A. Heller, C. radicatus (Rydberg) A. Heller, Cheirinia amoena (Greene) Rydberg, C. argillosa (Greene) Rydberg, C. arida (A. Nelson) Rydberg, C. asperrima (Greene) Rydberg, C. bakeri (Greene) Rydberg, C. brachycarpa Rydberg, C. cockerelliana (Daniels) Cockerell, C. desertorum Wooton & Standley, C. nivalis (Greene) Rydberg, C. nivalis var. radicata (Rydberg) Cockerell, C. oblanceolata (Rydberg) Rydberg, C. radicata (Rydberg) Rydberg, E. amoenum (Greene) Rydberg, E. angustatum Rydberg, E. argillosum (Greene) Rydberg, E. aridum (A. Nelson) A. Nelson, E. asperrimum (Greene) Rydberg, E. asperum var. amoenum (Greene) Reveal, E. asperum var. angustatum (Rydberg) B. Boivin, E. asperum var. pumilum S. Watson, E. bakeri (Greene) Rydberg, E. capitatum var. amoenum (Greene) R. J. Davis, E. capitatum var. argillosum (Greene) R. J. Davis, E. capitatum var. nivale (Greene) N. H. Holmgren, E. cockerellianum Daniels, E. desertorum (Wooton & Standley) Rossbach, E. nivale (Greene) Rydberg, E. oblanceolatum Rydberg, E. radicatum Rydberg Festuca edlundiae S. Aiken, none G3G4 S1 Consaul, & Lefkovich Festuca minutiflora Rydb. Festuca brachyphylla var. endotera (St. Yves) Litard., Festuca ovina var. minutiflora (Rydb.) J. T. Howell. G5 S1 Festuca occidentalis Hook. Festuca ovina var. polyphylla Vasey ex Beal G5 S1 Festuca Festuca vivipara ssp. glabra Fred. G4G5T4 SU viviparoidea Krajina ex T5 Pavlick ssp. viviparoidea Festuca Festuca vivipara ssp. glabra Fred. G4G5TN SU viviparoidea ssp. krajinae R Pavlick Gaultheria Gaultheria miqueliana Takeda G3G4 S1* pyroloides Hook. & Thomson ex Miquel Gentianella none G4G5 S1* auriculata (Pall.) J. M. Gillett

Page | B-9 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Gentianella Gentiana aleutica Cham. & Schltdl., Gentianella propinqua var. aleutica (Cham. & Schltdl.) S. L. Welsh G5T2T4 S3* propinqua ssp. aleutica (Cham. & Schltdl.) J. M. Gillett Gentianopsis Gentianella detonsa ssp. yukonensis J. M. Gillett, Gentianopsis detonsa ssp. yukonensis (J. M. Gillett) J. M. GNR S3Q barbata (Froel.) Gillett Ma ssp. barbata Gentianopsis Gentiana richardsonii A. E. Porsild GNR S1S2 richardsonii (A. E. Porsild) Geum Geum decurrens Rydb., G. strictum Aiton, G. strictum var. decurrens (Rydb.) Kearney & Peebles G5T5 S3* aleppicum ssp. strictum (Aiton) R. T. Clausen Geum schofieldii Calder & none GNR SPQ* R. L. Taylor Geum x macranthum Acomastylis macrantha (Kearney) Bolle, Sieversia x macrantha GNA S1 (Kearney) B. Boivin Glehnia Glehnia leiocarpa Math. G5T5 S2S3 littoralis ssp. leiocarpa (Math.) Hult. Glyceria Glyceria davyi (Merr.) Tzelev, Panicularia davyi Merr., P. leptostachya (Buckley) Piper G3 S3 leptostachya Buckley Glyceria pulchella (Nash.) Panicularia pulchella Nash G5 S3S4 K. Schum. Glyceria striata (Lam.) Glyceria elata (Nash ex Rydb.) M. E. Jones, G. nervata (Willd.) Trin., G. striata ssp. stricta (Scribn.) Hultén, G. G5 S3 Hitchc. striata var. stricta (Scribn.) Fernald, Panicularia nervata (Willd.) Kuntze, P. striata (Lam.) Hitchc. Isoetes occidentalis L. F. Isoetes flettii (A. A. Eaton) N. E. Pfeiffer, Isoetes lacustris ssp. paupercula (Engelm.) J. Feilberg, Isoetes G4G5 S3S4* Hend. lacustris var. paupercula Engelm., Isoetes paupercula (Engelm.) A. A. Eaton, Isoetes piperi A. A. Eaton Isolepis cernua (Vahl) Scirpus cernuus Vahl, S. cernuus ssp. californicus (Torr.) Thorne, S. cernuus var. californicus (Torr.) Beetle G5 S1* Roem. & Schult. var. cernua Juncus articulatus L. Juncus articulatus var. obtusatus Engelm., J. articulatus var. stolonifer (Wohlleben) House, J. G5 S1S2* lampocarpus Ehrhart ex Hoffmann Juncus nodosus L. Juncus nodosus var. meridionalis F. J. Hermann, J. rostkovii E. Meyer G5 S1S2*

Page | B-10 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Juncus tenuis Willd. Juncus bicornis Michaux, J. bicornis var. williamsii (Fernald) Victorin, J. macer Gray, J. G5 S2* macer f. williamsii (Fernald) F. J. Hermann, J. macer var. williamsii (Fernald) Fernald, J. tenuis var. bicornis (Michaux) E. Meyer, J. tenuis var. multicornis E. Meyer, J. tenuis var. williamsii Fernald Juniperus Juniperus horizontalis var. douglasii hort., J. horizontalis var. variegata Beissner G5 S3 horizontalis Moench Koeleria asiatica Domin Koeleria cairnesiana Hultén G4 S3 Koeleria Koeleria cristata var. longifolia Vasey ex Burtt Davy, K. cristata var. pinetorum Abrams, K. gracilis Pers., K. G5 S1 macrantha (Ledeb.) Schult. nitida Nutt., K. yukonensis Hultén Lactuca biennis (Moench) Sonchus biennis Moench G5 S2S3 Fernald Lathyrus none G5 SH ochroleucus Hook. Lewisia pygmaea (A. Gray) Talinum pygmaeum A. Gray, Calandrinia grayi Britt., C. pygmaea (A. Gray) A. Gray, Lewisia exarticulata H. G5 SP B. L. Robinson St. John, L. glandulosa (Rydb.) Clay, L. minima (A. Nelson) A. Nelson, L. pygmaea var. aridorum Bartlett, L. pygmaea ssp. glandulosa (Rydb.) Ferris, L. sierrae Ferris, Oreobroma aridorum (Bartlett) A. Heller, O. exarticulatum (H. St. John) Rydb., O. glandulosum Rydb., O. grayi (Britt.) Rydb., O. minimum A. Nelson, O. pygmaeum (A. Gray) Howell Ligusticum calderi Math. & none G3G4 S2 Const. Limosella aquatica L. none G5 S3 Lobelia dortmanna L. none G4G5 S1S2 Lonicera involucrata none G4G5 S3 (Richardson) Banks Lupinus kuschei Eastwood Lupinus sericeus var. kuschei (Eastwood) Boivin G3G4 S2 Luzula comosa E. Meyer Luzula campestris var. comosa (E. Meyer) Fernald & Wiegand, L. campestris var. columbiana H. St. John, L. G4G5 S1* campestris var. macrantha (S. Watson) Fernald & Wiegand, L. comosa var. congesta (Thuillier) S. Watson, L. comosa var. laxa Buchenau, L. comosa var. macrantha S. Watson, L. comosa var. subsessilis S. Watson, L. intermedia (Thuillier) A. Nelson, L. multiflora ssp. comosa (E. Meyer) Hultén, L. multiflora ssp. congesta (Thuillier) Hylander, L. subsessilis Buchenau Lycopodiella inundata (L.) Lepidotis inundata (L.) Börner, Lycopodium inundatum L. G5 S3* Holub. Lycopus asper Greene Lycopus lucidus ssp. americanus (A. Gray) Hultén, L. lucidus var. americanus A. Gray G5 S1* Lycopus uniflorus Michx. none G5 S3S4*

Page | B-11 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Maianthemum Maianthemum amplexicaule (Nutt.) W. A. Weber, M. racemosum var. amplexicaule (Nutt.) Dorn, Smilacina G5 S1* racemosum ssp. amplexica amplexicaulis Nutt., S. amplexicaulis var. glabra J. F. Macbr., S. amplexicaulis var. jenkinsii Boivin, S. ule (Nutt.) LaFrankie amplexicaulis var. ovata Boivin, S. racemosa var. amplexicaulis (Nutt.) S. Watson, S. racemosa var. brachystyla G. Henderson, S. racemosa var. glabra (J. F. Macbr.) St. John, S. racemosa var. jenkinsii (Boivin) Boivin, Unifolium amplexicaule (Nutt.) Greene, Vagnera amplexicaulis (Nutt.) Greene, V. amplexicaulis var. glabra (J. F. Macbr.) Abrams, V. pallescens Greene Maianthemum Convallaria stellata L., Smilacina liliacea (Greene) Wynd, S. sessilifolia Nutt. ex Baker, S. stellata (L.) Desf., S. G5 S3* stellatum (L.) Link stellata var. crassa Victorin, S. stellata var. mollis Farw., S. stellata var. sessilifolia (Nutt. ex Baker) G. Hend., S. stellata var. sylvatica Victorin & Rouss., Unifolium liliaceum Greene, U. sessilifolium (Nutt. ex Baker) Greene, U. stellatum (L.) Greene, Vagnera liliacea (Greene) Rydb., V. sessilifolia (Nutt. ex Baker) Greene, V. stellata (L.) Morong Malaxis monophyllos (L.) Malaxis diphyllos Cham., M. monophyllos var. diphyllos (Cham.) Luer GNRTN SU* Swartz ssp. monophyllos R Malaxis Malaxis brachypoda (A. Gray) Fernald, Microstylis brachypoda A. Gray GNRTN SU* monophyllos ssp. brachypo R da (A. Gray) F. Morris & E. A. Eames Melica subulata (Griseb.) Bromelica subulata (Griseb.) Farw., Bromus subulata Griseb., Festuca acerosa Trin. ex A. Gray, Melica G5 S2S3 Scribn. acuminata Bol., Melica poaeoides var. acuminata Bol. Mertensia Lithospermum drummondii Lehm. G2G3 S2 drummondii (Lehm.) G. Don Mertensia paniculata var. none G5TNR Pending alaskana (Britton) L. O. Williams Micranthes Saxifraga nelsoniana ssp. carlottae (Calder & Savile) Hultén, S. nelsoniana ssp. charlottae (Calder & Savile) GNR S2* charlottae (Calder & Savile) Hultén, S. punctata ssp. carlottae Calder & Savile, S. punctata ssp. charlottae Calder & Savile Micranthes Micranthes nelsoniana var. insularis (Hultén) Gornall & H. Ohba, Saxifraga insularis (Hultén) Sipliv., S. GNRTN S2* nelsoniana ssp. insularis nelsoniana ssp. insularis (Hultén) Hultén, S. punctata ssp. insularis Hultén, S. punctata var. insularis (Hultén) R (Hultén) Elven & D. F. B. Boivin Murray Micranthes nudicaulis (D. Ocrearia nudicaulis (D. Don) Small, Saxifraga nudicaulis D. Don G3G4Q S3* Don) Gornall & H. Ohba ssp. nudicaulis

