TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST TRUCKEE RANGER DISTRICT BIG JACK EAST PROJECT August 8, 2017

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT for FEDERALLY LISTED and BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION for SENSITIVE PLANTS AND FUNGI TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST TRUCKEE RANGER DISTRICT BIG JACK EAST PROJECT August 8, 2017

Prepared by: ______Susan Urie East Zone Botanist

Contents Introduction: ...... 4 Project Location: ...... 4 CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 4 Proposed Action – See details in Big Jack East Project Proposal ...... 5 Background of the Big Jack East Project ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Proposed Action ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. General Vegetation and Surface Fuel Treatment Protocol ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Defense and Threat Zone Actions ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Threat Zone Description ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Resource Protection Measures Related to Sensitive Plants and Non-Native Invasive Plants...... 58 Botanical Review ...... 28 CONSULTATION DATE ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Need for Field Surveys ...... 29 Findings of Field Surveys ...... 30 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT: ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED SENSITIVE SPECIES HABITATS ...... 35 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action - Environmental Effects ...... 40 Federally listed species ...... 40 Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species ...... 40 Direct Effects to Sensitive Plants with Potential Habitat or Present ...... 41 Direct Effects from Forest (Ecological) Restoration ...... 41 Indirect Effects ...... 41 Indirect Effects related to Non-Native Invasive Plant Species ...... 42 Indirect Effects of a Borate Compound Application to Tree Stumps ...... 42 Indirect Effects from the Increased Risk of Wildfire *** ...... 43 Cumulative Effects ...... 44 Geographical Context and Timelines for Cumulative Effects ...... 44 Cumulative impacts to Ivesia sericoleuca ...... 44 Cumulative Impacts to Botrychium species, Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, Juncus luciensis, and Meesia uliginosa...... 45 Cumulative Effects to Regionally Endemic Species ...... 46 Past and Ongoing Cumulative Effects ...... 47 Cumulative Effects in the Foreseeable Future *** ...... 54 Conclusion of Cumulative Effects ...... 55 Determination for Action Alternative 1 ...... 55 B. Alternative 2- No Action: ...... 56 Direct Effects ...... 56 Indirect Effects related to Hazardous Fuels ...... 56 Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative ...... 57 Attachment #1 - Glossary ...... 60 Attachment #2 REFERENCES (for plant BE) ...... 61

Table 1- Executive Summary of Determinations to threatened, endangered, sensitive and proposed TESP plant species, comparing the implementation the Proposed Actions and the No Action Alternatives of the Big Jack East Project. SPECIES HABITAT Proposed Action No Action &/OR DETECTIONS Determination Determination NEAR PROJECT Federally Listed No habitat is present on the No Effect. No Effect. Packera layneae east side of the Tahoe NF. Ivesia webberi No habitat is present in No Effect. No Effect. Final Rule: June 6, project area. 2014. US Fish and Wildlife Service designation as threatened. Forest Service Sensitive Plants Astragalus lemmonii No habitat is present in No Effect. No Effect. project area. Astragalus pulsiferae No habitat is present in No Effect. No Effect. var. coronensis project area. Astragalus webberi No habitat is present in No Effect. No Effect. project area. Boechera rigidissima Habitat is present along the No Effect. No Effect. var. demota periphery of ephemeral stream channels. No detection. Botrychium ascendens Habitat present in perennially May affect individuals, but wet areas, especially in and unlikely to lead toward a trend for around fens. Assume listing. presence. Botrychium crenulatum Habitat present in perennially May affect individuals, but wet areas. Assume presence. unlikely to lead toward a trend for listing. Botrychium lunaria Habitat present in perennially May affect individuals, but wet areas. Assume presence. unlikely to lead toward a trend for listing. Botrychium minganense Habitat present in perennially May affect individuals, but wet areas. Assume presence. unlikely to lead toward a trend for listing. Botrychium montanum Habitat present in perennially May affect individuals, but wet areas. Assume presence. unlikely to lead toward a trend for listing. Bruchia bolanderi Habitat is present in May affect individuals, but perennially wet areas. Assume unlikely to lead toward a trend for presence. listing. Cudonia monticola Habitat is present. Assume May affect supporting mycelium No Effect. presence. and/or its habitat, but unlikely to lead toward listing or a loss in viability. Cypripedium No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. fasciculatum Cypripedium montanum No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 1

SPECIES HABITAT Proposed Action No Action &/OR DETECTIONS Determination Determination NEAR PROJECT Dendrocollybia No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. racemosa Erigeron miser No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. Eriogonum umbellatum Potential habitat is present, No Effect. No Effect. var. torreyanum but no detection. Fritillaria eastwoodiae No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. Helodium blandowii Habitat is present in May affect individuals, but No Effect perennially wet areas. Assume unlikely to lead toward a trend for presence. listing. Ivesia aperta var. No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. aperta Ivesia aperta var. No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. canina Ivesia sericoleuca Potential habitat is present May affect individuals, but No Effect. and occurrences are known to unlikely to lead toward a trend for occur. listing because protection measures to avoid impacts have been included. Juncus luciensis Habitat is present in May affect individuals, but No Effect. perennially wet areas. Assume unlikely to lead toward a trend for presence. listing. Lewisia cantelovii No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. Lewisia kelloggii spp. No habitat is present No Effect. No Effect. hutchisonii Lewisia kelloggii spp. No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. kelloggii Lewisia longipetala No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. Lewisia serrata No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. Mahonia sonnei Removed from list (USDI No Effect. No Effect. 2003) Meesia uliginosa Marginal habitat present, May affect individuals, but No Effect. assume presence. unlikely to lead toward a trend for listing. Mielichhoferia elongata No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. Monardella follettii No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. Peltigera gowardii No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. Penstemon personatus No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. Phacelia stebbinsii No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. Phaeocollybia olivacea No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. Pinus albicaulis No habitat is present. No Effect No Effect. Poa sierrae No habitat is present. No Effect No Effect. Pyrrocoma lucida No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. Sowerbyella rhenana No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect. Tauschia howellii No habitat is present. No Effect. No Effect.

For information about this plant biological evaluation, contact Susan Urie at 10811 Stockrest Springs Road, Truckee, CA 96161. Phone: 530-587-3558 Email: [email protected]

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 2

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 3

Introduction: The purpose of this Biological Evaluation is to determine whether implementation of the Big Jack East Project, would result in a trend toward Federal listing of any Forest Service sensitive plant species. This Biological Evaluation has been prepared in accordance with direction in FSM 2672.4. This project applies standards and guidelines from the Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LMP) (1990), as amended by the SNFPA FSEIS ROD (2004) including the Standard and Guideline for Sensitive Plant Surveys #125 (included by errata, 2004). It also applies standard management requirements such as contract clauses designed to protect forest resources, Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water quality protection and the prevention of non-native-invasive plants species, and other mitigation measures specific to this project.

Project Location: The Big Jack East Project area is located in northeastern Placer County, California, east of State Route 89 South, west of Martis Valley, and south of the Town of Truckee (See Maps 1 and 2 in Appendix A). It is located in portions of: T16N R16E Section 4, T17N R16E Sections 21, 22, 27, 28, 33 and 34.

CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Current management direction on desired future conditions for threatened, endangered and sensitive species on the TNF can be found in the following documents, filed at the District Office: -Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670) -National Forest Management Act (NFMA) -Endangered Species Act (ESA) -National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) -Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) as and Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (January 2004) -Species specific Recovery Plans which establish population goals for recovery of those species -Species management plans -Species management guides or Conservation Strategies -Regional Forester policy and management direction -Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision (January 2004) Apply standards and guidelines from the Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LMP) (1990), the SNFPA FSEIS ROD (2004). Apply Standard Management Requirements such as contract clauses designed to protect forest resources, Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water quality protection, and other Resource Protection Measures specific to this project (Appendix B). This project applies standards and guidelines from the Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LMP) (1990), as amended by the SNFPA FSEIS ROD (2004) including the Standard and Guideline for Sensitive Plant Surveys #125 (included by errata, 2004). These measures are designed to meet Riparian Management Objectives (RMO) and the Water Quality Objectives of the Lahontan Basin Plan. The Proposed Action would also meet the requirements for obtaining a Timber Harvest Waiver. General Forest Service direction for sensitive species managers are summarized below:

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 4

Assist States in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species. As part of the NEPA process, review programs and activities, through a biological evaluation, to determine their potential effect on sensitive species. Avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern. If impacts cannot be avoided, analyze the significance of potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole. Establish management objectives in cooperation with the States when a project on National Forest System (NFS) lands may have a significant effect on sensitive species population numbers or distribution. Establish objectives for Federal threatened, endangered and proposed (candidate) species, in cooperation with the USFWS and the States.

Proposed Action – See details in Big Jack East Project Proposal Who: The Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District. What: Proposed Action

Proposed Action The Big Jack East Proposed Action proposes to treat approximately 2,059 acres to meet the needs detailed above. The Proposed Action is composed of two management actions: defense zone treatments designed to meet Forest Plan management direction for the wildland urban intermix (WUI) defense zone, and threat zone treatments designed to meet Forest Plan management direction for the WUI threat zone. The ‘Defense and Threat Zone Actions’ section below outlines the management direction and the proposed treatments for each zone. The ‘Implementation Tools’ section details the technical methods that would be used to complete the treatments. The treatment and method proposal for each unit is summarized on Table 1 and is shown on Map 1. Throughout the BJE project area, particular protocols would apply to all treatments and methods. These are summarized in the ‘General Vegetation and Surface Fuel Treatment Protocol’ section.

The Forest Service recognizes that the proposed actions described in this document would pose a temporary disruption to adjacent residents and users of the Big Jack East area. Temporary trail closures, equipment noise, decreased visual screening, dust and smoke are some of the potential short-term effects and inconveniences. The Truckee Ranger District is very aware of these concerns and will attempt to reduce any negative impacts as much as feasible. Restrictions on work hours and days, minimizing trail closures, prioritizing work in specific areas and keeping the public informed are some of the ways the Forest Service is proposing to reduce the impact to the local community. These and other Resource Protection Measures are listed in Appendix B.

The Proposed Action is comprised of two treatment zones within the Big Jack East project area: Defense zone treatment on 558 acres and threat zone treatment on 1,501 acres for a total of 2,059 acres. The following activities are proposed:

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 5

• Use of mechanical tools to implement treatments including mechanical thinning, grapple piling, and mastication totaling 1,816 acres • Use of hand tools to implement thinning treatments totaling 108 acres • Create openings (COs) on 52 acres • Tree enhancements (TEs) on 15 acres • Leave areas (LAs) retained on 68 acres • Pile residual activity fuels and some naturally occurring surface fuels into burn piles by hand or machine inside treatment units, or move fuels to landings to be piled and burned, or removed as biomass • Jackpot burn or underburn would be analyzed for on all treatment areas; however, it is likely that only a portion of the project would receive these treatments • Construct or re-open 0.5 miles of temporary roads. Temporary roads would be decommissioned following completion of vegetation management activities. Existing roads would be used wherever practicable. The Forest Service is also proposing six changes to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) totaling 1.35 miles. Details are provided in the Proposed Action section ‘Road and Trail Actions and Product Removal/Treatment Infrastructure’.

The following Appendices provide information about the Proposed Action and are referred to throughout this document: • Appendix A: Project Maps - includes detailed maps of the Proposed Action including the Proposed Action Map (Map 1) and the Aerial Imagery Map (Map 2). • Appendix B: Resource Protection Measures - includes the Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) designed to minimize or negate potential adverse effects associated with planned activities and to assure consistency with potential permits and approvals required • Appendix C: References - provides details about literature cited • Appendix D: Scoping Comment Summary

Table 2: Proposed Action Summary by Unit. This table illustrates that each unit would receive a combination of treatments as dictated by its location in the wildland urban intermix zone. Details about the defense zone or threat zone treatments are available in the ‘Defense and Threat Zone Actions’ section below. Unit actions in the threat zone may include a suite of smaller-scale treatments; these proposed acreages are shown in the threat zone treatment columns of this table. The vegetation management and surface fuel management tools proposed to implement the treatments for each unit are shown below and

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 6 described in the ‘Implementation Tools’ section below. All treatment units would be evaluated for the use of underburning.

Variable Total Defense or Vegetation Surface Fuel Tree Create Leave Unit Zone Density Unit Threat zone Management Management Enhancement Opening Area Number Acres Thin Acres Treatment Tools Tools Acres Acres Acres Acres Pile Burn – Defense Zone 4.3 Hand Thin With N/A 15 4.3 Restrictions

Threat Zone 0.0 N/A

Biomass Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Defense Zone 48.1 N/A Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn 16 52.0 Biomass Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 3.9 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn Pile Burn – Defense Zone 16.4 Hand Thin With N/A 17 16.4 Restrictions

Threat Zone 0.0 N/A

Biomass Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Defense Zone 1.3 N/A Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn 18 19.5 Biomass Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 18.2 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn Mechanical Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Defense Zone 127.4 N/A Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn 19 165.2 Mechanical Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 37.8 33.5 0.5 1.4 2.4 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn

Defense Zone 0.0 N/A 20 27.1 Biomass Landing Pile Threat Zone 27.1 25.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 Removal and Burn or

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 7

Defense Zone 0.0 N/A N/A N/A

Biomass Landing Pile 21 27.1 Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 27.1 27.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn Mechanical Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Defense Zone 0.7 N/A Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn 22 197.4 Mechanical Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 196.7 181.0 1.2 3.4 11.1 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn Defense Zone 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 22a Mechanical Landing Pile 103.4 Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 103.4 94.1 1.2 3.3 4.5 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn Mastication or Defense Zone 28.5 Pile Burn N/A Grapple Pile 23 28.5 Threat Zone 0.0 N/A

Defense Zone 0.0 N/A

Biomass Landing Pile 24 28.5 Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 28.5 27.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn Mastication or Defense Zone 35.0 Pile Burn N/A Grapple Pile 25 37.2 Mastication or Threat Zone 2.2 Pile Burn 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grapple Pile

Defense Zone 0.0 N/A 26 36.9 Biomass Landing Pile Threat Zone 36.9 36.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Removal and Burn or

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 8

Defense Zone 0.0 N/A

27 62.0 Pile Burn – Threat Zone 62.0 Hand Thin With 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Restrictions Mechanical Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Defense Zone 31.6 N/A Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn 28 53.2 Mechanical Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 21.6 18.3 0.0 1.4 1.9 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn Mechanical Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Defense Zone 44.2 N/A Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn 29 137.9 Mechanical Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 93.7 81.6 1.4 2.9 7.7 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn Biomass Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Defense Zone 38.3 N/A Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn 30 40.3 Biomass Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn

Defense Zone 0.0 N/A

Biomass Landing Pile 31 14.1 Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 14.1 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn Biomass Landing Pile Removal and Burn or 32 30.9 Defense Zone 10.4 N/A Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 9

Variable Total Defense or Vegetation Surface Fuel Tree Create Leave Unit Zone Density Unit Threat zone Management Management Enhancement Opening Area Number Acres Thin Acres Treatment Tools Tools Acres Acres Acres Acres Biomass Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 20.5 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn

Defense Zone 0.0 N/A

Mechanical Landing Pile 33 180.4 Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 180.4 163.5 4.0 7.4 5.5 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn Mechanical Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Defense Zone 71.0 N/A Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn 34 236.5 Mechanical Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 165.5 145.5 1.9 10.3 7.8 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn Mechanical Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Defense Zone 51.1 N/A Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn 35 130.6 Mechanical Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 79.5 73.2 0.2 1.2 4.9 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn

Defense Zone 0.0 N/A

Mechanical Landing Pile 36 164.6 Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 164.6 146.5 1.7 7.6 8.8 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn Mechanical Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Defense Zone 45.2 N/A Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn 37 239.7 Mechanical Landing Pile Removal and Burn or Threat Zone 194.5 168.5 3.1 12.6 10.2 Mastication or Remove, Pile Grapple Pile Burn

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 10

Threat Zone 0.0 N/A

Defense Zone 0.0 N/A

50 20.6 Pile Burn – Threat Zone 20.6 Hand Thin With 20.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Restrictions Pile Burn – Defense Zone 1.1 Hand Thin With N/A 52 1.1 Restrictions

Threat Zone 0.0 N/A

Totals 2059.2 Totals 15.4 51.6 68.3

General Vegetation and Surface Fuel Treatment Protocol

The following list presents key vegetation and surface fuels treatment protocols that would be applied to all treatment units in both the defense and threat zone as applicable. This list is not all-encompassing and is intended to highlight protective elements or design measures that guide action in each unit. Site specific details for the defense and threat zones are presented in the ‘Defense and Threat Zone Actions’ section below. Detailed descriptions of the tools/methods to be used are presented in the ‘Implementation Tools’ section below. Resource protection measures that pertain to actions throughout the entire project area are presented in Appendix B: Resource Protection Measures.

• Vegetation up to 10.9 inches diameter breast height (dbh), generally referred to as biomass, would be removed as needed to achieve desired WUI conditions. • Trees between 10 inches dbh up to 30 dbh would be removed as needed to meet desired WUI conditions. • Live conifer trees 30 inches dbh and larger would be retained. Exceptions to this standard would be allowed for equipment operability and trees that pose a hazard as defined by Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region. • Whenever feasible, treated material would be removed off-site as saw logs, biomass, fuelwood, or other forest products.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 11

• As needed to meet desired WUI conditions, a secondary treatment (biomass removal, grapple pile, or mastication) would follow the initial mechanical treatment as soon as practicable. The intent is to complete the secondary treatment within the same year or within one year after the initial treatment is complete. Initial treatment and secondary treatment can occur concurrently if the contractor has the right equipment. However, circumstances may occur where contractors could be pulled away from projects to do emergency work on wildfires or other natural disasters which is out of our control. Therefore it is difficult to put time constraints on completion of work. Surface fuel treatments such as pile burning could take up to five years after the piles are made. • Underburning is being proposed and analyzed for on the entire project area and could take up to 10 years to complete; however, it is unlikely that all of the project area would receive this treatment. Underburning is difficult due to the small window of opportunity due to weather, air quality concerns and other constraints. • The existing 300-foot wide fuel break along the 06 Road, also known as the Sawtooth Road, would be reestablished and maintained using management direction for WUI defense zone treatments to provide a safe area for firefighters to engage a wildfire and protect the community of Truckee. • Healthy sugar pine trees showing no indication of white pine blister rust disease would be retained during mechanical removal, except as necessary to promote overall health and resilience of a sugar pine group. • Mechanical tree removal and fuels treatment equipment may operate on slopes up to 30 percent, however short pitches up to 200 feet long and up to 35 percent slope could be included in mechanical treatments. Treatment on steeper slopes would use non-mechanical methods that avoid ground disturbance.

Defense and Threat Zone Actions The entire BJE project is within wildland urban intermix defense or threat zone as defined in the Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (2004), collectively referred to as the Forest Plan. The following sections describe Forest Plan management direction for treatments in these zones, and detail the site- specific treatments that have been designed to meet this direction.

Key differences between the desired conditions in the two zones are as follows:

• The defense zone should be fairly open and dominated by larger, fire tolerant trees. Defense zones should be treated to reduce wildland fire spread and intensity to allow suppression efforts to succeed. • While both the defense and threat zones are primarily focused on reducing wildland fire spread and intensity and treating hazardous fuels, additional treatments in the threat zone can incorporate variability with features that benefit other resources such as wildlife, forest health and insect and disease resilience.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 12

Each unit to be treated by the Proposed Action (shown on Table 1 and Map 1) would receive one of, or a combination of, the treatments described below. Following implementation of a vegetation treatment, areas may also receive surface fuel and prescribed fire treatments to meet desired conditions described in the respective zone management direction sections below.

Defense Zone Description The wildland urban intermix zone (WUI) is an area where human habitation is mixed with areas of flammable wildland vegetation. It extends out from the edge of developed private land into Federal, private, and State jurisdictions. The WUI is comprised of two zones: the defense zone and the threat zone. The WUI defense zone is the buffer in closest proximity to communities, areas with higher densities of residences, commercial buildings, and/or administrative sites with facilities. Defense zones generally extend roughly ¼ mile out from these areas; however, actual defense zone boundaries are determined at the project level following national, regional and forest policy. In particular, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 identifies areas to be included in the WUI. Local fire management specialists determine the extent, treatment orientation, and prescriptions for the WUI based on historical fire spread and intensity, historical weather patterns, topography, access. Defense zones should be of sufficient extent that fuel treatments within them will reduce wildland fire spread and intensity sufficiently for suppression forces to succeed in protecting human life and property. (SNFPA ROD, pg. 40).

Management Direction for Defense Zones

Desired Conditions • Stands in defense zones are fairly open and dominated primarily by larger, fire tolerant trees • The openness and discontinuity of crown fuels, both horizontally and vertically, result in very low probability of sustained crown fire and when effectively treated provide a safer place to protect structures in adjacent lands. • Surface and ladder fuel conditions are such that crown fire ignition is highly unlikely

o Ladder fuels are the vegetative fuel (small trees and shrubs) which provide vertical continuity between the ground surface and the forest canopy

o Surface fuels are the vegetative fuel on or near the ground surface, consisting of leaf and needle litter, grass, dead branch material, downed logs, bark, pine cones and low growing vegetation

Management Intent

• Protect communities from wildfire and prevent the loss of life and property • Defense zones have highest priority for treatment

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 13

Management Objectives

• Create defensible space near communities, and provide a safe and effective area for suppressing fire

• Design economically efficient treatments to reduce hazardous fuels

Defense Zone Treatments Vegetation and fuels management treatments within the defense zone would be designed as follows. A fuel break, approximately ¼-mile wide, would be created or maintained along the northern and eastern private property boundaries of the project area using the following defense zone treatment parameters. The exact boundary is determined by fuels professionals and based on aspect, terrain, and basal conditions. The ¼ mile fuel break was determined to be sufficient by the district fuels and fire staff as well as following guidelines from the 2004 Forest Plan. The defense zone treatment would remove ladder fuels, surface fuels and space residual trees to provide crown separation and improve the health and vigor of these stands using thinning or other vegetation management tools. Within the Mechanical Removal units, trees less than 29.9” DBH would be removed until the desired crown spacing is reached to meet fuels management goals. Trees should be spaced so the canopy of the larger trees would not support a sustained crown fire. Ladder fuels would be removed to keep fire from reaching the crowns of the larger trees. Post-treatment basal areas are anticipated to be approximately 80 to 100 ft² per acre. Treatment would retain the healthiest trees in the following order of priority, based primarily on shade tolerance and fire resistance: sugar pine, ponderosa pine/Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine and white fir. Within the Hand Thin units, trees less than 11” DBH would be removed. Spacing within these units are to be on a rough 20’ by 20’ spacing, allowing for variability and for fuel management goals. Treatment would retain the healthiest trees in the following order of priority, based primarily on shade tolerance and fire resistance: sugar pine, ponderosa pine/Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine and white fir. After the vegetation treatment, fuels management treatments would treat the residual and existing surface fuels to accomplish desired conditions and consistency with Forest Plan. The vegetation management and surface fuel management tools used to accomplish these treatments are displayed on a site-specific level in Table 1 above. The ‘Implementation Tools’ section below provides technical details about each tool. Threat Zone Actions

Threat Zone Description

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 14

The WUI threat zone typically buffers the defense zone; however, a threat zone may be delineated in the absence of a defense zone under certain conditions, including situations where the structure density and location do not provide a reasonable opportunity for direct suppression on public land, but suppression on the private land would be enhanced by fire behavior modification on the adjacent public land. Threat zone boundaries are determined at the project level following national, regional and forest policy. Threat zones generally extend approximately 1¼ miles out from the defense zone boundary; however, actual extents of threat zones are based on fire history, local fuel conditions, weather, topography, existing and proposed fuel treatments, and natural barriers to fire. Fuels treatments in these zones are designed to reduce wildfire spread and intensity. Strategic landscape features, such as roads, changes in fuels types, and topography may be used in delineating the physical boundary of the threat zone. (SNFPA ROD, pg. 40). Fire and fuels staff looked closely at the landscape, fire history, weather and proposed fuel treatments and determined that 1 ¼ miles beyond the defense zone would be appropriate to meet fire and fuels objectives for this project.

While both the defense and threat zones are primarily focused on treating hazardous fuels, additional treatments in the threat zones would carefully incorporate features that benefit other resources such as wildlife, forest health and insect and disease resilience. These features are listed in Table 1 as Leave Areas, Create Openings and Tree Enhancement. These features are described in detail in the Threat Zone Treatments Section below. In addition, the thinning treatment within the threat zone (variable density thinning) would emphasize varying tree density to create the horizontal heterogeneity that is inherent to these landscapes.

Management Direction for Threat Zones Desired Conditions

• Flame lengths at the head of the fire are less than 4 feet • Rate of spread at the head of the fire is reduced to at least 50 percent of pre-treatment levels • Hazards to firefighters are reduced by managing snag levels in locations likely to be used for control of prescribed fire and fire suppression consistent with safe practices guidelines • Production rates for fire line construction are doubled from pre-treatment level Management Intent

• Fuels treatments in the threat zone provide a buffer between developed areas and wildlands

• Fuels treatments protect human communities from wildland fires as well as minimize the spread of fires that might originate in urban areas

Management Objectives

• Establish and maintain a pattern of area treatments that is effective in modifying wildfire behavior

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 15

• Design economically efficient treatments to reduce hazardous fuels Forest-wide standards and guidelines for fuels treatments include direction for reducing tree density to a level consistent with the site’s ability to sustain forest health during drought conditions (SNFPA ROD, pg. 49).

Threat Zone Treatments Vegetation and fuels management treatments are designed to remove ladder fuels, surface fuels and space residual trees to provide crown separation and also improve the health and vigor of the treated stands to accomplish desired conditions and consistency with Forest Plan. Threat zone treatments would be aimed at creating a heterogeneous forest structure that would be more resilient to wildfire. Treatments in the threat zone would be consistent with Forest Plan direction for mechanical thinning in eastside pine vegetation types outside WUI defense zones (SNFPA ROD, Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) #6 and #8, pp. 50 – 51). S&G #6 requires, ”For all mechanical thinning treatments, design projects to retain all live conifers 30 inches dbh or larger. Exceptions are allowed to meet needs for equipment operability.” S&G #8 requires, “For mechanical thinning treatments outside defense zones in the eastside pine type: in mature forest habitat (CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6), design projects to retain 30 percent of the existing basal area. The retained basal area should be generally comprised of the largest trees. Projects in the eastside pine type have no canopy cover retention standards and guidelines.”

The vegetation and surface fuel management tools proposed to accomplish these treatments are displayed on a site-specific level in Table 1 above. The ‘Implementation Tools’ section below provides technical details about each tool. The vegetation treatments designed achieve desired conditions within the threat zone are described below.

Variable Density Thinning This prescription is highly site-specific, and set within the context of the existing stand’s structure and tree species composition. In general, variable thinning involves selective removal and retention of individual codominant and subdominant trees and/or small groups of codominant and subdominant trees.

As stated above, trees up to 29.9 inch dbh could be removed according to a variable density prescription designed to increase forest heterogeneity, while also meeting fuels management objectives. On-the- ground decisions about which individual trees and groups of trees to retain are made in light of (1) ensuring overall stand structure remains intact following application of prescribed fire and (2) developing stand structures that trend towards reference conditions developed under active fire regimes and (3) achieving stand conditions that are consistent with the Forest Plan management direction for the threat zone allocation.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 16

Variable density thinning objectives include: (a) increasing resilience of forest stands in order to improve the overall health and resiliency of the forest to fire, drought, insects and disease, (b) enhancing stand diversity (by retaining clumps of trees that can provide valuable wildlife habitat and creating subtle openings by thinning around these clumps), (c) reducing fuels, and (d) working towards stand level ecological heterogeneity. This prescription works off the existing forest characteristics, allowing for enhancement of natural variability such as small dense pockets of vegetation or small open areas. The variable thinning approach is based on the GTR 220 principle that varying stem density according to potential fire intensity effects on stand structure can create horizontal heterogeneity inherent to these landscapes. It is not based on spacing guidelines, but rather works within the context of the existing stand to emphasize retaining desired tree species compositions, basal areas, and desired stand structure elements (such as trees with some level of decadence or “defect”). The vegetation management and surface fuel management tools used to accomplish this treatment are displayed on a site-specific level in Table 1 above. The ‘Implementation Tools’ section below provides technical details about each tool.

Variable thinning would be applied using the following guidelines: • Generally favor retention of pines over firs, especially in southerly facing areas and on ridges. Retained groups of larger trees (described under the bullet below) may include fir trees. Overall the emphasis for retained groups of trees is preserving or enhancing desirable stand structure rather than managing for any particular species composition. • Retain groups of larger trees, generally comprised of five to ten (or more) trees of roughly similar size. Ideally, some of the retained trees should have desirable habitat features, such as forked or broken tops. Remove trees adjacent to these retained groups to improve the overall health and resiliency of the group to drought, insects and disease. • Where a few (less than five) trees occur together, or where trees are scattered, retain the more vigorous trees by removing subdominant and, in some cases, co-dominant trees around them to reduce ladder fuels and competition for light, water, and nutrients. • In areas of greater white fir dominance where large trees tend to grow in more of a clumped nature, emphasize retaining clumps or groups of generally five to ten trees and removing trees adjacent to these retained clumps to create small, variably shaped gaps. • When making site-specific determinations on individual tree removal/retention preferences, vary the choices made so as to increase the variability at the micro-site scale. • Variable thinning would not be applied in leave areas, create opening areas, adjacent to trails, powerlines or fuel break maintenance areas. Leave Areas (LA) LAs are small existing areas, ranging in size from 0.1-2.25 acres, within treatment units that provide continuous vertical and horizontal cover. Areas designated as LAs may contain multiple wildlife habitat elements such as: large down woody material, a mixture of tree age classes (including solitary and groups of large trees), large snags, multiple tree canopy layers, and/or trees with features associated with wildlife use (for example, platforms, mistletoe brooms, forked tops, and cavities). LAs would contribute to/enhance within-stand horizontal and vertical structural diversity and provide important old forest and/or mid-seral habitat elements. Designated LAs may represent multiple layered late-seral conditions

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 17 with high levels of decadence and dead wood, or they may represent a mid-seral condition with brush and a medium sized tree overstory that provide important movement, hiding, and resting cover for wildlife. It is important to note that LAs would not be retained in the defense zone. No mechanical tree removal would be conducted in LAs.

Prescribed fire over the long term could be an important management tool within LAs, although only one entry would occur with this project. For LAs comprised of multiple sizes of trees, snags, and down wood, prescribed fire would be carefully applied to maintain key habitat elements, particularly snags and down wood. While underburning in LAs would likely result in some mortality of suppressed and subdominant trees, burning prescriptions would be designed and implemented to retain the overall structure of the LAs.

Create Openings (CO) COs would be small areas, ranging in size from 0.1-1.25 acres, where all trees under 29.9 inches dbh would be removed. Typically these areas are comprised of existing clumps of dense, younger, and smaller diameter trees. In some cases, COs may include pockets of larger diameter trees in the 24.0-29.9” dbh range Other COs are in areas as of sparse tree cover, thinner soils, or pockets of tree mortality. The removal of vegetation from COs would provide early-seral conditions, providing foraging habitat for old forest associated wildlife species, and enhance within-stand age and species diversity. Revegetation of the COs would add to the diversification of the BJE areas within the threat zone. Based on site conditions and on-the-ground evaluations, revegetation would occur 1) by planting a variety of tree species; 2) by planting a different genetic strain of tree species already on site; or 3) naturally by local shrub and tree seed sources, or a combination thereof. It is important to note that COs would not be created in the defense zone.

If an area exhibiting insect or disease mortality is identified in close proximity to a location planned for the create opening prescription, the interdisciplinary team may evaluate the potential to shift the CO prescription to the new area of mortality while maintaining the CO size and general location as well as the overall acreage of planned COs within the treatment unit. Implementation of the CO prescription would be flexible in order to respond to changed conditions, but could be shifted only after interdisciplinary team review and Responsible Official approval.

Prescribed fire over the long term could be an important management tool within COs, although only one entry would occur with this project. Within COs, prescribed fire would be applied to regenerate shrubs and create suitable areas for shade-intolerant tree species to regenerate.