Page | B-12 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Micranthes occidentalis (S. Saxifraga allenii (Small) Fedde, Saxifraga occidentalis S. Watson, S. occidentalis var. allenii (Small) C. L. G5 S1* Watson) Small Hitchcock, S. occidentalis var. wallowensis M. Peck, S. reflexa ssp. occidentalis (S. Watson) Hultén, S. saximontana E. E. Nelson Micranthes Micranthes nelsoniana var. porsildiana (Calder & Savile) Gornall & H. Ohba, Saxifraga G4 S2* porsildiana (Calder & nelsoniana ssp. porsildiana (Calder & Savile) Hultén, S. porsildiana (Calder & Savile) Jurtz. & V. V. Savile) Elven & D. F. Petrovsky, S. punctata ssp. porsildiana Calder & Savile Murray Micranthes tolmiei (Torr. & Saxifraga tolmiei Torr. & A. Gray, S. tolmiei var. ledifolia (Greene) Engl. & Irmsch. GNR S2S3* A. Gray) Brouillet & Gornall Mimulus lewisii Pursh none G5 S2S3* Minuartia Alsinopsis dawsonensis (Britt.) Rydb., Alsinanthe stricta ssp. dawsonensis (Britt.) Á. Löve & D. Löve, Arenaria G5 S3S4* dawsonensis (Britt.) House dawsonensis Britt., A. litorea Fernald, A. stricta var. dawsonensis (Britt.) Scoggan, A. stricta ssp. dawsonensis (Britt.) Maguire, A. stricta var. litorea (Fernald) B. Boivin, Minuartia litorea (Fernald) House, Sabulina dawsonensis (Britt.) Rydb. Mitella nuda L. Mitella prostrata Michaux G5 S1* Montia vassilievii (Kuzen.) Claytonia bostockii A. E. Porsild, C. vassilievii Kuzen., Claytoniella bostockii (A.E. Porsild) Jurtzev, C. GNRTN S3Q McNeill ssp. vassilievii vassilievii (Kuzen.) Jurtz., Montia bostockii (A. E. Porsild) S. L. Welsh, Montiastrum bostockii (A. E. R Porsild) Ö. Nilsson, M. vassilievii (Kuzen.) Ö. Nilsson Myriophyllum none G5 S1* farwellii Morong Najas flexilis (Willd.) Caulinia flexilis Willd., Najas caespitosa (Maguire) Reveal, N. caespitosus (Maguire) Reveal, N. G5 S3* Rostk. & W. L. E. Schmidt canadensis Michaux, N. flexilis ssp. caespitosa Maguire, N. flexilis var. congesta Farw., N. flexilis var. robusta Morong Orobanche Anoplanthus fasciculatus (Nutt.) Walp., Aphyllon fasciculatum (Nutt.) Torr. & A. Gray, Orobanche G4 S1* fasciculata Nutt. fasciculata var. franciscana Achey, O. fasciculata var. lutea (Parry) Achey, O. fasciculata var. subulata Goodman, Orobanche fasciculata var. typica Achey, Thalesia fasciculata (Nutt.) Britton, Thalesia lutea (Parry) Rydb. Orobanche uniflora L. Aphyllon uniflorum (L.) Torr. & A. Gray, Orobanche porphyrantha G. Beck, O. purpurea Jacq., O. G5 S1S2* sedii (Suksd.) Fech., O. terrae-novae Fern., O. uniflora ssp. occidentalis (Greene) Abrams ex Ferris, O. uniflora var. minuta (Suksd.) G. Beck, O. uniflora var. occidentalis (Greene) Roy L. Taylor & MacBryde, O. uniflora var. purpurea (A. Heller) Achey, O. uniflora var. sedii (Suksdorf) Achey, O. uniflora var. terrae- novae (Fern.) Munz, O. uniflora var. typica Achey, Thalesia uniflora (L.) Britt. Oxygraphis Ficaria glacialis Fisch., Ranunculus kamchaticus DC. G4G5 S3 glacialis (Fisch.) Bunge

Page | B-13 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Oxytropis Oxytropis sordida var. barnebyana (S. L. Welsh) Jurtzev G4?T2Q SU arctica var. barnebyana S. L. Welsh Oxytropis kobukensis S. L. none G2 S2 Welsh Oxytropis kokrinensis A. E. none G3 S3 Porsild Oxytropis Oxytropis campestris var. varians (Rydb.) Barneby GNR S3S4Q tananensis Jurtzev Packera subnuda var. Packera moresbiensis (Calder & R. L. Taylor) J. F. Bain, S. cymbalarioides var. moresbiensis (Calder & R. L. GNRT3T S3 moresbiensis Calder & R. Taylor) C. C. Freeman, Senecio cymbalarioides ssp. moresbiensis Calder & R. L. Taylor, S. 4 L. Taylor) Trock moresbiensis (Calder & R. L. Taylor) G. W. Douglas & Ruyle-Douglas, S. resedifolius var. moresbiensis (Calder & R. L. Taylor) B. Boivin Papaver none G3 S2S3 gorodkovii Tolmatchew & Petrovsky Parasenecio Cacalia auriculata DC., Koyamacalia auriculata (DC.) H. Robinson & Brettell G4? S2 auriculatus (DC.) J. R. Grant Parrya nauruaq Al- none G2 S1S2 Shehbaz, J. R. Grant, R. Lipkin, D. F. Murray, & C. L. Parker Pedicularis Elephantella groenlandica (Retz.) Rydb., P. groenlandica ssp. surrecta (Benth.) Piper, P. G5 S2* groenlandica Retz. groenlandica var. surrecta (Benth.) A. Gray Pedicularis hirsuta L. none G5? S1* Penstemon none G4 S1 serrulatus Menzies ex Rees Phacelia franklinii (R. Br.) none G5 SP A. Gray Phacelia mollis J. F. Macbr. none G2G3 S3 Phacelia sericea (Graham) Phacelia sericea (Graham) A. Gray ssp. sericea G5 S2 A. Gray

Page | B-14 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Phippsia concinna (Th. Fr.) Catabrosa concinna Th. Fr., C. concinna ssp. algidiformis Harry Sm., Phippsia algida ssp. concinna (Th. Fr.) Á. G4 SP Lindeb. Löve & D. Löve, P. algida ssp. algidiformis (Harry Sm.) Á. Löve & D. Löve, P. algidiformis (Harry Sm.) Tzvelev Phlox hoodii Richardson Phlox richardsonii Hook., P. sibirica ssp. richardsonii (Hook.) Hultén G5 S3Q* Phyllodoce Menziesia empetriformis Sm. G5 S1S2* empetriformis (Sm.) D. Don Phyllospadix none G4 S3* serrulatus Rupr. ex Asch. Physaria calderi (G. A. Lesquerella calderi G. A. Mulligan & A. E. Porsild, L. arctica ssp. calderi (G. A. Mulligan & A. E. Porsild) G3G4 S2 Mulligan & A. E. Porsild) Hultén O'Kane & Al-Shehbaz Physocarpus Physocarpus opulifolius var. tomentellus (Ser.) B. Boivin, Spiraea capitata Pursh G5 S2* capitatus (Pursh) Kuntze Picris hieracioides L. Picris hieracioides var. alpina Koidzumi, P. hieracioides ssp. kamtschatica (Ledeb.) Hultén G5 S1 Pinus Pinus contorta ssp. latifolia (Engelm.) Critchfield, Pinus divaricata var. hendersonii (Lemmon) B. G5T5 SU* contorta var. latifolia Engel Boivin, Pinus divaricata var. latifolia (Engelm. ex S. Watson) B. Boivin m. ex S. Watson Piperia Habenaria schischmareffiana Cham., H. unalaschensis (Spreng.) S. Watson, Platanthera cooperi (S. Watson) G5 S3* unalascensis (Spreng.) Rydb., P. foetida Geyer ex Hook., P. unalaschcensis (Spreng.) Kurtz, Spiranthes unalascensis Spreng. Rydb. Plagiobothrys none G3G4 S3 orientalis (L.) I. M. Johnst. Platanthera Habenaria orbiculata (Pursh) Torr., H. orbiculata var. lehorsii Fernald, H. orbiculata var. menziesii (Lindl.) G5 S3S4* orbiculata (Pursh) Lindl. Fernald, Lysias orbiculata (Pursh) Rydb., Orchis orbiculata Pursh, Platanthera orbiculata var. lehorsii (Fernald) Catling Platanthera Habenaria behringiana (Rydb.) Ames, Limnorchis behringiana Rydb. G4G5T2 S1S2* tipuloides var. behringiana ? (Rydb.) Hultén Pleuropogon sabinei R. Br. none G4G5 S1S2 Poa hartzii ssp. alaskana Poa alaskana (Soreng) Tzvelev G3G4T1 S1S2 T2 Poa macrantha Vasey Melica macrantha (Vasey) Beal, Poa douglasii ssp. macrantha (Vasey) D. D. Keck, P. G5 S1S2 douglasii var. macrantha (Vasey) B. Boivin Poa porsildii Gjærev. none G3 S2S3

Page | B-15 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Poa secunda J. G5TNR S1S2 Presl ssp. secunda Poa secunda ssp. juncifolia G5TNR SP (Scribn.) Soreng Podagrostis humilis (Vasey) Agrostis atrata Rydb., A. hildebrandii Thurb. ex Bol., A. humilis Vasey, A. thurberiana Hitchc., Podagrostis G5 S3 Björkman thurberiana (Hitchc.) Hultén Podistera yukonensis Math. none G2 S1S2 & Const. Polygonum fowleri B. L. Polygonum buxifolium Nutt. ex Bong. G5TNR S3S4 Robinson ssp. fowleri Polygonum minimum S. Polygonum torreyi S. Watson G5 S1 Watson Polypodium Polypodium vulgare ssp. virginianum sensu Hultén (1962), Polypodium vulgare sensu Böcher et al. (1978) G5? S3 sibiricum Sipliv. Polystichum aleuticum C. none G1 S1* Christens. Polystichum none G4 S1* kruckebergii W. H. Wagner Polystichum Aspidium microchlamys Christ G4? S1* microchlamys (H. Christ) Matsumura Polystichum setigerum (K. Nephrodium setigerum C. Presl, Polystichum braunii (Spenner) Fée ssp. alaskense (Maxon) Calder & R. L. G3 S3* Presl) K. Presl Taylor, P. braunii var. alaskense (Maxon) Hultén Potamogeton none G5 S3* obtusifolius Mert. & W. D. J. Koch Potamogeton none G5 S2* robbinsii Oakes Potamogeton Potamogeton porsildorum Fernald, Potamogeton sibiricus ssp. subsibiricus (Hagström) Tzvelev G3G4 S3S4 subsibiricus Hagström Potentilla Potentilla anomalifolia M. Peck, P. anomalofolia M. Peck G5 S2S3* drummondii Lehm.