Tree Enhancements (TE) Tree enhancement thinning is different from variable density thinning in that tree enhancement thinning focuses specific attention on an individual isolated tree, whereas variable density thinning takes in account a larger stand-scale approach. An isolated tree is typically (but not always, as described below) a larger tree (greater than 24 inches dbh) and defined by being located at least 20 feet (6 meters) away from the bole of any neighboring tree and no more than 50 feet (15 meters) from the bole of any neighboring tree (Churchill et al. 2013). Under tree enhancement thinning, the radial distance of

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 18 treatment around isolated trees would be variable and based on site-specific conditions. Generally treatment distances would be 30 feet from the bole of the tree, with a minimum treatment distance of 20 feet and a maximum of 50 feet on steeper slopes. Larger distances are needed on the downhill side of isolated trees in order to compensate for the longer flame lengths due to slope. Within the radial thinning distance of an isolated tree, all trees less than 24 inches dbh would be removed. Removal of these trees would result in increased root and diameter growth while also improving overall health and resiliency of a targeted tree. In addition, the removal of understory trees removes ladder fuels which minimizes the risk that fire could carry into the canopy of the isolated tree.

The goal of tree enhancement thinning treatment is to manage for and protect specific individual isolated trees with the intent that these individual trees will become the well-established, open grown and resilient trees of the future. Overall, these carefully selected trees tend to be larger, typically greater than 24 inches dbh, and at least a generation older than trees in the surrounding area. However, other trees have been identified for tree enhancement thinning due to their potential to become well established, resilient trees in the future. Many of these trees have become overgrown and crowded by younger, shade tolerant trees. Treatment is designed to increase the resiliency of the selected trees by isolating them from the effects of fire, drought, insects, and disease while also maximizing the potential for diameter and height growth by removing adjacent competing trees.

Isolated trees tend to be the most resilient trees on the landscape, thus, they have the most potential to become large and will usually do so in the shortest amount of time. When these trees do die, they become the largest dead wood components on the landscape and remain on the landscape as structure for the longest period of time adding to the diversity of habitat on the landscape. The ratio of isolated trees to clumps of trees, LAs, and COs would fluctuate by topographic position on the landscape. In a study of frequent-fire pine and mixed conifer forests in western North America, isolated trees accounted for 32 percent of the total trees with 51 percent of the basal area in reference plots that experienced active fire (Churchill et al. 2013). Isolated trees could possibly compose as much as 30 percent of the stand’s trees. Implementation Tools The following vegetation and fuels management tools would be used for treatment implementation throughout the project area. Table 1 displays the tools proposed to be used for each unit.

Mechanical Removal In this document the term “mechanical removal” is used to describe the tools in which selected conifer trees ranging in size from 10.0 inches dbh to 29.9 inches dbh would be removed from the forest. For the BJE project there are two methods of mechanical removal being proposed: traditional mechanical harvest and cut-to-length harvest. Conifer trees up to 10.9 inch dbh may also be removed as biomass during mechanical removal operations. Following the initial mechanical removal, treated areas would have a follow-up surface fuels treatment that would continue to move the harvested areas towards the desired conditions for the respective defense and threat zones.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 19

o Traditional mechanical harvest, also known as “whole tree yarding”, is a ground based operation that cuts the trees designated for removal using a tracked mechanized piece of equipment called a feller buncher. The trees, placed in bundles by the feller buncher, are transported by skidders to the roadside landing with tops and limbs still attached. Skidders, either rubber tired or tracked, work on a network of approved skid trails that fan out from the designated landing. Once the trees are at the landing, they are delimbed, topped, and processed into sawlogs for removal by log truck. After the initial mechanical harvest and sawlog removal, remaining biomass material on the landings would be treated by the Landing Pile Burn or Remove Tool (described below) a) o Cut-to-length is a ground based operation that cuts trees designated for removal using a rubber tired mechanized piece of equipment called a processor. The processor completes the felling, delimbing, and bucking at the stump area, leaving limbs and tops in the forest. The processor decks the logs throughout the harvest area on a network of approved forwarder trails. Following the decking and processing of logs in the forest, a second piece of rubber tired equipment called a forwarder gathers the processed logs and transports them to the roadside for removal by log truck. Chip and remove would also be an option, but currently options for removal are limited. Generally after sawlog removal with cut-to-length operations there are no significant amounts of biomass requiring treatment remaining on the landings. See descriptions of Surface Fuel Management Tools below. With both mechanical treatments there is an inherent hand treatment component. For example, hand falling with a chainsaw may be required for trees exceeding the capabilities of the feller buncher or processer. Generally these pieces of equipment are capable of falling trees up to 22 inches at the stump. Hand falling may also be required for resource protection in other areas such as stream buffer zones or other sensitive areas.

Temporary roads and infrastructure needed to access mechanical removal units and remove material are detailed in the Road Actions and Product Removal/Treatment Infrastructure section below.

Biomass Removal In this document the term “Biomass Removal” refers to the removal of conifer trees up to 10.9 inches dbh. Biomass removal uses the same or similar equipment as mechanical removal of larger trees. Often biomass removal occurs concurrently with mechanical removal. In areas without mechanical removal of larger trees, biomass removal may be implemented as the initial treatment. The biomass is either chipped and removed or brought to a landing to burn. Biomass material brought to the landings would be treated by the Landing Pile Burn or Remove Tool described below.

Mastication Mastication is the rearranging of woody biomass material, smaller trees up to 9.9 inches dbh, brush, and downed woody material on site. It is a ground based operation that uses a tracked or wheeled mechanized piece of equipment called a masticator to “chew” up the biomass on site. Mastication does not actually remove fuels from the treated area, but changes the size, continuity, and arrangement of the fuels, leading to an acceleration of decomposition rates of processed material and producing a desired

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 20 change in fire behavior by reducing the amount of oxygen within the fuel structure. For example, a standing tree, or vertical fuel, is chewed up or rearranged into many smaller pieces of horizontal fuel. Mastication may be a follow-up treatment to mechanical removal, or it may be the initial tool used in an area. After mastication operations, remaining surface fuels within each harvest unit would be assessed. If necessary to meet the desired conditions of the defense and threat zones an additional surface fuels treatment, such as jackpot burning or underburning, would be applied.

Grapple Pile Grapple piling is a ground based operation that uses a tracked or wheeled mechanized piece of equipment to lift and/or gather woody biomass material into piles for burning at a later date. One method of grapple piling uses the machinery to “lift” the living vegetation (small trees and shrubs) out of the ground (including roots) and then gathers the material into grapple piles. Pulling shrubs and other vegetation by the roots stops vegetation from re-sprouting. Grapple piles may also include existing dead and downed woody surface fuels. Another manner of grapple piling is completed by hand cutting of vegetation (small trees and shrubs) with chainsaws and then using a tracked or wheeled mechanized piece of equipment to gather this cut material into grapple piles. Small trees (up to 9.9 inches dbh) would be treated with grapple piling. Grapple piling may be a follow-up treatment to mechanical removal, or it may be the initial tool used in an area. Piles created by grapple piling would predominantly be burned as described in the Pile Burn (Grapple or Hand) section below. There is a limited chance that material from grapple piles would be removed (as described in the Landing Pile Burn or Removal section below) versus burned in piles, and removal would remain an option throughout implementation.

Piling fuels can be an effective treatment for reducing and removing the amount of surface fuels, breaking up the horizontal continuity of surface fuels across a landscape and increasing the separation between surface and canopy fuels. Burning the piles to remove and reduce the amount of fuels in a stand or across a landscape makes the reintroduction of low-intensity fire by underburning more feasible. There are increased prescribed burning opportunities for the burning of piled material because there is a larger timeframe or burn window available. Grapple piles take a full season to cure before they can be burned and they will not be burned until fall/winter months. Therefore piles will sit for two seasons before they are conducive to burning. After that it will depend on weather and resource availability before they can be burned.

Hand Thin Hand thinning is a method used to remove conifers up to 10.9 inches dbh in places where access with mechanical removal equipment is not possible or appropriate. Trees are felled and cut into smaller lengths by individuals using chainsaws. Mostly, the cut trees would be hand piled for burning at a later date when material has cured and would burn more effectively and with less smoke generated. In some areas, where accessible and within 100-200 feet from a road, the small tree bole material could be left in place or moved to the roadside for utilization by the public for fuelwood. Limbs in these areas would be piled for burning. There are also hand thin areas where hand piling would not be conducted for resource

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 21 protection. In these areas, cut material would be transported out of the protected area in a manner that would not disturb the ground cover, then piled or removed. Options for chipping and/or removal of hand thinned material are limited, but would be considered during implementation if the opportunity arises.

Chipping Chipping is a mechanical operation that takes biomass material and “chews” it into smaller pieces. Chipping may occur at landings, along roadsides or within units. Chipping within a unit has several limitations such as accessibility, material size and desired residual fuel loading. Chips created within a unit may be removed or distributed back into the unit to a depth no greater than 4 inches. Material chipped on a landing is generally removed, but chips may also be distributed on and adjacent to the landing to a depth no greater than 4 inches. Chipping and removal options are very limited at this time. Opportunities for chipping and distributing chips throughout the unit are also limited, but both of these options would be considered during implementation whenever feasible.

Pile Burn (Grapple or Hand) Residual activity fuels and some naturally occurring fuels would be piled into burn piles by hand or machine, as described above. Pile burning within treatment units is designed to remove surface fuels generated from treatments and existing fuels on the ground. Pile location and size is dictated by existing conditions; however, piles would be preferentially placed outside of sensitive areas such as riparian conservation areas and cultural resource sites. In areas denoted with piling restrictions due to resource protection needs, material would be transported outside of the denoted area in a manner that does not disturb the ground cover, and piled and burned. Piles are typically burned under fall-like conditions, in winter months, or during periods of low fire danger. These conditions help to minimize the amount of mortality of remaining vegetation. There are increased prescribed burning opportunities for the burning of piled material because there is a larger timeframe or “burn window” available. Pile burning can take place in the snow where underburning cannot. Piles take a full season to cure before they can be burned and they would not be burned until fall/winter months. Therefore piles would remain on site for two seasons before they would be conducive to burning. After that, it would depend on weather and resource availability before they could be burned.

Underburn The entire project area would be analyzed for underburning; however, it is likely that only a portion of the project would receive this treatment. Underburning is usually the last treatment in a series of treatments, or it can be used as a stand-alone treatment or a maintenance treatment. After initial vegetation treatment is completed it may be determined that a unit will not need an underburn treatment. However, there may be other areas that would need a maintenance treatment which means that an area may be burned more than once over the course of many years. Underburning actions would adhere to the resource protection measures detailed in Appendix B. Not restricting underburning to vegetation treatment unit boundaries would allow for the use of logical and natural control lines for implementation.

An underburn is a prescribed fire ignited under the forest canopy that focuses on the consumption of surface fuels, but not the overstory vegetation. Underburns are ignited using small strips of fire to burn

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 22 with low to moderate intensity to mimic a wildfire under controlled conditions in order to reduce downed woody debris, needles and duff, while removing small areas of shrubs and occasional pockets of trees. Widening or narrowing the width between strips increases or decreases fire intensity. Underburning requires the use of firelines to contain the prescribed fire within the targeted areas. Firelines are linear features that are cleared of vegetation and fuels down to mineral soil. Firelines are typically two to three feet wide when constructed by hand, however they can be up to four feet wide when created by small machinery. Existing natural openings, roads or trails are effective firelines and are used whenever possible in lieu of handline construction. The determination of size of underburn units is based on areas that can be easily managed with available resources. Another consideration for the size of an underburn unit is smoke dispersion forecasts. An underburn is the most practical way to reduce accumulations of surface fuels in this project area. However, it is also the most difficult due to the small window of opportunity due to the short burn window for these types of operations. Underburning has been difficult to accomplish in the past.

Jackpot Burn Jackpot burning is a modified underburn that addresses high concentrations of naturally-occurring or thinning-related downed woody debris that is not piled. Different than underburning because in lieu of strip ignition, jackpot burning involves igniting concentrations, or “jackpots”, of vegetative fuels on the forest floor. The result of jackpot burning is a mosaic pattern of vegetative fuel consumption. This technique works well when surface fuels loading is very high following vegetation treatments.

Landing Pile Burn or Removal After traditional mechanical removal, biomass material (limbs, tops, small trees and defect material) remains on the landing from operations. This material would be decked or piled for burning. Landing piles are generally larger than grapple piles and may burn for longer periods of time. There is the possibility of multiple landing piles on each landing. To facilitate faster burning, efforts would be made to create more, smaller landing piles on the landings versus one large landing pile. With cut-to-length operations, generally there is no significant biomass material left on the landings that requires burning or removal. If the rare occasion did occur, the small amount of material would be piled for burning or removed.

The preferred treatment of the biomass material remaining on the landings would be to remove as firewood, chips or other biomass product, but removal is greatly dependent on the commercial biomass market at the time of implementation. Currently options for removal are limited, but options will be monitored throughout the implementation of the project and when feasible removal will be implemented. Project Wide Actions

Borax Apply a borate compound (trade name Sporax® or Cellu-Treat®) by hand to cut stumps of all conifer species ≥ 14 inches stump diameter to reduce the spread of Annosus root disease caused by the fungus

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 23

Heterobasidion annosum. Applications of the borate compound would follow all State and Federal rules and regulations as they apply to pesticides.

• The borate compound would not be applied within 25 feet distance of surface water, or a greater distance if determined necessary upon the finalization of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion for Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog (Biological Opinion). • Where permissible under the final Biological Opinion, the borate compound would be applied to all conifer stumps within 4 hours of felling, at a rate of approximately 1 pound/acre on average, though up to 2 pounds/acre could occur. • The borate compound would not be applied during periods of sustained rain.

Road and Trail Actions and Product Removal/Treatment Infrastructure

Haul Routes: There are two main options for haul routes from the proposed project area to Highway 267. The shorter, and therefore more efficient, haul route is north along the 06 Road to Thelin Drive using county and Town of Truckee roads to intersect with Highway 267. The longer route is to the south of the project area along the 06 Road to the Mount Watson Road and out to Highway 267. As described under “Issue 1” in this Chapter and under “Haul Route Scenarios” in Chapter 2, three different haul route scenarios, based on these two main options, are being considered and analyzed in this EA. Restrictions would be placed on timing and days of haul (EA Appendix B RPM 43).

Temporary Roads: The proposed activities could necessitate the use of up to 0.5 miles of previously tilled temporary roads, unclassified non-system roads or roadbeds, or new temporary roads to provide short- term access to landings or roads from the treatment units. The temporary roads would have a 12-foot width with minimal cuts and fills. After completion of Project, temporary roads would be closed and decommissioned to prevent unauthorized use including motorized travel, dispersed camping and recreational shooting. Temporary roads would also be stabilized through sub-soiling to reduce compaction, and/or installation of waterbars or other drainage methods applied to disperse water flows. In addition, where needed to maintain hydrology, berms would be pulled in and topography would be reestablished for water flow. Where needed, ground cover would be reestablished with mulch, slash, or wood chips from the surrounding area, or weed-free straw.

Road maintenance: Approximately 8 miles of existing National Forest System roads would be maintained. Road maintenance generally involves work within the existing road right-of-way and consists of the following types of actions: ditch cleaning, surface repair, maintaining drainage structures, dust abatement, roadside brushing, minor curve widening, maintenance of miscellaneous structures (gates, etc.), installing or removing waterbars, installing or removing barriers, and slide and slump repair. Work would be completed to restore/repair the road to accommodate the planned project-related traffic and be consistent with the existing traffic service level, water quality objectives, and Road Management Objectives.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 24

Water would be used on major transportation routes for dust abatement. Water is the preferred except on roads where distance limits practical application of water. Alternative palliatives would be used in accordance with T Spec 806, and cannot be applied within a 25 foot buffer from any flowing water; this includes culverts or bridges that are currently flowing water. Magnesium chloride is the dust palliative most likely to be used.

Where the roads are needed for vegetation management work, road maintenance would be a standard requirement in timber sales or stewardship contracts. This would provide for public and contractor safety, road surface protection, and erosion control. See Appendix B for details on management requirements regarding road maintenance.

Big Jack East Project Area National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) changes: The National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) and its tracking, mapping, and management system has evolved over the years. The tracking system has gone through many technological improvements, but the Tahoe National Forest Motorized Travel Management Decision of 2010 put the NFTS tracking system and mapping technology to the test. Since the Travel Management Decision, a variety of minor errors have been discovered, and a few reasons to revise the decision on a site-by-site basis have been uncovered. These errors include roads that were previously decommissioned but are displayed as functional routes on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) as well as location errors, and length of route errors. In addition, the Travel Management Decision omitted some existing roads and routes that warrant inclusion in National Forest Transportation System (NFTS).