Page | B-16 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Potentilla none G4 S1S2 fragiformis Willd. ex Schltdl. Potentilla Potentilla hookeriana Lehm. G4 SU* rubricaulis Lehm. Potentilla stipularis L. Potentilla stipularis var. groenlandica T. J. Sørensen G5 S2 Primula Primula cuneifolia var. dubyi Pax, P. cuneifolia var. elongata E. A. Busch G5TNR S1* cuneifolia Leded. ssp. cunei folia Primula Primula beringensis (A. E. Porsild) Jurtzev, P. tschuktschorum ssp. beringensis (A. E. Porsild) Jurtzev & G2G3 S3* tschukstchorum Kjellman Kozhevnikov, P. tschuktschorum var. beringensis A. E. Porsild Puccinellia Phippsia andersonii (Swallen) Á. Löve & D. Löve, Puccinellia andersoni Swallen G3G5 S1S2* andersonii Swallen Puccinellia angustata (R. Atropis angustata (R. Br.) Griseb., A. angustata (R. Br.) V. I. Krecz., Glyceria angustata (R. Br.) Fr., G. G4Q S1* Br.) E. L. Rand & Redfield angustata (R. Br.) Vasey, Glyceria vaginata f. contracta Lange, Panicularia angustata (R. Br.) Scribn., Phippsia angustata (R. Br.) Á. Löve & D. Löve, Poa angustata R. Br., Puccinellia angustata (R. Br.) Nash, P. contracta (Lange) T. J. Sørensen, P. taimyrensis Roshev. Puccinellia arctica (Hook.) Glyceria arctica Hook., Phippsia agrostidea (T. J. Sørensen) Á. Löve & D. Löve, P. arctica (Hook.) Á. Löve & G4G5 S1 Fernald & Wealth D. Löve, P. poacea (T.J. Sørensen) Á. Löve & D. Löve, Puccinellia poacea T. J. Sørensen, P. agrostidea T. J. Sørensen Puccinellia Glyceria vaginata Lange, Phippsia vaginata (Lange) Á. Löve & D. Löve, Puccinellia vaginata var. paradoxa T. G4 S1 vaginata (Lange) Fernald & J. Sørensen Wealth Puccinellia Colpodium vahlianum (Liebm.) Nevski, Phippsia vahliana (Liebm.) Á. Löve & D. Löve, Poa vahliana Liebm. G4 S3 vahliana (Liebm.) Scribn. & Merr. Puccinellia wrightii (Scribn. Colpodium wrightii Scribn. & Merr., C. wrightii var. flavum Scribn. & Merr., Phippsia wrightii (Scribn. & G3G4TN S3 & Merr.) Merr.) Á. Löve & D. Löve, Poa wrightii (Scribn. & Merr.) Hitchc. R Tzvelev ssp. wrightii Ranunculus Beckwithia camissonis (Schltdl.) Tolm., B. glacialis ssp. camissonis (Schltdl.) Á. Löve & D. Löve, Ranunculus GNR S3 camissonis Schltdl. glacialis ssp. camissonis (Schltdl.) Hultén, R. glacialis var. camissonis (Schltdl.) L. D. Benson Ranunculus Beckwithia glacialis ssp. alaskensis Jurtz. G4T2 S1S2 glacialis ssp. alaskensis Jurtz.

Page | B-17 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Ranunculus none GNR S2 ponojensis (Markl.) Ericsson Ranunculus sabinei R. Br. Ranunculus pygmaeus ssp. sabinei (R. Br.) Hultén, Ranunculus sabinei var. majusculus Tolmatchew G4 S1 Ranunculus Ranunculus occidentalis var. turneri (Greene) L. D. Benson, R. propinquus ssp. turneri (Greene) Jelen. & Derv. G3TNR S2 turneri Greene ssp. turneri Romanzoffia none G3 S3S4 unalaschcensis Cham. Rorippa Sisymbrium curvisiliqua Hook., Nasturtium curvisiliqua (Hook.) Nutt., N. curvisiliqua var. lyratum (Nutt.) S. G5 S1S2 curvisiliqua (Hook.) Bess. Watson, N. curvisiliqua var. nuttallii S. Watson, N. lyratum Nutt., N. occidentale Greene, N. ex Britt. polymorphum Nutt., Radicula curvisiliqua (Hook.) Greene, R. lyrata (Nutt.) Greene, R. multicaulis (Greene) Greene, R. nuttallii (S. Watson) Greene, R. occidentalis (Greene) Greene, R. pectinata (A. Nelson) A. Heller, R. polymorpha (Nutt.) Greene, Rorippa curvisiliqua var. lyrata (Nutt.) C. L. Hitchcock, R. curvisiliqua var. nuttallii (S. Watson) Stuckey, R. curvisiliqua var. occidentalis (Greene) Stuckey, R. curvisiliqua var. orientalis Stuckey, R. curvisiliqua var. procumbens Stuckey, R. curvisiliqua var. spatulata Stuckey, R. lyrata (Nutt.) Greene, R. multicaulis Greene, R. nuttallii (S. Watson) Rydberg, R. occidentalis (Greene) Greene, R. pectinata A. Nelson, R. polymorpha (Nutt.) Howell Rosa Rosa adenosepala Wooton & Standl., R. demareei E. J. Palmer, R. fendleri Crép., R. hypoleuca Wooton & G5T5 S2S3* woodsii Lindl. ssp. woodsii Standl., R. macounii Greene, R. standleyi Rydb., R. terrens Lunell, R. woodsii var. adenosepala (Wooton & Standl.) W. C. Martin & C. R. Hutchins, R. woodsii var. fendleri (Crép.) Rydb., R. woodsii var. hypoleuca (Wooton & Standl.) W. C. Martin & C. R. Hutchins, R. woodsii var. macounii (Greene) W. C. Martin & C. R. Hutchins, R. woodsii var. terrens (Lunell) Breitung, R. woodsii Lindl. var. woodsii Rumex Acetosella aureostigmatica (Kom.) Tzvelev, Rumex acetosella var. subspathulatus Trautv., Rumex GNR S1 aureostigmaticus Kom. graminifolius var. subspathulatus (Trautv.) Tolmatchew Rumex Acetosella beringensis (Jurtz. & V.V. Petrovsky) Á. Löve & D. Löve G3 S3 beringensis Petrovsky Rumex krausei V. none G2 S2S3 V. Petrovsky Salix athabascensis Raup. Salix fallax Raup, S. pedicellaris var. athabascensis (Raup) B. Boivin G4G5 S2* Salix candida Flüggé ex Salix candida var. denudata Andersson, S. candida var. tomentosa Andersson, S. G5 S3 Willd. candidula Niewl., S. x clarkei Bebb Salix hookeriana Barratt ex Salix amplifolia Coville, S. hookeriana var. laurifolia J. K. Henry, S. hookeriana var. tomentosa J. K. Henry ex G5 S2S3* Hook. C. K. Schneider, S. piperi Bebb Salix Salix nummularia ssp. tundricola (Schljakov) Á. Löve & D. Löve G5 SH nummularia Andersson

Page | B-18 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Salix planifolia Pursh Salix monica Bebb, S. phylicifolia var. monica (Bebb) Jepson, S. phylicifolia ssp. planifolia (Pursh) Hiitonen, S. G5T5 S2* planifolia var. monica (Bebb) C. K. Schneider Salix prolixa Andersson Salix cordata var. mackenzieana Hook., S. eriocephala ssp. mackenzieana (Hook.) Dorn, S. G5 S1 mackenzieana (Hook.) Barratt ex Andersson, S. mackenzieana var. macrogemma C. R. Ball, S. rigida var. mackenzieana (Hook.) Cronquist, S. rigida var. macrogemma (C. R. Ball) Cronquist Saussurea americana D. C. none G5 S2S3 Eaton Saussurea none GNR S1 triangulata Trautvetter & C. A. Meyer Saxifraga adscendens ssp. Muscaria adscendens (L.) Sm., Saxifraga adscendens var. oregonensis (Raf.) Breitung, S. oregonensis (Raf.) A. G5T4T5 S2S3 oregonensis (Raf.) Bacig. Nelson Saxifraga aizoides L. Leptasea aizoides (L.) Haw. G5 S1 Saxifraga Saxifraga arctolitoralis Jurtzev & V. V. Petrovsky G5T2T3 S2* rivularis ssp. arctolitoralis (Jurtzev & V. V. Petrovsky) M. H. Jørgensen & Elven Saxifraga Saxifraga arctolitoralis Jurtzev & V. V. Petrovsky G5T2T3 Pending rivularis subsp. arctolitorali s (Jurtzev & V. V. Petrovsky) M. H. Jørgensen & Elven Saxifraga taylorii Calder & Saxifraga taylori Calder & Savile G3G4 SP Savile Schizachne Avena striata Michx., A. striata f. albicans Fernald, A. torreyi Nash, Bromelica striata (Hitchc.) Farw., Melica G5 S2 purpurascens (Torr.) purpurascens (Torr.) Hitchc., M. striata Hitchc., M. striata f. albicans (Fernald) Fernald, Schizachne Swallen purpurascens f. albicans (Fernald) Fernald, S. purpurascens var. pubescens Dore, S. striata (Hitchc.) Hultén, S. stricta (Michx.) Hultén, Trisetum purpurascens Torr. Schoenoplectus Scirpus pungens Vahl G4G5 S1* pungens (Vahl) Palla Schoenoplectus Scirpus subterminalis Torr. G4G5 S2* subterminalis (Torr.) Soják

Page | B-19 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Scolochloa Aira arundinacea Lilj. ex Roem & Schult., Arundo festucacea Willd., Donax borealis Trin., D. G5 S1 festucacea (Willd.) Link festucaceus (Willd.) P. Beauv., Festuca borealis (Trin.) Mert. & Koch ex Röhl., F. donacina Wahlenb., Fluminia arundinacea (Roem. & Schult.) Fr., F. festucacea (Willd.) Hitchc., Glyceria arundinacea (Roem. & Schult.) Fr., Graphephorum arundinaceum (Roem. & Schult.) Asch., G. festucaceum (Willd.) A. Gray, Schedonorus arundinaceus Roem. & Schult., Scolochloa arundinacea (Roem. & Schult.) MacMill., Triodia festucacea (Willd.) Roth Sedum divergens S. Watson Amerosedum divergens (S. Watson) A. Löve & D. Löve G5? S1 Sedum lanceolatum Torr. Sedum stenopetalum var. subalpinum Fröderström G5T3T5 SP var. lanceolatum Sedum Breitungia oregana (Nutt.) A. Löve & D. Löve, Gormania oregana (Nutt.) Britt. G5TNR SH oreganum Nutt. var. oregan um Senecio cannabifolius Less. Jacobaea cannabifolia (Less.) E. Wiebe, Senecio palmatus Pallas ex Ledeb. G4? S2 Sidalcea hendersonii S. none G3 S1* Watson Sieversia pentapetala (L.) Dryas pentapetala L., Geum pentapetalum (L.) Makino G3G4 S2S3* Greene Silene Gastrolychnis soczavana ssp. ogilviensis (A. E. Porsild) Á. Löve & D. Löve, Melandrium G4G5T2 S1Q* uralensis ssp. ogilviensis apetalum ssp. ogilviense A. E. Porsild (A. E. Porsild) D. F. Brunt Sisyrinchium Sisyrinchium alpestre E. P. Bicknell, S. heterocarpum E. P. Bicknell G5 S1* montanum Greene var. mo ntanum Smelowskia johnsonii G. A. none G1 S1 Mulligan Smelowskia media (W. H. Smelowskia calycina var. media W. H. Drury & Rollins GNR S2S3 Drury & Rollins) Velichkin Smelowskia pyriformis W. none G2 S3 H. Drury & Rollins Sphenopholis Aira capillacea Frank ex Steud., A. controversa Steud., Eatonia intermedia Rydb., E. G5 S1 intermedia (Rydb.) Rydb. pensylvanica var. major (Torr.) A. Gray, Koeleria pensylvanica var. major (Torr.) Torr., K. truncata var. major Torr., Reboulea pallens var. major (Torr.) Farw., Reboulea pensylvanica var. major (Torr.) A. Gray, Sphenopholis intermedia var. pilosa Dore, S. obtusata var. major (Torr.) Erdman, S. pallens ssp. major (Torr.) Scribn., S. pallens var. major (Torr.) Scribn. ex B. L. Rob., Vilfa alba Buckley

Page | B-20 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Stachys mexicana Benth. Stachys ciliata Douglas ex Benth., S. emersonii Piper, S. pubens (A. Gray) A. Heller G5 S1* Stellaria none G4T3 S2S3* ruscifolia ssp. aleutica Hult én Stellaria umbellata Alsine baicalensis Coville, Stellaria gonomischa B. Boivin, S. weberi B. Boivin G5 S3S4 Turczaninow Suaeda Chenopodium calceoliforme Hook., Suaeda americana (Pers.) Fernald, S. depressa var. erecta S. Watson, S. G5 S1S2 calceoliformis (Hook.) Moq. erecta A. Nelson Symphoricarpos albus (L.) none G5 S2 S. F. Blake Symphyotrichum Aster elegantulus A. E. Porsild, A. falcatus Lindl., A. ramulosus Lindl. G5T4T5 S1S2 falcatum (Lindl.) G. L. Nesom var. falcatum Symphyotrichum Aster pygmaeus Lindl., A. sibiricus ssp. pygmaeus (Lindl.) Á. Löve & D. Löve, A. G2G4 S2 pygmaeum (Lindl.) sibiricus var. pygmaeus (Lindl.) Cody, Eurybia pygmaea (Lindl.) G. L. Nesom Brouillet & Selliah Symphyotrichum Aster yukonensis Cronquist, Virgulus yukonensis (Cronquist) Reveal & Keener G3 S3 yukonense (Cronquist) G. L. Nesom Taxus brevifolia Nutt. Taxus baccata ssp. brevifolia (Nutt.) Pilger, T. baccata var. brevifolia (Nutt.) Koehne, T. G4G5 S3* baccata var. canadensis Bentham, T. bourcieri Carrière, T. lindleyana A. Murray Thalictrum Thalictrum flavum var. rotundifolium Wahlenb., Thalictrum hultenii B. Boivin GNR S2 minus ssp. kemense (Fr.) Cajander Thalictrum occidentale A. Thalictrum occidentale var. macounii B. Boivin, T. occidentale var. palousense H. St. John G5 S2S3 Gray Tiarella Tiarella californica (Kellogg) Rydb., Tiarella laciniata Hook. G5T5? S3* trifoliata var. laciniata (Hook.) Wheelock Townsendia Townsendia nuttallii Dorn G5 S1 hookeri Beaman Trichophorum Baeothryon pumilum (Vahl) Á. Löve & D. Löve, Scirpus pumilus Vahl, S. alpinus Schleicher ex Gaudin, S. G5 S1* pumilum (Vahl) Schinz. & emergens (Norman) Fernald, S. pumilus ssp. rollandii (Fernald) Raymond, S. pumilus var. rollandii (Fernald) Thell. Beetle, S. rollandii Fernald, Trichophorum emergens Norman, T. pumilum var. rollandii (Fernald) Hultén

Page | B-21 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table B-1. Alaska Natural Heritage Program 2012 Rare Vascular Plant List (continued) Scientific Name and Global State Authority Synonyms Rank Rank Trisetum Trisetum litorale (Rupr. ex Roshev.) A.P. Khokhr. G5T4Q S3 sibiricum ssp. litorale Rupr. ex Roshev. Trollius Trollius riederianus Schipcz. G4G5 S1 membranostylis Hultén Veronica none G3 S2S3* grandiflora Gaertn. Vicia americana Muhl. ex Vicia americana var. americana Willd. G5 S2 Willd. Viola selkirkii Pursh ex none G5? S3S4* Goldie Viola sempervirens Greene Viola sarmentosa Dougl. ex Hook. G5 S1* Zannichellia Zannichellia major (Hartm.) Boenn. ex Rchb., Z. palustris var. major (Hartm.) W. D. J. Koch, Z. G5 S3S4* palustris L. ssp. palustris palustris var. stenophylla Asch. & Graebn. Alaska Natural Heritage Program Rare Species Rankings GLOBAL RANK (Global ranks are based on the world-wide status of a taxon and are assigned by The Nature Conservancy and an international network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers.) G1: Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences, or very few remaining individuals), or because of some factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable to extinction. (Critically endangered throughout its range.) G2: Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences) or because of other factors demonstrably making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. (Endangered throughout its range.) G3: Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) in a restricted range (21 to 100 occurrences). (Threatened throughout its range.) G4: Widespread and apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. G5: Demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. T#: Global rank of the described subspecies or variety. G#G#: Global rank of species uncertain, best described as a range between the two ranks. G#Q: Indicates some uncertainty about taxonomic status that might affect global rank. STATE RANK (State ranks are based on the status of the taxon within a particular state or province. The state ranks for taxa presented in this guide often differ from the ranks for the same taxa in other states or provinces.) S1: Critically imperiled in state because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences, or very few remaining individuals), or because of some factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable to extinction. (Critically endangered throughout in state.) S2: Imperiled in state because of rarity (6-20 occurrences), or because of other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S3: Rare or uncommon in the state (21-100 occurrences). SP: Occurring in nearby state or province; not yet reported in state, but probably will be encountered with further inventory. S#S#: State rank of species uncertain, best described as a range between the two ranks

Page | B-22 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Appendix C –– Current and Reasonably Foreseable Projects on the Tongass National Forest

Botany Resource Report FINAL

Current and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects on the Tongass National Forest The following actions are either present or considered reasonably foreseeable, and are combined with past actions considered in the cumulative effects analysis. These actions include timber harvesting, pre-commercial thinning, road construction/improvement, maintenance, decommissioning and storage, and restoration and habitat improvement. Table C-1 below list projects identified in the Tongass Integrated Plan that are likely to be implemented between 2013 and 2017. The level of cumulative effects that may occur in the future due to these activities will depend on the rate at which new projects are implemented and the rate at which disturbances from past and present activities recover.

Page | C-1 Tongass Integrated Plan: 2013-2017 Projects

TOTAL CRITERIA LANDSCAPE DISTRICT SCORE Program Area 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Restoration and Implement Enhancement: NEPA and design Implement Riparian thinning Implement 4.6 miles stream Big Thorne Stew (Luck Upland thinning Upland thinning Upland thinning Riparian thinning Lake), 10 acres riparian thin VCUs 5740, 5750, 5760, 1000 acres upland thin 5780, 5790, 5800, 5810, TBRD 55 Sustainable Forest NEPA (final EIS) and Management: Implement Implement Implement Implement 5820, 5830, 5840, 5850, offer 5860, 5950, 5960, 5970, 100-150 MMBF offered Engineering: 5971, 5972 Maintenance Maintenance 70 miles road maintained Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Red pipes Red pipes 8 red pipes removed Red pipes Red pipes Red pipes 64 miles road stored Storage Storage Restoration and Enhancement: NEPA and design 2 miles stream Implement Implement Implement Implement 54 acres riparian thin Greater Staney Area 1500 upland thin (including Naukati and Sustainable Forest Winter Harbor), Management: NEPA NEPA (draft EIS) NEPA (final EIS) Offer and Implement TBRD 52 VCUs 5710, 5870, 5900, 47 MMBF offered Engineering: 5910, 5542, 5871, 5890, 34 miles road maintained 5910, 5880 Maintenance Maintenance 9 red pipes removed Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Red pipes Red pipes 19 red pipes replaced Red pipes Red pipes Red pipes Storage Storage 27 miles road stored Storage Storage Storage 13 miles forest highway Forest highway Forest highway construction Restoration and Enhancement: no project work planned Sustainable Forest Management: Implement Implement Implement 65 MMBF offered NEPA (draft EIS) NEPA (final EIS) and offer Precommercial thin Precommercial thin Precommercial thin Wrangell Island, 1300 acres precommercial thin VCUs 4750, 4760, 4770, WRD 45 Engineering: 4780, 4790, 4800, 5050 52 miles road maintained 9 red pipes replaced Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance 9.5 miles road Maintenance Reconstruction Reconstruction Red pipes Red pipes reconstructed Storage 12 miles road stored Storage Storage Storage Storage 2.5 miles road decommissioned Restoration and Enhancement: Implement Implement 7.6 miles stream NEPA and design Riparian thinning Riparian thinning 162 acres riparian thin Upland thinning 1460 acres upland thin Zarembo, Sustainable Forest Management: Feasibility analysis NEPA (final EIS) and VCUs 4560, 4570, 4580, WRD 41 NEPA (draft EIS) NEPA 60 MMBF offered (Gate I) NEPA offer 4590,4530 Precommercial thin Precommercial thin 2000 acres precommercial Precommercial thin Precommercial thin thin Engineering: 80 miles road maintained Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance 48 red pipes replaced Red pipes 18 miles road stored Restoration and Enhancement: 2.5 miles stream Implement Implement Monitoring 40 acres riparian thin 65 acres upland thin TwelveMile, CRD 40 Sustainable Forest VCU 6210 Management: no project work Engineering: 13 miles road maintained Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance 3 red pipes removed Red pipes 7 red pipes replaced Restoration and Enhancement: Riparian thinning Riparian thinning 50 acres riparian thin 150 upland thin Peril - Sitkoh, SRD 40 Sustainable Forest VCUs 2430, 2440, 2450 Management: no scheduled offer Engineering: 17 miles road maintained Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance 23 red pipes replaced Restoration and Enhancement: Inventory & Implement 1.5 miles stream NEPA assessment Riparian thinning 50 acres riparian thin 300 acres upland thin Neck and Twin Lakes, Sustainable Forest TBRD 40 Feasibility analysis VCUs 5380, 5400, 5500 Management: NEPA* NEPA* (Gate I) still in development Engineering: Maintenance Maintenance 18 miles road maintained Maintenance Maintenance Red pipes Red pipes Maintenance 4 red pipes replaced Storage Storage 29 miles road stored

Page 1 5/24/2013 Tongass Integrated Plan: 2013-2017 Projects

TOTAL CRITERIA LANDSCAPE DISTRICT SCORE Program Area 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Restoration and Enhancement: 3 miles stream Implement Implement Implement Monitoring 35 acres riparian thin Upland thinning Upland thinning 227 acres upland thin Sustainable Forest Management: Offer Implement Implement North Kuiu - Saginaw, 24.6 MMBF offered PRD 38 VCU 3990 Engineering: 5 miles road maintained 5 red pipes removed Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance 5 red pipes replaced Replace bridges Replace bridges Maintenance Maintenance Replace bridges 9 miles road stored Reconstruct roads Reconstruct roads Reconstruct roads 18 miles road reconstructed 7 bridges replaced

Restoration and Enhancement: NEPA Implement 1 miles stream Upland thinning Upland thinning 1000 acres riparian thin NEPA (final EIS) 312 acres upland thin Thomas Bay, PRD 37 VCUs 4870, 4890 Sustainable Forest Management: NEPA Offer Offer* 15 MMBF offered Engineering: 16 miles road maintained Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance 2 red pipes replaced Red pipes 2 bridges replaced Restoration and Enhancement: Assessment NEPA and design Implement 3 miles stream 100 acres riparian thin Margaret Ck - Traitors Sustainable Forest Cove, KMRD 36 Management: Offer and implement Implement 10 MMBF offered VCU 7380 Engineering: 4 miles road maintained 1 red pipes removed Storage Red pipes 7 red pipes replaced 4 miles road stored

Restoration and Enhancement: Design and 0.75 miles stream NEPA Implement 40-50 acres riparian thin Riparian Thin 400 acres upland thin

Koz VMP, Sustainable Forest VCUs 5430, 5440, 5450, TBRD 35 Management: NEPA NEPA NEPA decision Offer and Implement Implement 5460 43 MMBF offered Engineering: 11 miles road maintained 5 red pipes replaced 17 red pipes removed Log Transfer Facility Red Pipes 1 bridge replaced 1 log transfer facilities developed

Restoration and Enhancement: 4 miles stream NEPA Design and implement Implement Implement Monitoring 500 acres riparian thin 3500 acres upland thin Iris & Shelikof, SRD 34 VCU 3070 Sustainable Forest Management: no project work Engineering: 20 miles road stored Storage Storage 5 red pipes removed Restoration and Enhancement: Assessment NEPA Design Implement 3 miles stream

Sustainable Forest Management: NEPA (draft EIS) NEPA (final EIS) Offer and implement Implement Implement Saddle Lakes, KMRD 32 50 MMBF offered VCUs 7460, 7470, 7530 Engineering: Maintenance 8 miles road maintained Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Red Pipes 27 red pipes replaced Reconstruct roads Storage 1 red pipe removed 6 miles road reconstructed Restoration and Enhancement: no project work Sustainable Forest Management: NEPA (draft EIS) NEPA (final EIS) 12 MMBF offered NEPA Shrimp Bay, Precommercial thin Precommercial thin KMRD 29 1000 acres precommercial VCUs 7330, 7350, 7360 thin

Engineering: 3 miles road maintained Maintenance 1 red pipe replaced 4 red pipes removed

Page 2 5/24/2013 Tongass Integrated Plan: 2013-2017 Projects

TOTAL CRITERIA LANDSCAPE DISTRICT SCORE Program Area 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Restoration and Enhancement: Implement Upland thinning Upland thinning Upland thinning Upland thinning 0.5 miles stream Upland thinning 350 acres upland thin Kennel Creek, Sustainable Forest HRD 27 VCU 2170 Management: no project work Engineering: 4 miles road maintained Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance 4 red pipes replaced

*Total Criteria Score: the score given a project area based on its environmental, social, and economic value. High scores indicate high value. *Districts: Thorne Bay (TBRD), Wrangell (WRD), Craig (CRD), Sitka (SRD), Petersburg (PRD), Ketchikan-Misty Fiords (KMRD), Hoonah (HRD). *Restoration and Enhancement includes in-stream restoration and riparian thinning for fish habitat improvement. It also includes upland thinning for wildlife habitat improvement. *Sustainable forest management includes old-growth timber projects, young growth timber projects, and precommercial thinning projects in development land use areas. *Engineering includes red pipe removal, red pipe replacement, road maintenance, road reconstruction, road storage, bridge reconstruction, log transfer facility development, and federal highway construction projects.