Our intent is to continue to improve our Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) through site-specific project analysis where the many uses of the system can be examined, and where updated decisions can be made and shared with the community. Projects that undergo analysis at the Environmental Assessment (EA) level provide an opportunity to correct some of these errors. During Big Jack East project planning, a number of these errors have been identified. Examples of a few of these errors are listed below, and are shown on Map 2 in Appendix A. Additional errors may be found and included within the Proposed Action as reconnaissance continues prior to development of the Big Jack East Project Environmental Assessment.

• 06-08 Road – The last 0.26 mile of this route was decommissioned (obliterated and returned to a natural condition) under the 1996 Bullshead Project. However, it was erroneously included in Tahoe National Forest Motorized Travel Management Decision of 2010 as an open NFTS route, and is displayed as such on current MVUM. Under the BJE Proposed Action, this identified section of the 06-08 route would be removed from the NFTS and from the MVUM, reaffirming the earlier decision and on-the ground action. The remainder of the route should be retained and would remain on the MVUM. • 06-10 and 06-11 Routes – These routes (nubs) were added to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) tracking system during the National Forest Motorized Travel Management Decision of 2010 as possible camping spots. No action has been taken to add them on the ground. With further analysis, it has been determined that these two potential short segments, totaling 0.08 miles, are not appropriate. The Sawtooth Ridge area, located

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 25

just south of the Town of Truckee, is a popular day use recreation area. Unfortunately, it is popular with youth of the community and surrounding areas for unauthorized night-time parties and illegal bonfires. This activity has resulted in numerous abandoned campfires, which pose a fire threat to the community of Truckee. The area has long been a part of a closure to camping and campfires, intended to reduce risk of escaped campfires and sanitation issues. These unneeded nubs, which do not currently exist on the ground, would be removed from the NFTS and MVUM. • T1 – This existing 0.42 mile route currently provides administrative access to the Liberty Energy powerline and would be added to the National Forest Transportation System. It would be managed for utility and administrative access only, with access controlled by a gate. The Proposed Action would add this route to the NFTS as a route closed to the public, with a maintenance level 2 to enable administrative power line access, and maintenance level 1 beyond that. • T2 – This 0.42 mile route exists on the ground and is useful and needed for management. It is a frequently used route, has long been shown on project maps (such as the 1996 Bullshead Project) as an NFTS route. The Proposed Action would add it to the National Forest Transportation System as a maintenance level 2 road. • T3 – This 0.19 mile route exists on the ground and is a popular motorized access to an overlook point, with nice views. The Proposed Action would add this route to the National Forest Transportation System as a motorized trail.

Landings: Map 2 (Aerial Imagery Map) in Appendix A shows the existing landings that are proposed for use during project implementation. The project would use existing landings wherever practicable. Utilization of existing landings and designation of new landings would be determined and analyzed by the interdisciplinary team before project implementation. Landings would not be designated within Riparian Conservation Areas unless deemed necessary, and would be required to follow resource protection measures outlined in Appendix B (RPMs 5, 10, 11, and 19). For landings in RCAs, biomass, logs, tree tops and logging slash will be landed such that they do not obstruct drainages or enter the TKO or WBBZ (based on LRWQCB stream classification). No part of a landing will be located within a WBBZ or 100- year flood plain. After completion of project, landings would be closed and decommissioned to prevent unauthorized use including motorized travel, dispersed camping and recreational shooting. Landings would also be stabilized through sub-soiling to reduce compaction, and/or installation of waterbars or other drainage methods applied to disperse water flows. Where needed, ground cover would be reestablished with mulch, slash, or wood chips from the surrounding area, or weed-free straw. Management requirements associated with the designation and use of landings are detailed in Appendix B.

Trails: Vegetation and fuels management actions would be designed along the Sawtooth and Bald Mountain Trails to treat the WUI while retaining the visual quality characteristics and recreation opportunities along the Trails. The trail program manager would coordinate with the fuels officer and the vegetation management officer to design site-specific treatments. In order to maintain current physical

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 26 trail characteristics, an approximate 30 to 50 foot buffer would be established along the Trails within which mastication would be restricted. Intermittent equipment crossing, thinning and underburning may occur within this buffer. If skid trails or temporary roads cross National Forest System Trails, skid trails would be blocked off appropriately as to prevent unauthorized motorized travel along skid trails. Soon after completion of project treatment phases in the Trail vicinity, any needed trail rehabilitation actions would be completed by qualified trail crews.

Jackpot burning and pile burning would not occur within a 15 foot buffer along National Forest System Trails. Underburning would be allowed to back or creep into the buffer. Low intensity ignitions would be allowed. Trails may be used as a control line during firing operations. Resource Protection Measures Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) are Best Management Practices (BMPs), mitigations, Standard Management Requirements (SMRs), standard contract provisions, and special operating provisions designed to minimize or negate any potential adverse effects associated with all planned activities and to assure consistency with required permits and approvals. Standards and Guidelines from the 1990 Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (SNFPA ROD) guide the RPMs. Appendix B provides the complete list of RPMs in Alternative 1.

This Project would meet the objectives of the Basin Plan for the Lahontan Region, and the requirements for obtaining a Timber Harvest Waiver.

Project Design Measures All treatments would be designed to meet or exceed Forest Plan requirements for down logs, snags and coarse woody debris as follows:

• Down logs: Retain at least three of the largest available down wood pieces/acre preferably 10 feet in length and 20 inches dbh, but at least 12 inches dbh. • Snags: Retain at least three of the largest available snags per acre in eastside pine and eastside mixed conifer type, and at least six of the largest available snags in the red fir forest type.

Down logs and snags would not be retained in the defense zone or along logical fire control lines (i.e. existing roads and trails).

Riparian Conservation Areas Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) delineate aquatic, riparian and meadow habitats which are to be managed consistent with the Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCOs) that are defined in the Forest Plan. All treatments inside RCAs are designed to meet requirements of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board permitting process. Activities are designed to minimize disturbance of riparian vegetation and soils by implementing no treatment or using hand methods in the most sensitive areas, maintaining higher tree densities along perennial streams, restricting pile locations, restricting equipment use, and

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 27 requiring underburning at lower intensities. Site-specific protection measures for RCAs are detailed in Appendix B.

Botanical Review Consultation Date The Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a current list of threatened, endangered and proposed species that may be present on the Tahoe National Forest (TNF). The most recent list has been compiled and dated May 16, 2017 by the TNF biologist and reviewed for the Big Jack East Project area on Truckee Ranger District by the east zone botanist. The federally listed Packera layneae occurring on the TNF is located on the west side of the Tahoe National Forest only on serpentine soils. Ivesia webberi which does occur on the east side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains near the TNF boundary has been upgraded from a proposed threatened to threatened species and listed in the Federal Register June 3, 2014 (DOI – FWS, 2014). This species does not have potential habitat within the Big Jack East Project. Consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service would not be need, since no Ivesia webberi has been found to occur on the TNF to date and no potential habitat has been recognized within The Big Jack East Project area. Several plant surveys were performed in the summer of 2016.

No effects to threatened, endangered species are expected on the eastside of the Tahoe National Forest, since none were found to occur. Effects to the newly listed threatened species Ivesia webberi have been ruled out and the effects to Forest Service sensitive species Ivesia sericoleuca can be mitigated. This project concurs with Forest Service policy and management direction as described in the Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan in terms of management of threatened, proposed and sensitive (TES) plant species.

Sources Used for Determination: X USGS Topographic Map X Aerial photographs X Soil Inventory Map X US FWS T&E Species List LMP data base X CDF&G CNDDB List or RareFind X Sensitive plant atlas Timber type map X Surveys completed atlas Stand record cards X Field visitation Other:

Table 3 -A pre-field review of the following species determined if any species were previously known to be present or if potential habitat for those species was suspected to occur within the project area. Tahoe Federally Listed Plants Documented Occurrence Suitable Habitat Packera layneae (threatened) No No Ivesia webberi (threatened) No No

Tahoe Sensitive Plant Species Documented Occurrence Suitable Habitat Astragalus lemmonii No No

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 28

Tahoe Sensitive Plant Species Documented Occurrence Suitable Habitat Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis No No Astragalus webberi No No Boechera rigidissima var. demota No Yes Botrychium ascendens No Yes Botrychium crenulatum No Yes Botrychium lunaria No Yes Botrychium minganense No Yes Botrychium montanum No Yes Bruchia bolanderi No Yes Cudonia monticola No Yes Cypripedium fasciculatum No No Cypripedium montanum No No Dendrocollybia racemosa No No Erigeron miser No No Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum No Yes Fritillaria eastwoodiae No No Helodium blandowii No Yes Ivesia aperta var. aperta No No Ivesia aperta var. canina No No Ivesia sericoleuca Yes Yes Juncus luciensis No Yes Lewisia cantelovii No No Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii and ssp. No No kelloggii Lewisia longipetala No No Lewisia serrata No No Meesia uliginosa No Yes Mielichhoferia elongata No No Monardella follettii No No Peltigera gowardii No No Penstemon personatus No No Phacelia stebbinsii No No Phaeocollybia olivacea No No Pinus albicaulis No No Poa sierrae No No Pyrrocoma lucida No No Sowerbyella rhenana No No Tauschia howellii No No

Need for Field Surveys Field surveys are not needed for this project because suitable habitat for sensitive plants is not known to exist in these units.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 29

X Field surveys have been conducted within the project area. These areas have been surveyed to the standards indicated in the table below (refer to the pre-field review for a definition of the survey level in the Tahoe National Forest Sensitive Plant Standards and Guidelines).

____ Field surveys will be conducted as soon as field conditions are suitable for the project area mentioned above.

Table 4 -Special status plant survey level by species. Sensitive Plant Species with Appropriate Survey Level Year(s) potential habitat ID Period?* Boechera rigidissima var. General July and August Yes demota 2016 Botrychium ascendens General July and August Yes 2016 Botrychium crenulatum General July and August Yes 2016 Botrychium lunaria General July and August Yes 2015 Botrychium minganense General July and August Yes 2015 Botrychium montanum General July and August Yes 2016 Bruchia bolanderi General July and August Yes 2016 Eriogonum umbellatum var. General July and August Yes torreyanum 2016 Helodium blandowii General July and August Yes 2016 Ivesia sericoleuca General July and August Yes 2016 Juncus luciensis General July and August Yes 2016 Meesia uliginosa General July and August Yes 2016 *If surveys were conducted outside the appropriate ID period, surveys were for suitable habitat and/or plant remnants. **Surveying of fungi is not a reliable method to determine presence /absence because they usually exist as mycelia in the soil and are invisible, except for the short unpredictable periods of time when they produce above ground fruiting bodies (mushrooms).

Findings of Field Surveys _ No occurrences of sensitive plants were found within the unit boundaries.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 30

Suitable habitat for sensitive plants does not exist within project boundaries.

X There are known occurrences of sensitive plants of Ivesia sericoleuca within the project boundaries. Direct effects to individuals of Ivesia sericoleuca sensitive plant occurrence would amount to less than five percent of one of the 28 known sites on the Truckee and Sierraville Ranger Districts. A map of the occurrences is attached. See the direct, indirect and cumulative effects sections below.

Existing Environment: Table 5 – BA/BE - Plants Observed During Surveys of the Big Jack East Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Trees Abies concolor White fir Abies magnifica Red fir Pinus contorta Lodgepole pine Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey pine Pinus monticola Western white pine

Shrubs Arctostaphylos nevadensis Pine-mat manzanita Arctostaphylos patula Greenleaf manzanita Alnus incana subsp. tenuifolia Mountain Alder Amelanchier alnifolia Service-berry Ceanothus cordulatus Mountain whitethorn Ceanothus velutinus Snowbrush Chrysolepis sempervirens Chinquapin Quercus vaccinifolia Huckleberry oak Ribes roezlii Sierra gooseberry Ribes nevadense Sierra currant Ribes cereum Wax currant Salix spp. Willow Symphoricarpos mollis Snowberry

Forbs Achillea millefolium Yarrow Aquilegia formosa Crimson columbine Apocynum androsaemifolium Dogbane Carex sp. Sedge Castilleja applegatei Applegate’s paintbrush Castilleja miniata Scarlet paintbrush Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hairgrass Drymocallis glandulosa Sticky cinquefoil Elymus elymoides Squirrel tail Elymus glaucus Blue wild rye Epilobium canum California fuchsia Epilobium hallianum Hall’s willow herb Equisetum arvense Common horsetail Eriogonum nudum var. nudum Nude buckwheat Eucephalus breweri Brewer’s aster

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 31

Scientific Name Common Name Fritillaria atropurpurea Purple fritillary Gallium sp. Bedstraw Hieracium albiflorum White hawkweed Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley Juncus balticus Wire rush Kelloggia galioides Kelloggia Madia glomerata Mountain tarweed Mimulus guttatus Monkey flower Muhlenbergia filiformis Slender muhly Osmorhiza berteroi Sweet cicely Pedicularis semibarbata Pine lousewort Penstemon rydbergii Rydberg’s penstemon Phacelia hastata Silver-leaf phacelia Polemonium californicum California polemonium Potentilla gracilis Slender cinquefoil Prunella vulgaris Selfheal Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens Bracken fern Pterospora andromedea Woodland pine drops Pyrola picta White-vein wintergreen Stellaria crispa Ruffled starwort Thalictrum fendleri Fendler’s meadow-rue Trifolium longipes Long stalked clover Veratrum californicum Corn lily Viola purpurea Mountain violet

Fungi & Lichens Chroogomphus ochraceus Pine spike - fungus Coprinellus flocculosus -fungus Fomitopsis pinicola -fungus Letharia colombiana Brown-eyed Wolf lichen Letharia vulpina Wolf lichen Parmelia sulcata Hammered shield lichens Russula cremoricolor -fungus Russula sanguinea fungus

Non-Native Invasive Plants Poa pratensis Kentucky blue grass Taraxacum officinale Dandelion Tragopogon dubius Yellow salsify Verbascum thapsus Common mullein

The rare plant species with potential habitat in the Project Area occur primarily within forest edge plant communities with some aquatic/riparian plant communities. The Project Area does not have heavy metal/serpentine/gabbro, or high elevation habitats. Since the TNF threatened, endangered and sensitive plant/fungi species are known to occur in relatively specific habitats, they have been

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 32 grouped by the types of plant community where they grow. This grouping provides a rough approximation of the type of plant community each species needs and allows for an evaluation of how the potential habitat is affected by proposed actions. The following discussion groups all threatened/endangered/sensitive species within plant communities and/or places them into a non- specific plant community group. A brief summary is also provided that addresses why a particular species does not have potential habitat in the Project Area.

Aquatic/riparian plant communities: For this analysis, aquatic/riparian plant communities include those found associated with: wet meadows, seeps, peatlands, fens, vernally wet areas, riparian (streamside/lakeside/reservoir edges), wet/moist rock cliffs, and spring habitats. TNF sensitive species that occur in/are dependent on aquatic/riparian plant communities include: Astragalus lemmonii, Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Cypripedium fasciculatum, Cypripedium montanum, Helodium blandowii, Ivesia aperta var. aperta, Ivesia aperta var. canina, Ivesia sericoleuca, Juncus luciensis, Lewisia cantelovii, Lewisia serrata, Meesia uliginosa, Peltigera gowardii, and Pyrrocoma lucida. The federally threatened species, Ivesia webberi, also occurs in/is dependent on aquatic/riparian plant communities.

The Project Area does not have potential habitat for: Astragalus lemmonii, Ivesia aperta var. aperta, Ivesia aperta var. canina, Ivesia webberi, Lewisia cantelovii, Lewisia serrata, and/or Pyrrocoma lucida and Peltigera gowardii. Lewisia serrata is found on steep canyon walls or cliff/outcrops in American River watersheds only; the Project Area does not contain cliffs/outcrops that would support Lewisia cantelovii or Lewisia serrata; and Astragalus lemmonii, Ivesia aperta var. aperta. I. a. var. canina and Pyrrocoma lucida are found on the eastside of the Sierra Nevada crest in lower lying eastside pine openings in vernally wet areas. Peltigera gowardii is found in fast-running cold and perennial streams, which are not present in this project area.

This project area is located at the middle elevations near the Town of Truckee and closer to the Sierra Crest where yearly precipitation is relatively higher than the eastern portion of the Truckee Ranger District, which is located within the precipitation shadow.

The Project area does have minimal potential habitat for riparian sensitive species: Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, Juncus luciensis and Meesia uliginosa. Potential habitat for Ivesia sericoleuca also exists within the vernally wet meadow in the southern portion of the Big Jack East Project area.

Serpentine and/or heavy metal plant communities: Sensitive species that occur on serpentine soils or copper/heavy metal soils include: Mielichhoferia elongata and Monardella follettii. The federally threatened species, Packera layneae and federally endangered species, Calystegia stebbinsii also occur on serpentine and/or gabbro soils. Calystegia vanzuukiae is also found on serpentine/gabbro soils. The Project Area does not contain serpentine or gabbro plant communities. Therefore, the Project Area does not have habitat that would support any plants dependent on serpentine and/or heavy metal plant communities because these types of rock outcrops are only known to occur on the e western side of the Sierra Nevada Mountain crest.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 33

Older forest plant communities: Sensitive species dependent on older forest plant communities include: Cudonia monticola, Dendrocollybia racemosa, Cypripedium fasciculatum, Cypripedium montanum, Phaeocollybia olivacea, and Sowerbyella rhenana. The Project Area does not contain much in the way of older forest plant communities, because of historic fires and fuels treatments in the past. There are no California Spotted Owl Protected Activity Center (PACs) located within the Project area. These PACs would support any of these species and will be considered a likely habitat for the rare fungi. The rare fungi species Cudonia monticola, Dendrocollybia racemosa, Phaeocollybia olivacea and Sowerbyella rhenana are highly unlikely to be present in this area, because they are largely dependent on old forest stands, which have experienced little ground disturbing activity.

Basidiomycetes (which include species in the genera: Cudonia, Dendrocollybia, Phaeocollybia and Sowerbyella) are ectomycorrhizal (ECM) and the sensitive fungi –These fungi have a broad host range including various members of the Pinaceae family (Douglas-fir, white fir, Jeffrey pine, etc.), and require living host trees. Cudonia monticola, Dendrocollybia racemosa, Phaeocollybia olivacea, and Sowerbyella rhenana are fungi and are older forest dependent. Surveys are not a reliable method for detecting fungi. It is best to rely on any sightings that appear while doing other surveys and to consult locally collected species lists if available.

Forested edges/openings: Forests of all ages contain openings and edges. Plants dependent on openings and edges within forested plant communities are not considered habitat specific. Openings and forest edges are constantly being created as trees and other vegetation die, and lost as vegetation grows into them. Sensitive species with potential habitat within openings and in edge situations include: Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis, Astragalus webberi, Fritillaria eastwoodiae, Penstemon personatus, and Poa sierrae.

The Project Area does not have potential habitat for Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis because it is only found in Great Basin scrub at lower elevations on the eastside of the forest. The Project Area is too high in elevation to provide potential habitat for Astragalus webberi, Fritillaria eastwoodiae, Penstemon personatus, and Poa sierrae. See direct, indirect and cumulative effects.

High elevation openings and rocky areas: Species with potential habitat within high elevation openings/rocky areas include: Boechera rigidissima var. demota and Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum.

Those rocky opening species which do not have the specific potential habitat within the project area are: Erigeron miser, Lewisia longipetala, Lewisia kelloggii subsp. hutchisonii or Lewisia kelloggii subsp. kelloggii, Phacelia stebbinsii, Pinus albicaulis, and Tauschia howellii. The Project Area does not contain potential habitat for any of these plants because it does not include any areas of rocky ridge line openings with the right king of rock parent material.

Table 4 displays the number of occurrences of threatened, and sensitive plant/fungi species known to occur on TNF system lands.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 34

Description of Affected Sensitive Species Habitats A full discussion of all the sensitive plant species listed on the Forest Service sensitive plant list is included in Appendix X. Only the Tahoe National Forest sensitive plant species which have potential habitat within the Big Jack East Project areas are discussed below.

Boechera rigidissima var. demota (Carson Range rock cress): Most of the known occurrences of this plant are located within the state of Nevada on the Carson Range. Most occurrences are found on private lands and are not protected. There are only two occurrences known in California with no known occurrences on TNF system lands. The California occurrences are located near Martis Peak in Placer and Nevada Counties. Carson Range rock cress is considered a geographically restricted regional endemic that is only found from the Carson Range of the Sierra Nevada. It is known to grow in sandy and rocky soils or outcrops derived from granitic or volcanic materials mostly on moderate to steep northerly aspects, often in drainages/meadow edges/dry openings. The elevation range of known occurrences is between 7,500 and 8,500 feet. These habitats are generally considered subalpine habitats. Subalpine habitats are limited in distribution and are fragile, i.e. they have a short growing season and not much resilience to disturbance. The trend for Carson Range rock cress is unknown. Threats to this plant from management activities include development (urban/ski area/facilities); timber harvest; roads; recreation trail construction, maintenance, and use; off-road vehicle use; livestock grazing, firefighting/suppression activities; prescribed burning; and any activities that degrade air quality, cause erosion, or aid in illegal plant collection. Botrychium ascendens (moonwort): This moonwort is known to occur in Canada, Alaska, Nevada, California, and the Pacific Northwest. In California, it is known from Butte, El Dorado, Mono, Placer, Plumas, Nevada, Shasta and Tehama Counties. At this time the Lassen National Forest (NF) has 9 occurrences, the Inyo NF has 2 and Tahoe NF has 5 occurrences, and the Modoc has 1. All occurrences are small and the numbers of this plant known to occur in California is low. This plant is found in riparian areas. Trend is unknown and hard to determine because sporophytes do not appear above ground each year. Soil disturbance is detrimental. A small amount of disturbance may be tolerated; but heavy disturbance will kill individuals. Threats include grazing and trampling by livestock and vehicle activity. Changes in hydrologic regime (from erosion, roads, grazing, etc.) are also considered threats. Hot fires have been shown to be detrimental, especially if the soil conditions are very dry during the burn. There are five known occurrences on the Tahoe National Forest and two of those are known to occur within the Sagehen Basin. None of these occurrences were found within any of the project analysis area. However, this species is hard to find and hard to identify even with the presence of their trophophore and sporophore. These moonworts can stay dormant underground for many years: Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. minganense and B. montanum. Therefore, these species will be assumed to be present and Best Management Practices would be implemented to maintain the most sensitive habitat within the Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). See the discussion for direct, indirect and cumulative effects. Botrychium crenulatum (moonwort): This moonwort has the widest distribution of all the moonworts in the state of California, but is not common anywhere. It is limited to the western United States, scattered from California to Montana. At this time, the Lassen National Forest has 11 known occurrences, the Tahoe National Forest has eight occurrences, the San Bernardino

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 35

National Forest has six occurrences (one of the San Bernardino occurrences is found on private lands), the Modoc National Forest has seven occurrences, and the Inyo National Forest has one confirmed and three unconfirmed occurrences, one of which is in Esmeralda County, Nevada, while the Plumas, Lake Tahoe Basin, Tahoe Conservancy lands and Mendocino National Forests each have one known occurrence. In addition, the Angeles National Forest has one confirmed and several historical occurrences of this species. Each occurrence often consists of only a few plants, so overall numbers in California are low. Most occurrences in California are found at moderate to high elevations. This plant is found in riparian areas. Trend is unknown and hard to determine because sporophytes do not appear above ground each year. Soil disturbance is detrimental. A small amount of disturbance may be tolerated; but heavy disturbance will kill individuals. Threats include grazing and trampling by livestock and vehicle activity. Changes in hydrologic regime (from erosion, roads, grazing, etc.) are also considered threats. Hot fires have been shown to be detrimental, especially if the soil conditions are very dry during the burn. There are ten known occurrences on the Tahoe National Forest and five of those are known to occur within the Sagehen Basin. None of these occurrences were found within any of the project analysis area. However, this species is hard to find and hard to identify even with the presence of their trophophore and sporophore. These moonworts can stay dormant underground for many years: Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. minganense and B. montanum. Therefore, these species will be assumed to be present and Best Management Practices would be implemented to maintain the most sensitive habitat within the Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). See the discussion for direct, indirect and cumulative effects.

Botrychium lunaria (Common moonwort): This moonwort is known to occur from Alaska to California, and in Arizona and the Great Lakes region. In California, it is known from Modoc (5 occurrences), Mono (one historic occurrence), and Nevada Counties. It is a CNPS list 2.3 plant with a global rank of G5. This plant is found in riparian areas. Leaves appear in the spring and die back in the latter half of summer. It grows with many other species of Botrychium and occasionally hybridizes with them (www.eFloras.org, February 2006). Trend is unknown and hard to determine because sporophytes do not appear above ground each year. Soil disturbance is detrimental. A small amount of disturbance may be tolerated; but heavy disturbance will kill individuals. Threats include grazing and trampling by livestock, heavy recreational use, changes in hydrologic regime (from erosion, roads, grazing, etc.), and changes in species composition. Aspen enhancement projects may impact habitat for this plant.

There are no known occurrences on the Tahoe National Forest. No occurrences were found within any of the project analysis area. However, this species is hard to find and hard to identify even with the presence of their trophophore and sporophore. These moonworts can stay dormant underground for many years: Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. minganense and B. montanum. Therefore, these species will be assumed to be present and Best Management Practices would be implemented to maintain the most sensitive habitat within the Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). See the discussion for direct, indirect and cumulative effects.

Botrychium minganense (Mingan moonwort): This moonwort is known to occur from Alaska throughout boreal Canada, southward into all of the western mountain states to Arizona, and

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 36 eastward along the northern states to the Atlantic Canadian Provinces and New England. In California, it is known from Butte, Fresno, Modoc, Nevada, Plumas, Shasta and Tehama Counties. It is a CNPS list 2.2 plant (rare in California and considered fairly endangered in California) with a global ranking of G4. All occurrences are small and the numbers of this plant known to occur in California is low. This plant is found in riparian areas. Trend is unknown and hard to determine because sporophytes do not appear above ground each year. Soil disturbance is detrimental. A small amount of disturbance may be tolerated; but heavy disturbance will kill individuals. Threats include grazing and trampling by livestock and vehicle activity. Changes in hydrologic regime (from erosion, roads, grazing, etc.) are also considered threats. Hot fires have been shown to be detrimental to Botrychium species, especially if the soil conditions are very dry during the burn.

There is only one known occurrence on the Tahoe National Forest and none are known to occur within the Sagehen Basin. However, this species is hard to find and hard to identify even with the presence of their trophophore and sporophore. These moonworts can stay dormant underground for many years: Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. minganense and B. montanum. Therefore, these species will be assumed to be present and Best Management Practices would be implemented to maintain the most sensitive habitat within the Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). See the discussion for direct, indirect and cumulative effects.

Botrychium montanum (moonwort): This moonwort is known to occur in from British Columbia, California, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. In California, it is known from Butte, Modoc, Nevada, Plumas, Shasta and Tehama Counties. At this time the Lassen National Forest (NF) has 11 occurrences, and the Modoc and Tahoe NFs have one occurrence each. All occurrences are small and the numbers of this plant known to occur in California is low. This plant is found in riparian areas. Trend is unknown and hard to determine because sporophytes do not appear above ground each year. Soil disturbance is detrimental. A small amount of disturbance may be tolerated, but heavy disturbance will kill individuals. Threats include grazing and trampling by livestock and vehicle activity. Changes in hydrologic regime (from erosion, roads, grazing, etc.) are also considered threats. Hot fires have been shown to be detrimental, especially if the soil conditions are very dry during the burn. There are no known occurrences on the Tahoe National Forest. No occurrences were found within any of the project analysis area. However, this species is hard to find and hard to identify even with the presence of their trophophore and sporophore. These moonworts can stay dormant underground for many years: Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. minganense and B. montanum. Therefore, these species will be assumed to be present and Best Management Practices would be implemented to maintain the most sensitive habitat within the Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). See the discussion for direct, indirect and cumulative effects. Bruchia bolanderi (Bolander's candle moss): This moss is endemic to California and Oregon (Rushing 1986, Christy and Wagner 1996). California populations are known from Fresno, Tehama, Madera, Mariposa, Nevada, Tuolumne, Tehama and Plumas counties (UC Berkeley Herbarium specimens, CNPS 2001). The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) considers this moss fairly endangered in California and rare outside of California (CNPS 2001). In the Sierra Nevada, it is known from fewer than 10 occurrences from Yosemite National Park south to Sequoia National Forest in Tulare County.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 37

Bruchia bolanderi grows on moist soil, often along exposed edges of streams through meadows or in exposed and disturbed soils or under grasses; sometimes partially shaded by coniferous forests. It grows from 1200 to 2800 meters (about 4000 to above 9000 feet). The abundant production of spores provides ample dispersal opportunities. The species is opportunistic, taking advantage of disturbed sites and minimal competition from other vegetation (Christy and Wagner 1996). However, sporophytes are infrequently encountered in many California populations. The ephemeral nature of this species and its occurrence in disturbed sites allows some flexibility in management (Christy and Wagner 1996). The species is difficult to identify without a sporophyte, which may make surveys for this species problematic. This plant has been found on the TNF, in the Castle Valley area. Trend is not determined, however, increased survey efforts have produced a larger the number of known occurrences. No population monitoring has occurred. Potential threats include direct impacts from cattle or other management activities that directly damage the plants. Note that this species appears capable of reestablishing itself in recently disturbed soils. There is just one known occurrence on the Tahoe National Forest. No known occurrences were found within any of the project analysis area. However, this species is hard to find and hard to identify without the presence of sporophytes. This species would be assumed to be present. See the discussion for direct, indirect and cumulative effects. Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum (Donner Pass buckwheat): This plant is a perennial sub shrub forming large prostrate mats with glabrous leaves. The current known distribution of this buckwheat is a thin 34-kilometer long, 2-6 kilometer wide band along the eastern side of the Sierra Crest from Webber Mountain in the north to Silver Peak, just north of Squaw Valley in the south. Most plants occur in Placer and Nevada Counties, and 2 occurrences occur in Sierra County. The species is known from highly erosive volcanic soils (meiss) with sparse vegetation at 6,000 – 8,200 feet elevation in open subalpine habitats on shallow soil typically on steep east- facing slopes (Kan 1990). It occurs on the TNF where approximately 1,000 individual plants are scattered through 11 occurrences. It has not been assigned to a guild. Initial evaluation of trend indicates a lack of stability, i.e. decline. Threats include mining, ski area development, timber harvest and related activities, and other development. Helodium blandowii (Blandow’s bog-moss): Helodium blandowii is known from Europe, Asia and across northern United States from New Jersey and Ohio west to California and Nevada, and northwards to Canada (Flowers 1973). In California, it is known from Kings Canyon National Park in Fresno County and from the Inyo and Klamath NFs. It is also known from the Mount Rose area on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe (Shevock collection), i.e. at Tahoe Meadows, along Ophir Creek on the Humboldt-Toiyabe side of the LTBMU. It grows in wet meadows and seeps in subalpine coniferous forest and alpine lakes (Flowers 1973). Trend is unknown. The two most critical factors affecting the abundance and distribution of species such as Helodium blandowii are hydrology and the nutrient concentration of incoming water. Changes in hydrology can occur through road or trail construction/maintenance/use. This species would be assumed to be present. See the discussion for direct, indirect and cumulative effects. Ivesia sericoleuca (Plumas Ivesia): This plant is found in the vernally wet parts of meadows and alkali flats, and in vernal pools. These habitats are not widespread and are sensitive to changes in hydrology and to erosion. Ivesia sericoleuca is known to occur on NFS and private lands in Plumas, Placer, Sierra, and Nevada Counties. It is assigned to the meadow/seep and vernally wet