*Please note: The TIP and associated 5-year programmatic plans are planning tools the Tongass uses to schedule potential work and align resources, not a decision document. All numbers are best estimates given current information, including budget allocations and NEPA analysis outcomes (if applicable). Numbers and scopes of projects are subject to change.

Page 3 5/24/2013 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Appendix D – Survey Types

Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table D-1. Survey Types Survey Type Description Field Check The survey area is given a quick “once over” but the surveyor does not walk completely through the survey area. The entire area is not examined. Cursory A Cursory survey is appropriately used to confirm the presence of species of interest identified in previous surveys or in the pre-field analysis. By its nature, the cursory survey is rapid, and does not provide in-depth environmental information. The entire area is traversed at least once. For example, stand condition as seen in aerial photography can be verified by a cursory survey. Also, a cursory survey can be used to determine if a plant population that had been previously documented at a site remains present or intact. General The survey area is given a closer review by walking through the area and its perimeter or by walking more than once through the area. Most of the area is examined. Focused (Intuitive The Focused, or Intuitive Controlled, survey is the most commonly used and most Controlled) efficient method of surveying for TES plants. During pre-field analysis, potential suitable habitat is identified for each species of interest and the survey effort is focused in those areas. This method requires adequate knowledge of suitable habitat in order to accurately select the areas of focused searching. When conducting intuitive controlled surveys, an area somewhat larger than the identified suitable habitat should be searched to validate current suitable habitat definitions. Random Random surveys employ an undirected, typically non-linear, traverse through a survey area. They are employed either when there is inadequate natural history information about a species to discern its suitable habitat and the surveyor is simply searching for occurrences, or when a target species is very abundant within a search area and the surveyor is attempting to make estimates of population parameters such as intra-patch variations in density or the occurrence of predation or herbivory. However, a stratified random survey may be more effective in these latter cases. Stratified Random This survey is most often used within known population areas of target species, or when an area to be surveyed is of unknown habitat suitability and is relatively large. Stratified random surveys employ a series of randomly selected plots of equal size within a survey area that are each thoroughly searched for target species. When conducting a stratified random survey, it is important to sample an adequate number of plots that are of sufficient size if statistical inference regarding the survey area is desired (discussion of sample designs, see Elzinga, C., et al. 1998). Systematic Typically used in limited areas where the likelihood of occurrence of a target species may be evenly distributed throughout the survey area. Systematic surveys are often employed either within focused search areas (e.g., stratified random and intuitive controlled methods), or when a proposed project is likely to produce significant habitat alterations for species that are especially sensitive to the proposed activities.

Page | D-1 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Appendix E – Description of Populations of Rare Plant Observed in the Survey Area

Botany Resource Report FINAL

Table E-1. Locations and Descriptions of Populations of Rare Plants Observed in the Survey Area Popu- Location in the Estimated Habitat and Estimated Distance Rare species lation # Survey area Population Size from Existing Road Bog St. John’s- 1 Along floating log 10-20 Floating log mat. Population would wort (Hypericum mat on open water likely not be affected by inundation anagalloides) in Swan Lake as log mat would continue to float. Bog St. John’s- 2 Vicinity of lost 10-20 Riparian habitat. Population would wort (Hypericum Creek be affected by inundation from anagalloides) rising pool reservoir levels. Northern 1 In numerous several 100 Population would be affected by bugleweed locations around inundation from rising pool (Lycopus uniflorus) Swan Lake reservoir levels. Northern 2 In the vicinity of the 20-40 Disturbed wet areas, wet ditched, bugleweed Dam and along gravel roads. May be affected by (Lycopus uniflorus) existing roads construction, not within inundation zone. Pacific buttercup 1 Gravel bar within 10 Plants growing in wet moss on top (Ranunculus Lost Creek of a large, downed log at the edge of pacificus) riparian area along Lost Creek. Population would be affected by inundation from rising pool reservoir levels. Wallace’s 1 North shore of 1 Seepy, southeast facing cliff. spikemoss Swan Lake Population would be affected by (Selaginella inundation from rising pool wallacei) reservoir levels.

Page | E-1 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Appendix F – Rare Plant Element Occurrence Field Forms

Botany Resource Report FINAL

R10 TES PLANT ELEMENT OCCURRENCE - FIELD FORM - USDA FOREST SERVICE 12/08 ® = required field, ®* = conditionally required field, ® = required field Alaska Region

General Information

1) SITE ID: ® 2) DATE: ® 8/6/2012 3) SITE NAME: SWAN LAKE 4) NRCS PLANT CODE: ® LYUN (POPULATION LYUN 1) 5) SCIENTIFIC NAME: ® LYCOPUS UNIFLORUS 6) RECORD SOURCE: ® FS 7) SURVEY ID: ®* 8) Survey Name: Swan Lake Exp. 9) EXAMINER(S)- LAST: ® BECK FIRST: ® Kathryn M IDDLE I NITIAL : A LAST: BRIMACOMBE FIRST: KAREN MIDDLE INITIAL: A 10) OWNERSHIP: ® USFS 11) Loc. Uncert: ® 12) Uncert. Dist: ®* 13) E.O. # 14) STATE: ®* AK 15) COUNTY: ®* 16) REGION: ®* 10 17) FOREST: ®* TONGASS 18) DISTRICT: ®* KETCHIKAN-MISTY FIORDS 19) Area (Est): 20) Area UOM: ®* 21) Canopy Cover Method ®* (circle one): COVER PERCENT; DAUBEN; NRMCOV

Element Occurrence Data

22) EO Canopy Cover: ®%Cov: <1% or Cover Class Code: 23) Lifeform: Forb 24) Number of subpopulations: 0 25) Plant Found (Revisit): Yes or No 26)Plant Count:® 100s 27)Count Type: ®Genets/Ramets 28)Count: ® Estimate 29) Revisit needed - Yes or No 30) Revisit Date: 31) Revisit Justification: 32)Phenology by %® 33) Population Comments: (e.g., distribution, vigor, density, phenology, dispersal) (Sum to 100%): Population quite vigorous, this species seems to thrive in the habitat created by the Vegetative . . . . . _60 dam and fluctuating water levels. Many of the ramets were vegetative or were just starting to bloom. Flower/Bud . . . _ Fruit/Dispersed . _40 34) Evidence of disease, competition, predation, collection, trampling, or Seedlings/ herbivory: Yes___ or No _X__ Juvenile . . . . . ___ 35) Evidence Comments:

36) Pollinator observed – Yes or No 37) Pollinator type(s): 38) Pollinator comments:

Site Morphometry

39) Percent Slope: ® 0 - 5 % 40) Slope position: ® BOTTOM 41) Aspect: ® azimuth: varies or cardinal: 42) Elev.: Ave: 330 Min: Max: 43) Elev UOM: ®* FEET

Soil Characteristics and Light Conditions 44) Substrate on which EO occurs: M

Page | F-1 Botany Resource Report FINAL SITE ID:

45) Parent Material: 46) Soil Moisture: W 47) Soil Texture: SL 48) Soil Type: 49) Light Exposure: ® SUN, PSH

Site Classifications Record taxonomic units of the given type(s) if published classifications exist for the area. CLASSIFICATION TYPE CLASS CODE CLASSIFICATION SHORT NAME CLASSIFICATION SET 50) Existing Veg® 51) Potential Veg 52) Ecotype

Habitat Quality and Management Comments

53) Habitat Description: Plants growing in numerous rhizomatous patches around lake shore either submerged by the high water levels, or in moist substrate up on the shore. It grows in moist soil, rock crevices, moist logs and moss. This species seems to thrive in the habitat created by the dam and fluctuating water levels. The survey was done when the reservoir was at full pool. From the full pool level, it is unknown how far below the high water level this species can survive. We did not attempt to completely map this population. 54) Dominant Process: 90 55) Process Comment: 56) Community Quality (L, M, H): H 57) Landscape Integrity (L, M, H): H 58) Disturbance/Threats (present or imminent): If raised the dam pool were raised, this population would likely survive via root fragments, submerged plants, and repopulate from adjacent subpopulations, eg. plants along the road. 59) Disturbance/Threats Comment:

60) Non-Native Comment: Few nonnatives present with this species.

61) Current Land Use Comment: Hydroelectric production.

Canopy Cover

Record % canopy cover by actual percent, or by cover class (as indicated in General Information Block). Lifeform Canopy Cover 62) % Cov or Code Ground Cover 63) % Cov or Code Tree Bare Shrub Gravel Forb Rock Graminoid Bedrock Non-vascular Moss Lichen Litter/Duff

Page | F-2 Botany Resource Report FINAL

SITE ID: Algae Basal Veg Water Road surface Lichen

Associated Species

List species directly associated with the EO species on this site. Record the NRCS Plant Code, scientific name or both. If desired, indicate lifeform, dominant species, % cover for each species and flag non-native species. 64) Completeness of Species List: ®* C, R, OR S ® 65) Species List Comment:

66) ® 67) ® 68) 69) 70) 71) NRCS Scientific Name Life Dom. % Cov or Non- Plant Code Form (Y/N) Class native Alnus sinuata T Rubus spectabilis S Picea sitchensis T Ribes bracteosum S Oplopanax horridum S Tolmiea menziesii F Equisetum arvense F Ranunculus uncinatus F Prenanthes alata F Galium triflorum F Epilobium spp. F Achillea borealis F Athyrium felix-femina F

Page | F-3 Botany Resource Report FINAL SITE ID:

EO Specimen Documentation

72) Reference for ID: 73) Primary Collector – ®Last Name: BECK First Name: Kathryn M.I. A. Other Collectors – ®Last Name: First Name: M.I. 74) Collection #: ®* 201207, 201210 75) ID Confirmed: ®* Y: or N: or Questionable: 76) Verification: ® 77) Specimen Repository: ®*

Image Information ® (IF IMAGES TAKEN)

78) Image ID 79) Image Description

Location Information (State, County, Region, Forest, District will be auto-populated by the database application when the spatial feature is entered) 80) USGS Quad Number: 81) USGS Quad Name: 82) Forest Quad Number: 83) Forest Quad Name:

84) Legal Description: Required where public land survey is available. Meridian: Township and Range: T72S R92E Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 27 Section:__ Q Sec:___ QQ Sec: ____ QQQ Sec: ____ QQQQ Sec: ____

85) Latitude and Longitude ®FOR TONGASS (either in degrees, minutes, seconds or in decimal degrees) Geodetic Datum: Latitude: Degrees __ _ N Minutes Seconds __ __.__ __ Longitude: Degrees ______W Minutes Seconds __ __.__ __ GPS Datum: GPS Lat. Dec. Degrees: 55.6137 GPS Long. Dec. Degrees: 131.3329 Additional points in Field 91

86) UTM® FOR CHUGACH UTM Datum: UTM Zone: Easting: ______6165556 Northing: ______353069

87) GPS Equipment Used (Manufacturer and Model):

Page | F-4 Botany Resource Report FINAL SITE ID:

Trimble Geo HX 88) Metes and Bounds

89) Directions to Site From the west end of Swan Lake (22 miles northeast of Ketchikan) boat to shore areas that are gently sloping to moderately steep. Plants are growing underwater (when the lake is at full pool level) and above water level along lake shore. Substrates include moss, soil, in rock crevices and on moist logs near lake shore.

90) Sketch of Site or Area

91) General EO Comments

This species was commonly observed growing around the edge of the lake, both submerged in the water and up on the shore; it is incompletely mapped.

Swan Lake Lycopus uniflorus points: -131.3329 55.6137 -131.2446 55.6421 -131.2439 55.6424 -131.2490 55.6378 -131.2621 55.6336 -131.2920 55.5950 -131.2461 55.6315 -131.2580 55.6350 -131.3413 55.6143 -131.2529 55.6364

Page | F-5 Botany Resource Report FINAL

R10 TES PLANT ELEMENT OCCURRENCE - FIELD FORM - USDA FOREST SERVICE 12/08 ® = required field, ®* = conditionally required field, ® = required field Alaska Region

General Information

1) SITE ID: ® 2) DATE: ® 8/9/2012 3) SITE NAME: SWAN LAKE ROAD 4) NRCS PLANT CODE: ® LYUN (POPULATION LYUN 2) 5) SCIENTIFIC NAME: ® LYCOPUS UNIFLORUS 6) RECORD SOURCE: ® FS 7) SURVEY ID: ®* 8) Survey Name: Swan Lake Exp. 9) EXAMINER(S)- LAST: ® BECK FIRST: ® Kathryn M IDDLE I NITIAL : A LAST: BRIMACOMBE FIRST: KAREN MIDDLE INITIAL: A 10) OWNERSHIP: ® USFS 11) Loc. Uncert: ® 12) Uncert. Dist: ®* 13) E.O. # 14) STATE: ®* AK 15) COUNTY: ®* 16) REGION: ®* 10 17) FOREST: ®* TONGASS 18) DISTRICT: ®* KETCHIKAN-MISTY FIORDS 19) Area (Est): 20) Area UOM: ®* 21) Canopy Cover Method ®* (circle one): COVER PERCENT; DAUBEN; NRMCOV

Element Occurrence Data

22) EO Canopy Cover: ®%Cov: <1% or Cover Class Code: 23) Lifeform: Forb 24) Number of subpopulations: 0 25) Plant Found (Revisit): Yes or No 26)Plant Count:® 20+ 27)Count Type: ®Genets/Ramets 28)Count: ® Estimate 29) Revisit needed - Yes or No 30) Revisit Date: 31) Revisit Justification: 32)Phenology by %® 33) Population Comments: (e.g., distribution, vigor, density, phenology, dispersal) (Sum to 100%): Population vigorous, this species seems to thrive in disturbed habitats created by the Vegetative . . . . . _60 dam project. Many of the ramets were vegetative or were just starting to bloom. Flower/Bud . . . _ 34) Evidence of disease, competition, predation, collection, trampling, or Fruit/Dispersed . _40 herbivory: Yes___ or No __X_ Seedlings/ 35) Evidence Comments: Juvenile . . . . . ___

36) Pollinator observed – Yes or No 37) Pollinator type(s): 38) Pollinator comments:

Site Morphometry

39) Percent Slope: ® 0 - 5 % 40) Slope position: ® 41) Aspect: ® azimuth: varies or cardinal: 42) Elev.: Ave: Min: 20 Max: 330 43) Elev UOM: ®* FEET

Soil Characteristics and Light Conditions 44) Substrate on which EO occurs: M

Page | F-6 Botany Resource Report FINAL SITE ID:

45) Parent Material: 46) Soil Moisture: W 47) Soil Texture: SL 48) Soil Type: 49) Light Exposure: ® SUN, PSH

Site Classifications Record taxonomic units of the given type(s) if published classifications exist for the area. CLASSIFICATION TYPE CLASS CODE CLASSIFICATION SHORT NAME CLASSIFICATION SET 50) Existing Veg® 51) Potential Veg 52) Ecotype

Habitat Quality and Management Comments

53) Habitat Description: Plants growing in numerous rhizomatous patches along the road to the dam, in wet ditches, graveled areas and on the road surface. This species seems to thrive in disturbed habitat created by the project. It is incompletely mapped. 54) Dominant Process: 70 55) Process Comment: 56) Community Quality (L, M, H): L 57) Landscape Integrity (L, M, H): L 58) Disturbance/Threats (present or imminent): EX, RM, OV 59) Disturbance/Threats Comment: If construction occurred along the road and in gravel pits here, this population would likely survive as it seems to do well with disturbance. It could also repopulate via root fragments and/or from adjacent subpopulations.

60) Non-Native Comment: Numerous non-native species are present with the Lycopus (Trifolium sp, Veronica spp., Plantago major, Leucanthemum vulgare, Taraxacum officinale). It does not seem to be out- competed, however.

61) Current Land Use Comment: Hydroelectric production.

Canopy Cover

Record % canopy cover by actual percent, or by cover class (as indicated in General Information Block). Lifeform Canopy Cover 62) % Cov or Code Ground Cover 63) % Cov or Code Tree Bare Shrub Gravel Forb Rock Graminoid Bedrock Non-vascular Moss Lichen Litter/Duff Algae Basal Veg

Page | F-7 Botany Resource Report FINAL SITE ID:

Water Road surface Lichen

Associated Species

List species directly associated with the EO species on this site. Record the NRCS Plant Code, scientific name or both. If desired, indicate lifeform, dominant species, % cover for each species and flag non-native species. 64) Completeness of Species List: ®* C, R, OR S ® 65) Species List Comment:

66) ® 67) ® 68) 69) 70) 71) NRCS Scientific Name Life Dom. % Cov or Non- Plant Code Form (Y/N) Class native Alnus sinuata T Rubus spectabilis S Picea sitchensis T Rubus parviflorus S Aruncus Sylvester S Leucanthmum vulgare F X Equisetum arvense F Tiarella trifoliata F Veronica spp. F X Galium triflorum F Epiobium spp. F Achillea borealis F Athyrium felix-femina F Juncus spp. G Trifolium repens F X Plantago sp. F X

Page | F-8 Botany Resource Report FINAL

SITE ID:

EO Specimen Documentation

72) Reference for ID: 73) Primary Collector – ®Last Name: BECK First Name: Kathryn M.I. A. Other Collectors – ®Last Name: First Name: M.I. 74) Collection #: ®* 201244 75) ID Confirmed: ®* Y: or N: or Questionable: 76) Verification: ® 77) Specimen Repository: ®* WTU

Image Information ® (IF IMAGES TAKEN)

78) Image ID 79) Image Description

Location Information (State, County, Region, Forest, District will be auto-populated by the database application when the spatial feature is entered) 80) USGS Quad Number: 81) USGS Quad Name: 82) Forest Quad Number: 83) Forest Quad Name:

84) Legal Description: Required where public land survey is available. Meridian: Township and Range: T72S R92E S 20, 19 Section:__ Q Sec:___ QQ Sec: ____ QQQ Sec: ____ QQQQ Sec: ____

85) Latitude and Longitude ®FOR TONGASS (either in degrees, minutes, seconds or in decimal degrees) Geodetic Datum: Latitude: Degrees __ _ N Minutes Seconds __ __.__ __ Longitude: Degrees ______W Minutes Seconds __ __.__ __ GPS Datum: GPS Lat. Dec. Degrees: 55.6153 GPS Long. Dec. Degrees: 131.3450 Second point 55.6157 131.3435

86) UTM® FOR CHUGACH UTM Datum: UTM Zone: Easting: ______Northing: ______352313 6165756 Second point 352408 6165798 87) GPS Equipment Used (Manufacturer and Model):

Page | F-9 Botany Resource Report FINAL SITE ID:

88) Metes and Bounds

89) Directions to Site Travel the road from the shore of Carroll Inlet up to Swan Lake (area 22 miles northeast of Ketchikan). Look for scattered patches of plants growing on the roadside, in gravel pits and in wet ditches adjacent the road.

90) Sketch of Site or Area

91) General EO Comments

No attempt was made to completely map this species along the road. It was also commonly observed growing around the edge of Swan Lake, both submerged in the water and up on the shore.

Page | F-10 Botany Resource Report FINAL

R10 TES PLANT ELEMENT OCCURRENCE - FIELD FORM - USDA FOREST SERVICE 12/08 ® = required field, ®* = conditionally required field, ® = required field Alaska Region

General Information

1) SITE ID: ® 2) DATE: ® 8/7/2012 3) SITE NAME: LOST CREEK 4) NRCS PLANT CODE: ® RAPA (POPULATION RAPA 1) 5) SCIENTIFIC NAME: ® RANUNCULUS PACIFICUS 6) RECORD SOURCE: ® FS 7) SURVEY ID: ®* 8) Survey Name: Swan Lake Exp. 9) EXAMINER(S)- LAST: ® BECK FIRST: ® Kathryn M IDDLE I NITIAL : A LAST: BRIMACOMBE FIRST: KAREN MIDDLE INITIAL: A 10) OWNERSHIP: ® USFS 11) Loc. Uncert: ® 12) Uncert. Dist: ®* 13) E.O. # 14) STATE: ®* AK 15) COUNTY: ®* KETCHIKAN 16) REGION: ®* 10 17) FOREST: ®* TONGASS 18) DISTRICT: ®* KETCHIKAN-MISTY FIORDS 19) Area (Est): 20) Area UOM: ®* 21) Canopy Cover Method ®* (circle one): COVER PERCENT; DAUBEN; NRMCOV

Element Occurrence Data

22) EO Canopy Cover: ®%Cov: <1% or Cover Class Code: 23) Lifeform: Forb 24) Number of subpopulations: 0 25) Plant Found (Revisit): Yes or No 26)Plant Count:® 10 27)Count Type: ®Genets/Ramets 28)Count: ® Estimate 29) Revisit needed - Yes or No 30) Revisit Date: 31) Revisit Justification: 32)Phenology by %® 33) Population Comments: (e.g., distribution, vigor, density, phenology, dispersal) (Sum to 100%): Population not very vigorous. Vegetative . . . . . _20 34) Evidence of disease, competition, predation, collection, trampling, or Flower/Bud . . . _80 herbivory: Yes___ or No __X_ Fruit/Dispersed . _ 35) Evidence Comments: Seedlings/ Juvenile . . . . . ___

36) Pollinator observed – Yes or No 37) Pollinator type(s): 38) Pollinator comments:

Site Morphometry

39) Percent Slope: ® 0 - 5 % 40) Slope position: ® BOTTOM 41) Aspect: ® azimuth: varies or cardinal: 42) Elev.: Ave: 340 Min: Max: 43) Elev UOM: ®* FEET

Soil Characteristics and Light Conditions 44) Substrate on which EO occurs: M, L

Page | F-11 Botany Resource Report FINAL SITE ID:

45) Parent Material: 46) Soil Moisture: W 47) Soil Texture: 48) Soil Type: 49) Light Exposure: ® PSH

Site Classifications Record taxonomic units of the given type(s) if published classifications exist for the area. CLASSIFICATION TYPE CLASS CODE CLASSIFICATION SHORT NAME CLASSIFICATION SET 50) Existing Veg® 51) Potential Veg 52) Ecotype

Habitat Quality and Management Comments

53) Habitat Description: Plants growing in wet moss on top of large, 40 foot long downed log at edge of riparian area. Plants may also be growing in soil of stabilized gravel bar nearby. 54) Dominant Process: 90 55) Process Comment: 56) Community Quality (L, M, H): H 57) Landscape Integrity (L, M, H): H 58) Disturbance/Threats (present or imminent): If raised the dam pool were raised, most of this population would be submerged. 59) Disturbance/Threats Comment:

60) Non-Native Comment: Few nonnatives present with this species.