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 38 guilds. This plant has a downward trend across its range due to lack of reproduction, and levels of disturbance that are occurring at known sites. The Tahoe, Plumas, and Humboldt-Toiyabe NFs have a conservation strategy in place for management of this plant. The most commonly recommended management prescription calls for protection from direct and indirect impacts for most vegetation management projects. Since there is an active grazing permit that affects the majority of potential habitat on the eastside of the Tahoe, the recommended strategy involves rotating camps and monitoring impacts to these sensitive plant occurrences. Some areas of total avoidance have been designated within the allotment. Twenty-nine occurrences of this species have been reported as occurring on the Tahoe NF with numbers totaling to an estimated 73,170 plants. Threats to these Ivesia species include: livestock grazing and trampling, road construction and maintenance, off-road vehicle activities and other dispersed recreation, mining, fire suppression activities (fire camps), prescribed fire, timber harvest support activities, reservoir proposals, fuelwood gathering, target shooting, military practice camps, land exchanged, wildlife introduction (turkeys), displacement by noxious weeds (especially cheatgrass), and any activity that changes the hydrology and/or increases erosion. Occurrences on private lands are threatened by habitat conversion, etc. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, for Ivesia webberi (Webber’s ivesia), a plant species from five counties in California and Nevada along the transition zone between the eastern edge of the northern Sierra Nevada and the northwestern edge of the Great Basin. The effect of this regulation will be to add this species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Juncus luciensis (Santa Lucia dwarf rush): Juncus luciensis is endemic to California, reported in the northeastern and southwestern parts of the state at elevations between 300 and 2,040 meters, in Lassen, Modoc, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer(?), Plumas, Riverside, San Benito, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, San Benito, and Santa Barbara counties. There are currently 26 known occurrences of Juncus luciensis (CNDDB 2012). Of these, six are on the Plumas National Forest, two on the Tahoe National Forest, one on the Lassen National Forest, and four believed to be on the Los Padres National Forest. Five occurrences are on lands owned by public or nonprofit entities other than the U.S. Forest Service, and the remaining five are of uncertain ownership or privately owned. More than half of these occurrences were last reported more than twenty years ago. For most of them, information about location, associated species, and population size is limited at best, though a few of them report that J. luciensis was abundant at the site. However, this is an annual species, so numbers of occurrences and plants within the occurrence should be expected to vary from year to year. This species would be assumed to be present. See the discussion for direct, indirect and cumulative effects. Meesia uliginosa (Broad-nerved hump-moss): This species has a bipolar distribution, meaning that it exists in both hemispheres. In the Northern hemisphere, it is circum-boreal, being found in Greenland, Canada, the northern U.S., the Baltic, Russia, and Mongolia. It is also known from South America and nearby places in Antarctica (Lawton E., 1971; Ochyra et al, 1974). More specifically, it prefers to live upon calcareous substrates, usually in alpine or arctic regions, but occurring also in rich fens at lower elevations. Its elevation range is from 3,950 ft. to 8,550 ft. (Lawton E., 1971; Vitt, D. H.et al 1988).

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 39

The distribution in California for Meesia uliginosa is disjunct, but it is known to occur from Siskiyou County south to Tulare County. Populations of Meesia uliginosa are reported to be small and infrequently encountered. On the TNF this moss grows in permanently wet, primarily spring fed plant communities called fens. This moss is assigned to fen and meadow and seep guilds. The elevation range is about 4,250 to 6,850 feet. The trend is in decline since several historic sites have not been relocated and/or the habitat has been degraded. Surveys thus far have identified 23 occurrences of Meesia uliginosa on the Tahoe NF. The area covered by this moss is typically very small and the number of individual is impossible to determine. Threats to these Meesia moss species from management activities are any that change the hydrology of habitats; i.e. timber harvest, road construction, construction of fuel breaks, recreation activities, livestock grazing, etc. This species would be assumed to be present. See the discussion for direct, indirect and cumulative effects. For more information about the other Forest Service sensitive plant species, please refer to the Sensitive Plant Appendix X, (2014), available at the Truckee Ranger District.

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action - Environmental Effects Assumptions: A number of assumptions were used in this analysis. They are listed below:

• Botrychium species may live in the corm phase for many years before they produce above ground parts.

Federally listed species The possible direct, indirect or cumulative effects to the newly threatened species Ivesia webberi have been ruled out since none has been found to occur to within the Big Jack East Project area. In fact no Ivesia webberi has been found to occur on the Truckee or Sierraville Ranger Districts to date. However, the nearest known locations are found within the eastern side of Sierra Valley and in Dog Valley, not far from the Tahoe NF boundary at lower elevations. Since Ivesia webberi was not found and was really not expected at the project elevation, consultation with the Fish and Wildlife will not have to be performed. The other threatened or endangered plant species that is on the Tahoe National Forest TESP plant list Packera layneae (threatened) which could not possibly occur on the east side of the Tahoe because it is known to only inhabit the serpentine soils at a much lower elevation on the west side of the Tahoe NF.

Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species Surveys were done during the appropriate seasons for finding the sensitive plant species within the proposed project area and the access routes in 2012-2014. The moss species Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, and Meesia uliginosa have potential habitat in the area and so do the moonwort species Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum. The potential habitat for the rush species Juncus luciensis has also been searched and none was found to occur. No known occurrences for these species were found or have been documented to occur within close proximity to the project areas. These species are typically very small and although thorough surveys were previously conducted, these species may not have been visible during any predictable timeframe. Since potential habitat is present, it must be assumed that these species could be present within the project area.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 40

Direct Effects to Sensitive Plants with Potential Habitat or Present

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects must be analyzed. Ivesia sericoleuca is known to occur in one locations within the Big Jack East project boundary. The Big Jack East Project area contains a meadow complex at the southern end of the project area which contains three sub-populations within the one occurrence of Ivesia sericoleuca found to exist in 2016. This occurrence has been incorporated into unit 50 which has been designated as having pile-burn restrictions to reduce the potential for direct effects to the Ivesia sericoleuca occurrence.

Other TNF sensitive plant species with potential habitat are Boechera rigidissima, Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum. Direct effects to Boechera rigidissima and Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum, can be ruled out since none was found to occur within the project area. Other sensitive plant species on the TNF list with potential habitat are Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, b. lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Cudonia monticola, Helodium blandowii, Juncus luciensis and Meesia uliginosa. Effects to these species cannot be ruled out because these species are so small or may be visible for a very short period of time, so that they are hard to detect, even while performing rigorous survey methods. Under these conditions, we assume presence and estimate risk for inadvertent impacts based of the amount of quality potential habitat and the treatment intensity planned within the project boundaries.

Direct Effects from Forest (Ecological) Restoration

There were no federally threatened or TNF sensitive plant species found within the “Forest (Ecological) Restoration” units which would be treated by mechanical tree removal, mastication or grapple pile removal of fuels. The sensitive plants that are more reliably visible are Boecherra rigidissima and Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum, can be ruled out since the surveys are an effective method to determine presence or abcense. Since these species were not detected, there would not be any direct effects expected to these species from actions associated with forest restoration. All moonworts, mosses or rushes on the TNF sensitive list require perrenial moisture and so are highly unlikely to be present within the forested matrix where these forested units would be treated. Direct effects to the Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum and Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowi, Juncus luciensis and Meesia uliginosa are less likely to occur since they are known to occur in riparian vegetation which would, most likely be left untreated in units 27 and 50. The majority of the area within these units would not be thinned since there are very few trees in the meadows. Possible treatments would be the hand thinning within the forest edges surrounding the meadow and possible pile burning outside of the main meadows. Direct effects to Ivesia sericoleuca would also be primarily avoided within the Ivesia sericoleca occurrences within unit 50.

Indirect Effects Indirect effects for Ivesia sericoleuca and moss species Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, and Meesia uliginosa; moonwort species Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum,

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 41

Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum and rush, specis Juncus luciensis have been analyzed since some potential habitat exists within the project analysis area in perennially wet riparian habitat. None of these species were found to occur (except Ivesia sericoleuca) as described above. Since the moonworts mosses and rush species so small and are unreliably visible, their presence cannot be ruled out. These small moonwort, moss and rush species would have a low risk of being impacted to the point of leading to a trend for listing since there are no known fens or real perennial wetlands inside the Big Jack East Project area. The meadow within units 27 and 50 is considered to be ephemerally wet.

Ivesia sericoleuca is known to occur in the meadow complex in the southern end of the Big Jack Project area in unit 50. Indirect impacts to the broader meadow resulting from the forest thinning activities could be beneficial to the Ivesia sericoleuca occurrence. Potential benefits include the possibility that the removal of trees may indirectly allow more of the moisture to flow into the meadow by way of the springs and drainages, instead of being transpired into the atmosphere by the trees.

Indirect Effects from the removal of the 06-08 Road from the NFTS MVUM Map: Since this road is currently blocked and obscured, it appears to be seldom used. However, the fact that it is on our Multiple Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), as a road which is open to all vehicles, brings it to the attension of users. The removal of the end of the 06-08 road from the next edition of the MVUM would reduce the liklihood that this road could be used again in the future. The road crosses through the known occurrence of Ivesia sericoleuca within unit 50. If it were to become intrenched or eroded it could increase the rate of drainage from this sensitive plant occurrence and could reduce the sensitive plant site quality and could lead to a reduction in occurrence plant numbers.

Indirect Effects related to Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Indirect effects would also include the increased potential for non-native invasive plant (NNIP) invasion. Care must be taken to prevent the introduction of NNIPs and to restore the sites by using only native materials from adjacent areas. Water bars may be installed using material from the road bed or adjacent areas to prevent accelerated erosion. It would be important to put any temporary roads to bed to prevent any indirect effects that could be associated with accelerated erosion, invasive plant infestation or water transport from meadow that provides habitat for I. sericoleuca.

Indirect Effects of a Borate Compound Application to Tree Stumps The application of a borate compound to the freshly cut stumps of conifers would be performed to guard against the spread of root rot that is naturally occurring fungus in white fir and pine forest communities. The application of a borate compound may impact especially those plants such as the Botrychium spp. (moonworts) that have strong mycorrhizae requirements and the fungi species (Cudonia monticola), because borate compounds are a fungicide. Root systems of native plants are commonly colonized by one or more mycorrhizal fungi that are naturally occurring soil fungi which increase nutrient absorption and improve soil structure (Augé 2008). Botrychium spp. exist within a microhabitat that extends a couple of meters, so changes in light and moisture within a couple of meters may affect the plant’s ability to survive. Other studies have shown that when herbicides are applied to moonworts, the individual plants that are exposed would be killed, but

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 42 plants 5 cm away that were not hit live (Johnson-Groh, 2008). The adjacent underground plants would not be likely impacted depending on the translocation of the borate compound underground (ibid). Other aspects associated with the application of a borate compound would be the toxicity to beneficial fungi and the desiccation where the borate compound would be applied (ibid). Large amounts of borax can be toxic to plants and microorganisms; boron (the main break-down product of borax) is a naturally occurring element that plants need. Terrestrial plants are normally rich sources of boron and boron is an essential trace element for higher plants (Eisler 1990). The application of A borate compound would be carefully applied to tree stumps only to specifically prevent the spread of root rot from stump to adjacent live trees. Since all mitigations that reduce the likelihood that the borate compound would get into the water, the potential for borate compound application to directly affect the sensitive plants associated with fens or other perennially wet sites would be minimal. Indirect Effects from the Increased Risk of Wildfire After implementation of Alternative 1, there would be more acreage on which flame lengths are projected to be less than 4 feet (Ferguson, 2017). This would allow for most firefighting strategies to be utilized (ibid). In fact, Alternative 1 would allow for flame lengths to be less than 4 feet in 88% of the treatment acreage. Fire suppression would be more successful under Alternative 1 due to flame lengths less than 4 feet in the majority of the treated areas. Under Alternative 2, approximately 1,857 acres would have flame lengths over 8 feet. Direct attack of a wildfire will be difficult with flame lengths over 8 feet. Flame lengths of this scale would most likely result in stand replacing conditions. Alternative 1 would reduce flame lengths to less than 4 feet in most treatment areas. This would meet fire and fuels goals by modifying landscape scale wildland fire behavior to levels expected to occur with active fire conditions under an active fire regime (ibid). Further, Alternative 1 increases firefighter and public safety by providing firefighters with a safer place to engage in fire suppression and provides public with safer egress if a fire is to start within or around the Sawtooth Road area (ibid). It further increases safety by developing safe evacuation routes (ibid). The historic role of fire is reintroduced for the first time in over 100 years with prescribed fire in many areas; key to the restoration of the ecosystem processes (General Technical Report PSW-GTR-220). The combination of treatments proposed within this Alternative 1 enhances the longevity of the desired condition well past any of the other proposed alternatives (Ferguson, 2017). Therefore, the Proposed Action best achieves the flame lengths, fire types and fire rates of spread over the entire Project Area that would have occurred, if there were active fire conditions under an active fire regime (ibid).

As a result, both ladder and surface fuels would decrease over time, leading to a decreased risk of a widespread high intensity wildfire. Botrychium spp. depend on mycorrhizal symbiotic relationships and can be found in variety of timber types to open meadows (Laeger, 2002). Wildfire would be less likely to affect those stands that may harbor these sensitive plant species because the implementation of the proposed project would ultimately reduce stocking levels and break up the continuity of fuels within those stands proposed for treatment. Most sensitive plant species have been known to show a downward trend in the presence of tree removal. The other sensitive species such as Boechera rigidissima and Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum, Ivesia spp., Pyrrocoma lucida and Tauschia howellii typically grow in openings in very specialized habitat that is less prone to the effects of wildfire. Since the habitat is naturally has

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 43 very light fuel loading or maintains a higher moisture content, these sensitive plant species may be less affected by wildfire.

Cumulative Effects Geographical Context and Timelines for Cumulative Effects The geographical boundaries for cumulative effects to these wide-ranging species such as Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, Juncus luciensis and Meesia uliginosa have been limited to eastside Tahoe National Forest because these species are rare but widely ranging within California or around the world. The geographical boundary for consideration has been chosen to be large enough to provide a relative context and encompass potential habitat for these wide-ranging rare species within an area where management actions are known. Only general assumptions about habitat needs are analyzed in regard to these species, since not enough is understood about the specific habitat requirements for a detailed discussion of project level effects. These species have been designated as Forest Service Sensitive in Region 5 because they rarely occur in California and known occurrences are typically very small in area, number of plants and they occur in specialized riparian habitat. The east side of the Tahoe NF area was chosen to be the geographical context for Ivesia sericoleuca because this species is known to be endemic to the east side of the Plumas, Tahoe and western portion of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests and adjacent private lands. The Big Jack East Project Area exist within the southwestern portion of the range extent for Ivesia sericoleuca. The extent of Ivesia sericoleuca ranges from the southeastern portion of the Plumas NF to as far south as Martis Valley which is just south of Truckee, CA. This species is a member of the ephemerally wet-meadow-alkali flat guild and occur with other Ivesia species in certain places. Cumulative impacts to Ivesia sericoleuca Ivesia sericoleuca is found in the vernally wet parts of meadows and alkali flats, and in vernal pools. It is assigned to the meadow/seep and vernally wet guilds. This species is known to occur on National Forest system and private lands in Plumas, Placer, Sierra, and Nevada Counties. The total length of the geographic area where Ivesia sericoleuca is known to occur is less than 75 miles, north to south.

Ivesia sericoleuca exists in about 31 locations on the Sierraville and Truckee Ranger Districts including a large site that occurs in the meadow complex in the southern portion of Big Jack East. This Ivesia sericoleuca sites have an estimated total of approximately 76,000 plants. Based on a summary of the Habitat Site Reports, it has been estimated about 125,000 plants may exist on the Tahoe NF and about 50,000 plants may be occurring on the Plumas NF. Several other locations have been reported on private land within Sierra Valley and the western portion of the Humboldt- Toiyabe NF. Resource protection measures have been designed to reduce the potential for direct and indirect impacts to the ephemerally wet areas where I. sericoleuca has been found to occur. It has been estimated that this project could directly and indirectly impact up to five percent of known occurrence within unit 50, since most of the meadow will be subjected to restricted pile burning. Under these circumstances, this occurrence would probably continue to inhabit this ephemerally wet meadow. Resource Protection Measures have been included within the Standard

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 44

Management Requirements Table to minimize impacts after project implementation. This particular sensitive plant occurrence does not receive any impacts from livestock grazing since it is not included within any grazing allotments. Overall, the most prevalent impacts to Ivesia sericoleuca can be directly attributed to livestock use within the Boca Kyburz Allotment. (See discussion below in past and ongoing effects.)