61) Current Land Use Comment: Hydroelectric production.

Canopy Cover

Record % canopy cover by actual percent, or by cover class (as indicated in General Information Block). Lifeform Canopy Cover 62) % Cov or Code Ground Cover 63) % Cov or Code Tree 40 Bare Shrub 30 Gravel Forb 75 Rock Graminoid 25 Bedrock Non-vascular Moss 80 Lichen Litter/Duff 20 Algae Basal Veg Water Road surface Lichen

Page | F-12 Botany Resource Report FINAL

SITE ID:

Associated Species

List species directly associated with the EO species on this site. Record the NRCS Plant Code, scientific name or both. If desired, indicate lifeform, dominant species, % cover for each species and flag non-native species. 64) Completeness of Species List: ®* C, R, OR S ® 65) Species List Comment:

66) ® 67) ® 68) 69) 70) 71) NRCS Scientific Name Life Dom. % Cov or Non- Plant Code Form (Y/N) Class native Alnus rubra T Rubus spectabilis S Sambucus racemosa S Ribes bracteosum S Lycopus uniflorus F Fritillaria camschatcensis F Ranunculus flammula F Ranunculus uncinatus F Prenanthes alata F Galium triflorum F Prunella vulgaris F Montia parvifolia F Cornus canadensis S Festuca subulata G Agrostis sp. G

EO Specimen Documentation

72) Reference for ID: 73) Primary Collector – ®Last Name: Beck First Name: Kathryn M.I. A. Other Collectors – ®Last Name: First Name: M.I.

Page | F-13 Botany Resource Report FINAL SITE ID:

74) Collection #: ®* 201209 75) ID Confirmed: ®* Y: or N: or Questionable: 76) Verification: ® 77) Specimen Repository: ®*

Image Information ® (IF IMAGES TAKEN)

78) Image ID 79) Image Description

Location Information (State, County, Region, Forest, District will be auto-populated by the database application when the spatial feature is entered) 80) USGS Quad Number: 81) USGS Quad Name: 82) Forest Quad Number: 83) Forest Quad Name:

84) Legal Description: Required where public land survey is available. Meridian: Township and Range: T72S R92E S 12 Section:__ Q Sec:___SW QQ Sec: ____ QQQ Sec: ____ QQQQ Sec: ____

85) Latitude and Longitude ®FOR TONGASS (either in degrees, minutes, seconds or in decimal degrees) Geodetic Datum: Latitude: Degrees __ _ N Minutes Seconds __ __.__ __ Longitude: Degrees ______W Minutes Seconds __ __.__ __ GPS Datum: GPS Lat. Dec. Degrees: 55.6421 GPS Long. Dec. Degrees: 131.2446

86) UTM® FOR CHUGACH UTM Datum: UTM Zone: Easting: ______358732 Northing: ______6168530

87) GPS Equipment Used (Manufacturer and Model):

88) Metes and Bounds

Page | F-14 Botany Resource Report FINAL

SITE ID:

89) Directions to Site Boat up far northeast arm of Swan Lake (22 miles northeast of Ketchikan) until it becomes Lost Creek. Go up Lost Creek to an area with a large gravel bar. Look for 40 foot long mossy log on southeast side of creek. Plants on top of log and possibly in soil of stabilized gravel bar. Use map and GPS points to help locate plants.

90) Sketch of Site or Area

91) General EO Comments

This species was growing on a large, 40 foot long mossy log at the edge of a riparian area. It may also be growing in soil in the riparian area.

Page | F-15 Botany Resource Report FINAL

Appendix G –– Response to Agency Comments on the Draft Resource Report

Botany Resource Report FINAL

Item Agency / Date Comment Response GENERAL COMMENTS (applies to all Resource Reports) 1 USFS / The resource reports continue to mention analysis area/study A better description of the project area analyzed for September 16, area/project area and FERC project area interchangeably; this the Resource Reports will be provided for each 2013 generates confusion. The wording needs to be clarified in each report. resource report to avoid confusion over what area is being analyzed for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Often the FERC project area and the direct/indirect effects area are the same; this should be stated in the resource report. In other situations, the effects areas are not the same. Cumulative effects areas should also be clearly described. The use of consistent wording throughout all resource reports would be helpful, especially when preparing the Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment. 2 USFS / In some tables, decimal numbers are used and in other tables, All tables will be reviewed and likely rounded with September 16, numbers are rounded to avoid the use of decimals or fractions. the exception of possibly wetlands. 2013 Please consider reviewing the tables to verify that the usage is logical. When the table numbers are referenced in the text, make sure that the same number format is used.

BOTANY RESOURCE REPORT 3 USFS / Page 3 1.24 Sensitive and Rare Plants A rare plant on the Text revised and reference added. September 16, Tongass National Forest is defined as a plant species that: 2013 Include a reference source for the rare plant criteria. 4 USFS / Page 4 1.3 Analysis Area The analysis area for direct and Text revised to clarify. September 16, indirect effects to sensitive and rare plants…Address confusion 2013 over direct/indirect analysis area and project area. One suggestion is to replace “analysis area” in this and botanical subsequent sections with either “project area” or “cumulative effects area” to avoid confusion over what area is being analyzed for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. However, consistency throughout all resources would be appreciated.

Page | G-1 Botany Resource Report FINAL

5 USFS / Cumulative effects to general vegetation and sensitive and rare Cumulative effects area revised to include the September 16, plants are assessed for the analysis area and also the entire Tongass National Forest for general vegetation 2013 Value Comparison Unit (VCU) 7450 in which the Swan Lake and the known or suspected range of sensitive Expansion Project is located. Clarify and provide justification for and rare species on the Tongass National Forest the selected cumulative effects area. This area conflicts with the per Dillman and Krosse (2009). cumulative effects area described in the sensitive plant biological

evaluation. The extent of the cumulative effects analysis area should be ecologically driven, such as the known or suspected range of the species on the Tongass National Forest. VCU’s are not considered ecologically significant relative to a plant’s distribution. See Dillman and Krosse (2009). 6 USFS / Page 10 3.2 Field Surveys Additionally, Region 10 (R10) Text revised to include term Sensitive September 16, Threatened and Endangered Species (TES) Change to 2013 “Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive.” 7 USFS / Page 10 3.3 Determination of Effects and Risk Assessment Text revised to include projects within the September 16, Known reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the Swan revised area of cumulative effects per comment 2013 Lake Expansion project area are identified in Appendix C. This 13 above. area is not sufficient to analyze cumulative effects, see page 4 comment.

8 USFS / Page 12 4.2 Sensitive Plants Table 2 summarizes the general Table 2 updated to include all 11 species known September 16, habitat requirements of the eight sensitive plant species that are or suspected to occur on the Ketchikan-Misty 2013 either known to occur or suspected to occur on the Ketchikan- Fiords Ranger District. Statement: “for which Misty Fiords Ranger District and for which potential habitat may potential habitat may be present within the be present within the analysis area. The effects analysis analysis area” removed. narrative indicates that some of these species have no occurrences or suitable habitat in the project area. Table 2 needs No sensitive plant species are known to occur to also indicate presence or absence in the project/analysis area. within the project area. Text and Table 2 revised to indicate this. Table 2 also revised to indicate whether potential habitat for each species occurs in the project area.

Page | G-2 Botany Resource Report FINAL

9 USFS / Page 13 4.3 Rare Plants Additionally, populations of five plant Species that are no longer considered rare were September 16, species: boreal bedstraw (Galium kamtschaticum), Choris’ bog- omitted from text and from Table 3. 2013 orchid (Platanthera chorisiana), maidenhair spleenwort (Asplenium trichomanes ssp. trichomanes), brightgreen It was believed that in pre-field discussions for spleenwort (Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum), and bog adder’s- the project boreal bedstraw and Choris’ bog- mouth orchid (Malaxis paludosa) that were on the AKNHP 2008 orchid were considered species of interest. Rare Vascular Plant List (AKNHP 2008) but were subsequently This appears to be a miscommunication and removed were found in the analysis area (Table 3). These species these two species were removed from Table 3 that are no longer considered rare should be omitted from Table and the text of the document. 3.

Even though boreal bedstraw (Galium kamtschaticum), and Choris’ bog-orchid (Platanthera chorisiana) are not included on the 2012 AKNHP Rare Vascular Plant List, they are considered species of interest for the Tongass National Forest. Provide a reference source for the “species of interest” statement. How was this determined?

Page | G-3 Botany Resource Report FINAL

10 USFS / Page 15 4.4 Plant Species Newly Documented in Alaska Text added to describe how taxonomy was September 16, Populations of two plant species, Wallace’s spikemoss validated and to provide location of voucher 2013 (Selaginella wallacei) and bog St. John’s-wort (Hypericum specimens collected. anagalloides), that have not previously been documented in Alaska were observed in the Swan Lake Expansion Project Text added to clarify that, and provide analysis area. Sources checked for distribution of these species justification why, these two species are include: the Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria (2012), addressed as rare plants for purposes of this Plants National Database (USDA NRCS 2012), and the University Project. of Alaska Museum of the North Herbarium. Describe how the taxonomy was validated, and the location of voucher specimens, if collected. Clarify that these species are addressed as rare plants for the purposes of this project. The justification is that they are being raised as an issue through the NEPA process because of rarity and conservation concerns (i.e. the only known populations in Alaska). See Section 1.2.4.

Page | G-4 Botany Resource Report FINAL

11 USFS / Page 15 4.5 General Vegetation Types Four general Both the Tongass Cover Type GIS layer and the September 16, vegetation types are present in the analysis area: old-growth, SD7 model were used to determine existing 2013 young-growth, unproductive forest and forested muskeg area. vegetation types. Text revised to clarify. These are structural-productivity types from the forest size- density model, (see Section 4.1). Need to also analyze existing Definition of unproductive forest revised. vegetation cover types. Refer to the Tongass Cover Type GIS Correct reference cited and added to reference layer. section.

Unproductive forest is defined as forest land incapable of yielding Unfortunately, at this time the analysis cannot crops of industrial wood because of adverse site conditions. The address commercial volume at this time. reference for this statement is Chapter 7 (Glossary) in the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 2008. Unfortunately, both the definition and the reference are incorrect. The correct reference is:

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Plan Amendment. Volume I. USDA Forest Service R10- MB-603c, pp. 3-135 through 3-137.

According to the FEIS, unproductive forests contain small trees (generally 40 feet or less in height) and have 10 to 40 percent canopy closure. Consequently, small trees with commercial value may occur within this cover type. As noted in the Resource Report, approximately 15 acres of this cover type will be permanently lost due to inundation. Perhaps the addition of vegetation cover types will help define these areas better. There is a need to know if there is any commercial volume in the younger trees.