The timeline for the cumulative effects analysis is about 24 years because records for Ivesia sericoleuca have been kept in the Sensitive Plants Atlas and Tahoe National Forest Sensitive Plant Program Standard and Guidelines since 1990. Over the years, very little quantitative data has been collected. One exception is that Caltrans established monitoring transects that measured the effects of the Truckee Bypass Project. They determined that the cover of Ivesia sericoleca is highly variable depending on the month and the preceeding weather patterns. The timeline of other species on the Tahoe NF list would depend on when they were added to the list.

Cumulative Impacts to Botrychium species, Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, Juncus luciensis, and Meesia uliginosa. The Botrychium species, Bruchia bolanderi and Helodium blandowii were added in 2008 and Juncus luciensis was added in 2013.

No direct or indirect effects or cumulative effects are expected for Astragalus lemmonii, Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis, Astragalus webberi, Boechera rigidissima var. demota, Cudonia monticola, Cypripedium fasciculatum, Cypripedium montanum, Dendrocollybia racemosa, Erigeron miser, Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum, Fritillaria eastwoodiae, Ivesia aperta var. aperta, I. aperta var. canina, I. webberi, Lewisia cantelovii, Lewisia kelloggii spp. hutchisonii, Lewisia kelloggii spp. kelloggii, Lewisia longipetala, Lewisia serrata, Mielichhoferia elongata, Monardella follettii, Peltigera gowardii, Penstemon personatus, Phacelia stebbinsii, Phaeocollybia olivacea, Pinus albicaulis, Poa sierrae, Pyrrocoma lucida Sowerbyella rhenana, and Tauschia howellii because either habitat is lacking or none was found to occur within the Big Jack East Project area. Therefore, cumulative effects are not a concern for these species when considering activities associated with the Big Jack East Project. The eastside of the Tahoe National Forest was chosen as the cumulative effects analysis area for those species that are known to occur or could be present but are hard to find within the Big Jack East Project Analysis Area and expected to experience slight direct and indirect impacts, i.e. Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, and M. uliginosa. Cumulative effects to these wide-ranging species such have been limited to eastside Tahoe National Forest because these species are rare but widely ranging within California or around the world. The geographical boundary for consideration has been chosen to be large enough to provide a relative context and encompass potential habitat for these wide-ranging rare species within an area where management actions are known. Only general assumptions about habitat needs are analyzed in regard to these species, since not enough is understood about the specific habitat requirements for a detailed discussion of project level effects. These species have been designated as Forest Service Sensitive in Region 5 because known occurrences are typically very small in area or number of plants when they occur is very limited and/or the plants only occur in specialized riparian habitat.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 45

Cumulative effects for Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, Juncus luciensis and M. uliginosa have been analyzed since some potential habitat that exists within the project area that has been proposed treatments. Records have been kept on known plant occurrences since these plants were added to the Regional Sensitive Plant List in 1998, 2008 and 2013. Cumulative effects to all of these riparian sensitive plant species are ongoing where they occur, either by natural processes or by them being affected by multiple projects that enter the riparian zone. These sensitive plant species usually occur in association with fens, springs or another perennial water sources, of which there is very limited distribution within this project area except for within units 27 and 50. Treatments within these units have been limited to possible hand thinning and pile burning within the forested edges and not within the riparian meadow systems. See Table 5 below which summarizes the list of existing projects that have been considered to gauge the relative intensity of impacts for the Tahoe National Forest sensitive plant species that have been recognized as being affected directly and/or indirectly within the Big Jack East Project. By far, the most frequently occurring disturbances result from the range grazing allotment activities because they are reoccurring every year and livestock have not been excluded from accessing fens in some areas. It is important to note that the Sagehen Allotment was removed from the Tahoe National Forest Allotment grazing permanently in 2006, so that livestock grazing in Sagehen Basin is no longer a contributing factor to the cumulative effects. Other projects have included Resource Protection Measures (RPM)s that limit the direct and indirect impacts to these sensitive species. RPMs also reduce the likelihood for indirect impacts, so the potential for cumulative impacts are low to moderate. These species are widely occurring within the world, but where they occur their numbers are typically small or the area they cover adds up to be rather small. Cumulative Effects to Regionally Endemic Species The sensitive species on the Tahoe National Forest list have been found within or near the project area. These species are known to be regionally endemic, meaning that their entire range in the world where these species are known to occur is very limited in scope. For example, Ivesia sericoleuca is known from Janesville, south to Martis Valley, CA. All of these species occur in specialized habitat. From a global perspective, their range is very small. These plants inhabit specialized niches which are limited and are sensitive to changes in hydrology and to erosion. Endemic species such as Ivesia sericoleuca that have a limited distribution are more vulnerable than widely distributed species. The potential is higher for localized stochastic events such as long periods of drought, loss of specific pollinators or some other factors that can affect the entire distribution of the species.

The regionally endemic species that are known to occur on the east side of Tahoe NF are: Erigeron miser, Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum, Ivesia sericoleuca and Juncus luciensis. The proposed project activities would avoid directly impacting Ivesia sericoleuca, but the thinning of the trees in adjacent units and around the meadow may allow more water to enter the meadow and allow more available water to the sensitive plant occurrences. The water retained could support those species such as Ivesia sericoleuca and Juncus luciensis that are somewhat hydrophytic.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 46

Past and Ongoing Cumulative Effects Management activities have occurred on the east side of the TNF system and privately owned lands for over a century. Historic management activities on TNF system lands include: gold mining, gravel mining, hydroelectric development, land clearance, diversions of water for irrigation, land drainage, timber harvest, construction of roads and railroads, urbanization, livestock grazing, ground water abstraction, and others (Kondolf et al. 1996). This long history of disturbance to aquatic/riparian plant communities has contributed to the lack of an undisturbed reference for most aquatic/riparian dependent sensitive species. Therefore, it is not possible to quantify how these past management activities have impacted them. Historically, springs, creeks, and rivers were altered by diversion of water; meadows and fens were converted to other types of habitats due to human activity that dried them out; aquatic/riparian areas were repeatedly and heavily grazed by domestic livestock; and numerous roads were built in areas that changed the hydrology of those habitats.

The most evident past and ongoing effects to the vegetation in the floodplain can be attributed to impacts associated with the cattle grazing, sheep browsing and sheep camps. Areas with compacted soil have been reported to be evident along with the trampling and removal of vegetation due to the livestock grazing permits. These activities and others have cumulatively reduced the amount of aquatic/riparian plant communities within TNF watersheds that would be suitable habitat for the sensitive moss and moonwort species Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, Meesia uliginosa, Bortychioum ascendens, Botrycium crenulatum, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium mingaense, Botrychium montanum. The Ivesia sericoleuca occurrence in the Big Jack East Project area has not been subjected to the effects of trailing and removal of browsing by livestock use in the area. However, there are several user created, Forest Service system roads and other non-system trails in the area which may be impacting the one Ivesia sericoleuca occurrence known to be present. There is also the southeastern end of the 06-08 Road which is currently still on the MVUM, but would be removed from the next edition, which could reduce the potential for future direct impacts to the Ivesia sericoleuca site in Unit 50.

Another set of impacts to fens and riparian vegetation can be attributed to aspen restoration projects such as Billabong, Outback, and Kangaroo on the Sierraville Ranger Disrtict and Sagehen Project on the Truckee Ranger District. These projects have removed the majority of conifer trees and disturbed riparian habitat and riparian dependent sensitive plant species on the Sierraville Ranger District are Billabong, Outback and Kangaroo. Most fens within the Sagehen basin have been better protected with buffers to reduce impacts to fens.

As explained above, since potential habitat for Helodium blandowii, Meesia uliginosa, Botychium ascendens, Botrycium crenulatum, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium mingaense and Botrychium montanum exists within the project area is marginal, the chance of this project contributing to the cumulative effects is low. Since there is more of chance for Bruchia bolanderi to be present, the chances of this project contributing to the cumulative effects to this species is considered low to moderate. See BE Table that shows the relative likelihood that these sensitive plant species would be affected. Those species that have not been found to occur on the east side of the Tahoe, but could eventually be found, have a low likelihood of being affected.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 47

These activities and others have cumulatively reduced the amount of aquatic/riparian plant communities within TNF watersheds that would be suitable habitat for: Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, Juncus luciensis and Meesia uliginosa. The amount of habitat reduction is unknown. Most of the known occurrences of the sensitive plant species dependent on aquatic/riparian plant communities have been recorded in the Sagehen Basin where it has been estimated that about 53 acres of fen ecosystems are intact at the present time (See BE Table 4). Since a substantial amount of potential habitat exists within the Sagehen Basin and this area has been taken off the Tahoe NF grazing allotment schedule on a permanent basis, there is a high probability that the known occurrences of these species will be maintained. Other projects have been planned within the Sagehen Basin include resource protection measures which are easier to implement than range grazing permits. For example, vegetation management projects have a limited timeframe and “flag and avoid’ resource protection measures can be effectively implemented. Table 6 -Cumulative effects from multiple projects on the eastside of the Tahoe NF and the Sagehen Basin since the Sagehen Basin is considered a strong hold for fen preferring species. Tahoe Potential to occur Found in Sagehen Found to Potential for Big sensitive in Big Jack East Basin where no occur in other Jack East to plant species Project area livestock grazing project areas contribute to the will be permitted on Eastside of cumulative impacts and where the the Tahoe NF of previous projects majority of known occurrences exist on TNF. Boechera High likelihood that None. One occurrence Risk is low, since none rigidissima var. this sensitive species is known on were found to occur demota could be found in the Martis Peak and within this project project area. another near Mt. areas, the chances that it Watson. would be impacted would be small. Botrychium Marginal potential Two occurrences Billy Hill, Risk is low because no ascendens habitat is present, no found in the Sagehen large, or especially rich occurrences have been Sagehen Basin near small fens were found reported. (Assume units 61 and 163. within the Big Jack East presence since these High amount of Project, so that means species are hard to potential habitat that there would not be find.) within fens (53ac.) a high likelihood that activities associated with Big Jack East would contribute to the cumulative effects of the fen preferring species.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 48

Tahoe Potential to occur Found in Sagehen Found to Potential for Big sensitive in Big Jack East Basin where no occur in other Jack East to plant species Project area livestock grazing project areas contribute to the will be permitted on Eastside of cumulative impacts and where the the Tahoe NF of previous projects majority of known occurrences exist on TNF. B. crenulatum Marginal potential Five occurrence Billy Hill, Risk is low because no habitat is present, no found in Sagehen Sagehen, large, or especially rich occurrences have been Basin. High amount Transition small fens were found reported. (Assume of potential habitat within the Big Jack East presence since these within fens (53ac.) Project, so that means species are hard to that there would not be find.) a high likelihood that activities associated with Big Jack East would contribute to the cumulative effects of the fen preferring species. B. lunaria Marginal potential High amount of None Risk is low because no habitat is present, no potential habitat large, or especially rich occurrences have been within fens (53ac.) small fens were found reported. (Assume within the Big Jack East presence since these Project, so that means species are hard to that there would not be find.) a high likelihood that activities associated with Big Jack East would contribute to the cumulative effects of the fen preferring species. B. minganense Marginal potential High amount of Sagehen Risk is low because no habitat is present, no potential habitat large, or especially rich occurrences have been within fens (53ac.) small fens were found reported. (Assume within the Big Jack East presence since these Project, so that means species are hard to that there would not be find.) a high likelihood that activities associated with Big Jack East would contribute to the cumulative effects of the fen preferring species.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 49

Tahoe Potential to occur Found in Sagehen Found to Potential for Big sensitive in Big Jack East Basin where no occur in other Jack East to plant species Project area livestock grazing project areas contribute to the will be permitted on Eastside of cumulative impacts and where the the Tahoe NF of previous projects majority of known occurrences exist on TNF. B. montanum Marginal potential High amount of None Risk is low because no habitat is present, no potential habitat large, or especially rich occurrences have been within fens (53ac.) small fens were found reported. (Assume within the Big Jack East presence since these Project, so that means species are hard to that there would not be find.) a high likelihood that activities associated with Big Jack East would contribute to the cumulative effects of the fen preferring species. Bruchia Marginal potential High amount of Travel Risk is low because no bolanderi habitat is present, no potential habitat Management large, or especially rich occurrences have been within buffers small fens were found reported. (Assume surrounding special within the Big Jack East presence since these aquatic features Project, so that means species are hard to (229.5 ac.) that there would not be find.) a high likelihood that activities associated with Big Jack East would contribute to the cumulative effects of the fen preferring species. Helodium Marginal potential High amount of None Risk is low because blandowii habitat is present, no potential habitat fens were found within occurrences have been within buffers the Big Jack East reported. (Assume surrounding special Project, so that means presence since these aquatic features that there would not be species are hard to (229.5 ac.) a high likelihood that find.) activities associated with Big Jack East would contribute to the cumulative effects of the fen preferring species.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 50

Tahoe Potential to occur Found in Sagehen Found to Potential for Big sensitive in Big Jack East Basin where no occur in other Jack East to plant species Project area livestock grazing project areas contribute to the will be permitted on Eastside of cumulative impacts and where the the Tahoe NF of previous projects majority of known occurrences exist on TNF. Ivesia Known occurrences Less than 2 acres. Transition, Low risk of negatively sericoleuca well established and Boca-Kyburz impacting the existence exist in three Allotment, of this species because, occurrences. One is Independence although I. sericoleuca large and the two Allotment, plants occur within unit others are relative Smithneck 50 of Big Jack East, no relatively small within Allotment, piling or burning of the Big Jack East Sagehen, Little slash would occur Project area. Truckee Fish within the meadow Habitat where the plants are Improvement, known to grow. Dry Creek Juncus luciensis Marginal potential The acreage of None Risk is low because habitat is present, no spring habitat was meadow sites are not occurrences have been not evaluated for going to be directly or reported. (Assume Sagehen Basin; indirectly impacted by presence since these however there are activities associated species are hard to plenty of springs and with Big Jack East find.) habitat that would be Project. suitable habitat for Juncus luciensis. M. uliginosa Marginal potential 14 of the known 31 Outback, Risk is low because no habitat is present, no occurrences on the Transition, fens were found within occurrences have been Tahoe NF fall within Jumbuck, the Big Jack East reported. (Assume the Sagehen Basin. Leftover Project, so that means presence since these High amount of Underburn, that there would low species are hard to potential habitat Independence likelihood that activities find.) within fens (53ac.) Allotment, associated with Big Smithneck Jack East would Allotment, contribute to the cumulative effects of the fen preferring species. Fens None detected, but Fens in the Sagehen Billabong, Risk is low because no represents habitat for Basin cover about Kangaroo, large, or especially rich five species of 53 acres total. Outback, small fens were found Botrychium and four Transition, within the Big Jack East Jumbuck, Project, so that means

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 51

Cumulative effects to Ivesia sericoleuca include impacts such as soil compaction and erosion caused by OHV traffic that cross known occurrences in Russel Valley, northwest of Prosser Reservoir, west and east of Prosser Reservoir. Barriers or signs to prevent OHV impacts have been installed at Stockrest Springs, Old Smith Mill Site, Picnic Meadows, Boyington Meadow and a few other sites. Hiking trails and recreational use impacts are known to affect Ivesia sericoleuca at Donner Camp, Boca Shooting Area and Sagehen Arm that cause trampling and trail development.

Streams that are down-cutting or at risk of becoming non-functional pose a risk to Ivesia sericoleuca occurrences that may be on adjacent floodplains by effectively reducing the amount or water or the length of time that soils retain water available for plants. Those stream courses found to be entrenched during stream surveys that are near Ivesia sericoleuca occurrences in the Boca range allotment are the lower reaches of Sagehen Creek in Sagehen Arm Meadow and the lower reaches of Hoke Valley where Ivesia sericoleuca occurs above and below the road. The additional long term effects resulting from the implementation of the watershed restoration portion of the Dry Creek Project may actually be beneficial to Ivesia sericoleuca in Russel Valley, because the restoration would stop the down cutting of the stream channel and the advanement of the headcuts.