Page | G-5 Botany Resource Report FINAL

12 USFS / Page 17 32 5 Environmental Consequence General Text revised to add more detail on direct, September 16, comment: more detail needs to be provided about the direct, indirect and cumulative effect including 2013 indirect, and cumulative effects analyses results for the species in number and distribution of individuals, this section. Stating that “effects are possible” is insufficient populations and habitat acreage in the project information to understand and justify the assessed risk level and area and cumulative effects analysis area. effects determination. Include number and distribution of individuals, populations, and habitat acreage in the project area Unfortunately, due to the limited detail in the and cumulative effects analysis area, and the quantity adversely Tongass Vegetation Cover types, it is difficult to impacted by projects. determine acres of suitable habitat for sensitive and rare plants that would potentially be impacted by Project activities. 13 USFS / Page 18 5.1.1 Spatulate Moonwort (Botrychium spathulatum Risk assessment and determination for this September 16, W.H.Wagner) The analysis area does not include beach habitat, species revised/omitted as no suitable habitat 2013 limestone or open drained areas, and is located well below the for species exists in project area. alpine zone, thus a limited amount of potential habitat is present within the analysis area. If habitat is present, describe its location and extent, and include an effects determination for this species. If there is no suitable habitat present in the project area, then omit the risk assessment and determination for this species.

The project would have no direct or indirect effects to known populations or habitat of spatulate moonwort. The risk of adverse effects to this plant is low, as impacts to potential habitat are not likely to result from the Project. If there are no direct or indirect effects, then the risk is “none.” 14 USFS / Page 18 5.1.2 Edible Thistle (Cirsium edule var. macounii This species, including, risk assessment and September 16, (Greene) D.J.Keil) The analysis area does not have meadows or determination, was omitted from the 2013 talus slopes, and is well below the alpine and subalpine zones, Environmental Consequences section as no thus potential habitat is not present within the analysis area. suitable habitat for species exists in project Omit the risk assessment and determination for this species area. since there is no suitable habitat present in the project area.

Page | G-6 Botany Resource Report FINAL

15 USFS / Page 18 5.1.3 Mountain Lady’s Slipper (Cypripedium Text revised. September 16, montanum Douglas ex Lindl.) Inundation, dam construction, 2013 and associated activities under the proposed action could affect Effects determination, using appropriate potential habitat for this species… Change “affect” to “adversely language from FSM 2670 R-10 Supplement affect” for clarity. Clarify for all subsequent discussions of effects. 2600-2005-1, added.

Include an effects determination for the species. Use the appropriate language in FSM 2670 R-10 Supplement 2600-2005-1 for sensitive species effects determinations. 16 USFS / Page 19 5.1.4 Large Yellow Lady’s Slipper Orchid Risk assessment and determination text for this September 16, (Cypripedium parviflorum Salisb. var. pubescens (Willdenow) O. species revised. 2013 W. Knight) The project would have no direct or indirect effects to potential habitat of large yellow lady’s slipper orchid because potential habitat for this species (peatlands on calcareous substrates) does not occur within the analysis area. Omit the risk assessment and determination for this species since there is no suitable habitat present in the project area. 17 USFS / Page 19 5.1.5 Calder’s lovage (Ligusticum calderi Math. & This species, including, risk assessment and September 16, Const.) The analysis area does not have calcareous substrates determination, was omitted from the 2013 and is well below the alpine and subalpine zones, thus potential Environmental Consequences section as no habitat is not present within the analysis area. Omit the risk suitable habitat for species exists in project assessment and determination for this species since there is no area. suitable habitat present in the project area.

18 USFS / Page 20 5.1.6 Alaska Rein Orchid (Piperia unalascensis Text revised. September 16, (Spreng.) Rydb.)….therefore, this project may adversely impact 2013 individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Effects determination, using appropriate analysis area or cause a trend toward federal listing. Change language from FSM 2670 R-10 Supplement “analysis area” to “Planning Area.” Use the appropriate language 2600-2005-1, added. for sensitive species effects determinations provided in FSM 2670 R-10 Supplement 2600-2005-1.

Page | G-7 Botany Resource Report FINAL

19 USFS / Page 20-21 5.1.7 Lesser Round-Leaved Orchid (Platanthera Habitat description revised. September 16, orbiculata (Pursh)) Lesser round-leaved orchid may be found in Text regarding old and young growth forest 2013 a variety of habitats on the Tongass National Forest Habitat is removed. not as variable as this statement implies. See habitat description for this species in USDA Forest Service (2009). “Analysis area” changed to “Tongass National Forest”. It has been found in both old and young growth forests. Potentially misleading; revise to clarify. Only a few occurrences Overall risk changed to moderate. have been found in young growth forest, and their viability is Language used for effects determination uncertain. revised per FSM 2670 R-10 Supplement 2600- 2005-1. The overall risk to this plant is low to moderate since not all habitats were surveyed and undetected specimens could potentially be impacted by inundation and dam construction and associated activities; therefore, this project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the analysis area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing (Tetra Tech 2013b). If not all habitats were surveyed, and consequences of impact are high (inundation), then overall risk should be at least moderate. See overall risk level stated in Cumulative Effects section for this species. Change “analysis area” to “Planning Area.” Planning Area is the Tongass National Forest. Use the appropriate language for sensitive species effects determinations provided in FSM 2670 R-10 Supplement 2600-2005-1.

20 USFS / Page 21 5.1.8 Kruckeberg’s Swordfern (Polystichum This species, including, risk assessment and September 16, kruckebergii W.H. Wagner) The analysis area does not have determination, was omitted from the 2013 ultramafic areas, thus potential habitat is not present within the Environmental Consequences section as no suitable habitat for species exists in project area. analysis area. Omit the risk assessment and determination for this species since there is no suitable habitat present in the project area.

Page | G-8 Botany Resource Report FINAL

21 USFS / Page 21 5.2 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for Rare Noted September 16, Plants Comments below for each species: 2013 22 USFS / Page 22 5.2.1 Maidenhair Spleenwort (Asplenium Species omitted. September 16, trichomanes L. ssp. trichomanes) Omit this species, it is not 2013 rare. 23 USFS / Page 22 5.2.2 Brightgreen Spleenwort (Asplenium Species omitted. September 16, trichomanes-ramosum L.) Omit this species, it is not rare. 2013 24 USFS / Page 23 5.2.3 Boreal Bedstraw (Galium kamtschaticum Steller Species omitted. September 16, ex Schult & Schult) Either provide justification for consideration 2013 as a rare species or omit. If justified, state the level of risk of adverse effects for this species. 25 USFS / Page 24 5.2.4 Northern Bugleweed (Lycopus uniflorus Michx.) Level of risk of adverse effects added. September 16, State the level of risk of adverse effects for this species. 2013 26 USFS / Page 25 5.2.5 Bog Adder’s-mouth Orchid (Malaxis paludosa Species omitted. September 16, (L.) Swartz) Omit this species, it is not rare. 2013 27 USFS / Page 25 5.2.6 Choris’ Bog-Orchid (Platanthera chorisiana Species omitted. September 16, (Cham.) Reichenb.) Either provide justification for consideration 2013 as a rare species, or omit. If justified, state the level of risk of adverse effects for this species.

It is not known from the Tongass National Forest. Delete this sentence; it is incorrect.

28 USFS / Page 26 5.2.7 Pacific Buttercup (Ranunculus pacificus (Hulten) Level of risk of adverse effects added. September 16, L.D.Benson) State the level of risk of adverse effects for this 2013 species. Sentence regarding “…no known locations of Pacific Prior to field surveys conducted in August 2012 for the project, buttercup on the Tongass National Forest” deleted. there were no known locations of Pacific buttercup on the Tongass National Forest. Delete this sentence; it is incorrect.

Page | G-9 Botany Resource Report FINAL

29 USFS / Page 27 5.3 Identified Issues and Concern for Plants Newly Species moved to Rare Plant Section September 16, Documented in Alaska Move these species to the Rare Plants 2013 section. “Identified Issues and Concern For Plants Newly Documented In Alaska” Section Header deleted. 30 USFS / Page 27 5.3.1 Wallace’s Spikemoss (Selaginella wallacei Organization affiliation and qualifications added. September 16, Heiron.) The specimen was verified by botanist P. Zika (Peter Level of risk of adverse effects added. 2013 Zika, personal communication, October 2012). Provide the organizational affiliation and/or qualifications of this botanist. State the level of risk of adverse effects for this species. 31 USFS / Page 27 5.3 .2 Bog St. John’s-wort (Hypericum anagalloides Information on how taxonomy was verified added. September 16, Cham. & Schltdl.) Although this species was observed twice in 2013 the analysis area, it was not collected. Provide information on Level of risk of adverse effects added. how taxonomy of this species was verified. State the level of risk of adverse effects for this species.

31 USFS / Page 28 5.4 Mitigation As most populations of the rare plants Salvage and transplant added as possible mitigation September 16, observed in the analysis area would likely be inundated with measure. 2013 rising reservoir levels, avoidance of impacts to these populations is not feasible. The following measures are suggested mitigation

measures for the impacts to rare species in the analysis area.

Final mitigation measures would be developed in collaboration with Forest Service botanist/ecologists. Salvage and transplant of populations from inundation zones into appropriate habitat is a possible mitigation measure. Conserve and monitor mitigation measure deleted. Conserve and monitor existing populations, outside of the inundation zone, of the rare plant species that will be impacted by inundation. Specify how the populations will be conserved and monitored.

32 USFS / Page 29 5.4 Mitigation Rare plant population and newly Sentence moved above to Section 4.3 September 16, documented species locations and descriptions are given in 2013 Appendix E. This is not a mitigation measure.

Page | G-10 Botany Resource Report FINAL

33 USFS / Page 29 5.5 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for Direct, indirect and cumulative effects for existing September 16, General Vegetation Impacts to general vegetation types are vegetation cover types are analyzed in report. 2013 summarized in Table 5 below and further described in the The Tongass Cover Type GIS layer and the SD7 following subsections. Need to also analyze direct, indirect, and model were used to assess existing vegetation and cumulative effects for existing vegetation cover types. Refer to impacts to existing vegetation due to the proposed Tongass Cover Type GIS layer. project. 34 USFS / Pages 30-31 5.5.2 Young-Growth Forest Although the See note above for comment 19, unfortunately, September 16, Resource Report estimates that less than 1 acre of young-growth at this time the analysis cannot address 2013 forest on NFS land will be lost due to inundation, it cannot be whether trees of commercial volume occur determined from the report data whether trees of commercial within this cover type. value occur within this cover type. 35 USFS / Page 32 5.6 Mitigation Measures for General Vegetation The Text and table revised to 26 acres to September 16, report states that approximately 26 acres have been identified match. The assumption is that the 1.6 acres 2013 on NFS lands in the Lost Creek area that are within the 350-foot added is simply a GIS discrepancy and is treated elevation contour. Based on data in Table 5 (page 129), the as currently within the conveyed ownership number is 27.6 acres. boundary.

A cruise would be conducted at the appropriate time to estimate Specifications for timber cruise noted and text the amount of merchantable timber that could be lost and a stating that timber cruise would use a stratified settlement with the Forest Service will be concluded. design added. To accurately assess the value of timber lost, the timber cruise

should have a stratified design, where old-growth, young- growth, and unproductive forest cover types constitute the strata. Within each stratum, an estimate should be made of timber volume (gross and net) and grade, by species. 36 USFS / Page C-1 Known Projects in the Vicinity of the Swan Lake The cumulative effects analysis area was September 16, Expansion Project Projects were identified within Value revised. Appendix C – Known Projects in the 2013 Comparison Unit (VCU) 7450 in which the Swan Lake Project is Vicinity of the Swan Lake Expansion Project located. Need to update the list of projects after revising and updated based on revised cumulative effects justifying the extent of the cumulative effects analysis area. analysis area

Page | G-11 Botany Resource Report FINAL

USFS / Page E-1 Table E-1 Locations and Descriptions of Populations of Formerly rare species deleted. September 16, Rare Plants and Plant Species Newly Documented in Alaska 2013 Observed in the Analysis Area. Delete the formerly rare species.

Page | G-12