Vegetation management projects that have analyzed the effects to Ivesia sericoleuca in the recent past are Borda, Liberty, Brumby, Saddle and Scraps. Only Borda had overlap with Saddle Analysis Area because the same Ivesia sericoleuca occurrence was protected by the same flag and avoid control measures. The HFQLG Botany Monitoring Reports (Dillingham, 2004-2009) documented that controls were successful and there were no discernable direct impacts to the site that would add to cumulative impacts. Other projects that have occurred on the Truckee Ranger District that could have affected I. sericoleuca include Allover, Canyons, Dry Creek and Wornmill. All of these projects successfully avoided impacts to I. sericoleuca by including the Standard Management Requirements according to personal observations made in habitat site

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 52 reports. The vegetaion management actions of the Big Jack East Project would not contribute to the decline of Ivesia serioleuca or any of the other Tahoe NF sensitive plant species because the potential for this portion of the project to impact these species is very low, since they primarily occur within the ephemerally wet meadows and not any of the proposed treatment stands.

The HFQLG Botany Monitoring Reports (Dillingham, 2004 -2009) summarize observed impacts to Ivesia sericoleuca and Pyrrocoma lucida and other sensitive plant species by the individual timber sales that have been implemented. I. sericoleuca was also found to occur within the Borda, Brumby, Liberty and Scraps Project Areas. Impacts to sensitive plants have mostly been avoided by the activities associated with vegetation management projects resulting from those projects such as Toro Timber Sale (from Borda analysis). Hot Springs mastication activities also avoided these sensitive plants since the majority of these plants occur outside of forested units in adjacent areas. However, records show that at least two of the seven sensitive plant occurrences may have been impacted by livestock or deer in these areas.

Most of the cumulative impacts to Ivesia sericoleuca appear to be related to impacts associated with Range Use Permits for several reasons. Range use permits authorize ongoing activities that recur every year for several years in a row. Tahoe NF manages livestock use within these range allotments according to the Tahoe National Forest LRMP and amendments by addressing concerns in the Annual Operation Instructions to the permittees. These impacts to sensitive plants are periodically monitored, analyzed and instructions may be changed to reduce impacts through adaptive management. This kind of adaptive management works better for Range Use Permits because flag and avoid mitigations that are prescribed for vegetation management projects do not work to control ongoing range use.

Those range permits that affect 26 of the 31known occurrences on the Tahoe National Forest, Ivesia sericoleuca include Beckwourth, Boca, Independence, Kyburz, Payen, and Smithneck. In particular, the Secret Meadow Ivesia sericoleuca site occurs within the Independence Allotment and the Saddle Analysis Area. This site is typically used for about 2 weeks a year by the permittee that runs a cattle operation. The most recent habitat site report documented in 2004 indicates that the vigor of I. sericoleuca plants was good and the number of plants present was also high (approx.10,000+). The monitoring results show that this occurrence is maintaining vigor and size, even with cattle grazing and activities associated with timber removal in adjacent areas.

The Boca, Kyburz, Sagehen, Sierra Crest and Summit (BKS) Range NEPA has been approved for implementation. The amended allotment management plan includes many guidelines and closures to reduce potential impacts to Ivesia sericoleuca. Closure to range grazing activities within the Boca allotment would be established in the Donner Camp area, Boca shooting range and Town Site and the Sagehen Arm Meadow where Ivesia sericoleuca is known to occur in relatively small numbers. Effectiveness monitoring would occur in other areas of concern to assess population condition and trend as defined by plant vigor, density and desired conditions every 3-5 years. By the implementation of these closures, guidelines, and effectiveness monitoring, livestock use in the area would be able to continue without causing a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability to Ivesia sericoleuca that is centered within the Boca and Kyburz allotments. The BKS Project decision removed Sagehen, Sierra Crest and Summit Allotments from the Tahoe National Forest Grazing Program. There is one medium sized Ivesia sericoleuca occurrence within the Sagehen

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 53

Allotment area that will not be affected by grazing in the future because that allotment has been permanently closed. Now, that this Ivesia sericoleuca occurrence has been discovered in the Big Jack East Project area, there are at least 3 known large occurrences outside of grazing allotments on the TNF.

Overall, the impacts of these HFQLG and other vegetation management projects on the Sierraville and Truckee Ranger Districts contribute very little to the direct, indirect and cumulative effects to Ivesia sericoleuca occurrences because the plants naturally occur outside areas that need to be thinned, in openings or sparsely treed areas. These sensitive species are easy to avoid during thinning operations. However, impacts related to Range Permits and various OHV routes are harder to control and contribute to the majority of cumulative effects that affect all sensitive plant species that are present in permitted grazing allotments including Botrichium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Cudonia montcola, Helodium blandowii, Juncus luciensis and Meesia uliginosa. The Ivesia sericoleuca occurrence in Big Jack East unit 50 does not occur within a grazing allotment, so this occurrence is free from the long term. most impacting activities known to affect the distribution of this endemic species.

Cumulative Effects in the Foreseeable Future On the Truckee Ranger District, potential future projects include Five Creeks Project (vegetation management) and the Ladybug Project (vegetation management) which are in the pre-planning stages. The Five Creeks Project is in the Squaw Creek Truckee River Watershed on the west side of the Truckee River Canyon. The Ladybug Project is within the Davies Creek, Boca Reservoir- Little Truckee River Watersheds would include a component that would restore hydrologic function to Hoke Valley, which does harbor a few small occurrences of Ivesia sericoleuca and could benefit the sensitive plant occurrence as Dry Creek watershed restoration project is expected to improve the habitat. This project would certainly be complimentary to the larger Dry Creek Project and could benefit the Ivesia sericoleuca occurrences in the western edge of the Dry Creek Project Area.

On the Sierraville Ranger District, Randolph Hill WUI Project and the Blatchly Canyon Project are in the planning stage. Neither one of these projects is known encompass sites containing Ivesia sericoleuca. These projects would implement the same sorts of mitigations designed to minimize impacts to known and potentially occurring riparian species including Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, Juncus luciensis and Meesia uliginosa and Ivesia sericoleuca, by applying the Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) that protect the best quality of potential habitat for the riparian dependant species. It is expected that all of these projects would include mitigations to reduce the potential for impacts and monitor for concerns to help manage impacts to TNF sensitive plant species habitat and occurrences. As explained above, minimal direct and indirect effects Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, Juncus luciensis and Meesia uliginosa because the RMO are designed to improve condition within the riparian areas by implementing dense fuel removal using hand work or light equipment to reduce the potential for impacts to riparian areas. The direct and indirect impacts to Ivesia sericoleuca are expected to be minimal because no meadow enhancing treatments are planned to occur within the meadow containg this sensitive plant species within Big

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 54

Jack East. The meadow containing Ivesia sericoleuca does not appear to contain down-cut drainages within the Forest Service system lands portion of the meadow. The meadow restoration projects that are planned In Folchi (Carman II) may be possibly beneficial because I. sericoleuca is known to be present within some of the meadow which would have historic water levels restored.

Conclusion of Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are expected for sensitive species with potential habitat or those found to occur within the Big Jack East Project Area. The actions associated with the Big Jack East Project would have a low risk of contributing to the cumulative effects to Ivesia sericoleuca because actions planned for units 27 and 50 would only include hand thinning and possible pile burning outside of the designated sensitive plant occurrence of Ivesia sericoleuca. No serious down cutting has occurred within this portion of the meadow. Several other watershed improvement projects such as Dry Creek and Carman II, have been designed to restore historic water levels to some of the meadows which have been seriously degraded by the development of down cutting drainages. Since a new large Ivesia sericoleuca occurrence was found in Big Jack East, there are now 3 large occurrences which are not subject to livestock grazing. There would be possible cumulative effects to those species that are assumed to be present, i.e. Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, Juncus luciensis and Meesia uliginosa. It was determined that the implementation of past, current, future and ongoing projects including the Big Jack East Project would be possible, without causing a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability to the TNF sensitive plant species because potential habitat for these species is very limited and projects include site specific resource protection measures and effectiveness monitoring. There were no expected direct, indirect effects or cumulative effects for Boechera rigidissima or Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum, since none were found to occur. So far, there has not been any detection of the federally listed Ivesia webberi on the eastside of the Tahoe National Forest. The final rule for Ivesia webberi was published in the Federal Register in June of 2014 (DOI, 2014). No Critical habitat was designated within the Tahoe National Forest and none has been found to occur here to date. Since no Ivesia webberi has been found and no critical habitat has been designated impacts to this species can now be ruled out for the Big Jack East Project. Determination for Action Alternative 1 It is my determination that the Big Jack East Project Action Alternative 1 would have “no effect” on any endangered or threatened species on the TNF list, i.e. Packera layneae and Ivesia webberi because either there is no known habitat or surveys were completed within the project boundary and none were found to occur.

It is my determination that the actions associated with this project may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability of TNF sensitive plant species Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, Ivesia sericoleuca, Juncus luciensis and Meesia uliginosa.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 55

It is my determination that the Tahoe NF TESP species Astragalus lemmonii, A. pulsiferae var. coronensis, A. webberi, Boechera rigidissima var. demota, Cudonia monticola, Cypripedium fasciculatum, C. montanum, Dendrocollybia racemosa, Erigeron miser, Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum, Fritillaria eastwoodiae, Ivesia aperta var. aperta, I. aperta var. canina, Lewisia cantelovii, L. kelloggii spp. hutchisonii, L. k. ssp. kelloggii, L. longipetala, L. serrata, Mielichhoferia elongata, Monardella follettii, Peltigera gowardii, Penstemon personatus, Phacelia stebbinsii, Phaeocollybia olivacea, Pinus albicaulis, Poa sierrae, Pyrrocoma lucida Sowerbyella rhenana, or Tauschia howellii that have been ruled out by either surveys or the lack of potential habitat, would experience “no impacts”.

Therefore, this project concurs with Forest Service policy and management direction as described in the Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan in terms of management of these species.

B. Alternative 2- No Action: Direct Effects There would be no direct effects related to the Big Jack East Project, No Action Alternative to Astragalus lemmonii, A. pulsiferae var. coronensis, A. webberi, Boechera rigidissima var. demota, Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Cudonia monticola, Cypripedium fasciculatum, C. montanum, Dendrocollybia racemosa, Erigeron miser, Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum, Fritillaria eastwoodiae, Helodium blandowii, Ivesia aperta var. aperta, I. aperta var. canina, I. sericoleuca, I. webberi, Juncus luciensis, Lewisia cantelovii, L. kelloggii spp. hutchisonii, L. k. ssp. kelloggii, L. longipetala, L. serrata, Meesia uliginosa, Mielichhoferia elongata, Monardella follettii, Packera layneae, Peltigera gowardii, Penstemon personatus, Phacelia stebbinsii, Phaeocollybia olivacea, Pinus albicaulis, Poa sierrae, Pyrrocoma lucida Sowerbyella rhenana, or Tauschia howellii from the No Action Alternative.

Indirect Effects related to Hazardous Fuels The fuels report states that 915 acres or 33% of the proposed treatment area would act as a ground fire (Ferguson, 2017). Passive crown fire would occur on 1,247 acres or 45% of the proposed treatment areas (ibid). Active crown fire would occur on 610 acres or 22% of the proposed treatment area under 90th percentile weather conditions (ibid). If Alternative 2 is selected the threat of high severity fire would remain (ibid). It also does not create heterogeneous forest stand conditions; therefore it does not meet fire and fuels goals that are outlined earlier in the document (ibid). It is understood that fire severity potential and fuel characteristics in the area would increase in the future from current conditions (ibid). After a stand replacing fire, shrubs such as, manzanita and snow brush tend to dominate large swaths of land making it difficult for trees to compete for water and sunlight. Alternative 2 would increase the susceptibility of forest stands to disturbances such as fire, insect, and disease outbreaks over time as fuel loadings continue to increase due to conifer mortality and increasing stand densities (Ferguson, 2012). It is known that fire control tactics could be far more costly and less effective if the proposed activities were foregone and the disturbance processes such as fire or insect and disease outbreaks occurred (ibid). Costs of wildfire suppression and emergency rehabilitation may continue to rise as they have in the past (ibid).

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 56

Indirect effects of the no action would be those associated with increasing potential for surface fuels to continue to increase over time, leading to an increase in the risk of a high intensity wildfire. Wildfires could affect any one of the sensitive species with known occurrences on the eastside of the Truckee and Sierraville Ranger District. For example, Botrychium spp. could be affected since Botrychium spp. depend on mycorrhizal symbiotic relationships and can be found in variety of timber types to open meadows (Laeger, 2002). This is true also for the fen habitats where Meesia uliginosa and at times Botrychium spp. can be found since trees, which may encroach into these systems over time are common, and many times are required to sustain these systems by contributing to the carbon balance. None of the other sensitive plant species have been known to show a downward trend in the absence of tree removal. The other sensitive species such as Ivesia sericoleuca typically grow in openings in very specialized habitat that is less prone to the effects of wildfire since the habitat is rocky with a low shrub community with very light fuel loading. Many times the effects of fire suppression can have larger effects to sensitive plants and their habitat than the wildfire itself, but actual effects to sensitive species depends on fire timing and intensity. Although Botrychium spp. appear able to survive a low to moderate intensity fire that does not kill mycorrhizal soil fungi (Johnson-Groh, 1995), a high intensity fire could heat the soil enough to kill Botrychium plants and/or mycorrhizal fungi (Johnson-Groh and Farrar, 1996). Due to the loss of stabilizing vegetation and duff, hydrological changes and increased erosion could also follow a high intensity fire. Such changes could destroy Botrychium spp. habitat that has been shown to be negatively impacted by fires, especially when the duff layer and canopy are removed (USDA FS, 2005d). While not much is known about fire effects on Peltigera gowardii, it is known to grow in clear cold running streams and may not survive the period after the fire with sedimentation and high runoff. Due to this species preference for partially shaded conditions, it can be assumed that a stand replacing fire would have the potential to negatively impact this species and its potential habitat. Meesia uliginosa plants and habitat are not likely to be affected by a high intensity fire because they occur in open, saturated fen habitats that would not burn. However, if the landscape is damaged to the point that the fen starts to drain, the fen can disappear as the peat becomes exposed to air by the process of aerobic decomposition. The current and future threats of noxious weed infestations would dramatically increase in the event of a wildfire. The Noxious Weed Risk Assessment for the Big Jack East Project (Appendix) determined that there was currently low habitat vulnerability and low to moderate non-project dependent vectors associated with the project area, in the absence of the Proposed Action. However, if a wildfire were to occur, the risk of noxious weed infestation would dramatically increase. Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative The eastside of the Tahoe National Forest was chosen as the cumulative effects analysis area for the riparian dependent sensitive species for the No Action Alternative 2 as explained above. Cumulative effects for past, ongoing and foreseeable future actions for the No Action Alternative could be greater than those previously discussed for the Forest Ecological Restoration portion of the Alternative 1. The possibility for wildfire in the area would be higher as stated above because the proposed units would not be treated and no excess fuels would be removed from the landscape. The Big Jack East Project area provides potential habitat that could be impacted by wildfire. All sensitive species with potential habitat could be affected including Botrychium ascendens, B.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 57 crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. minganense, B. montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, Ivesia sericoleuca, Juncus luciensis and Meesia uliginosa which are assumed present or known to occur. If the No Action Alternative is chosen, the potential for impacts would be greater because the risk for wildfire would be higher and wildfires can carry and ultimately affect a much larger area. The impacts to these species would still be expected to be high, because of the higher intensity of wildfires and fire suppression activities that would come along with the wildfire. Determination It is my determination that the Big Jack East Project-No Action Alternative 2 would not impact any endangered or threatened species on the TNF list, i.e. Packera layneae and Ivesia webberi because either there is no known habitat or surveys were completed within the project boundary and none were found to occur. It is my determination that the actions associated with this project may impact individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability of TNF sensitive plant species Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Bruchia bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, Ivesia sericoleuca, Juncus luciensis and Meesia uliginosa, because there are not enough known occurrences in the area to contribute to a loss of viability or habitat to cause a trend toward listing.

There would also be no impacts to all the other TESP species on the TNF list that have been ruled out including: Astragalus lemmonii, A. pulsiferae var. coronensis, A. webberi, Boechera rigidissima var. demota, Cudonia monticola, Cypripedium fasciculatum, C. montanum, Dendrocollybia racemosa, Erigeron miser, Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum, Fritillaria eastwoodiae, Ivesia aperta var. aperta, I. aperta var. canina, Lewisia cantelovii, L. kelloggii spp. hutchisonii, L. k. ssp. kelloggii, L. longipetala, L. serrata, Mielichhoferia elongata, Monardella follettii, Peltigera gowardii, Penstemon personatus, Phacelia stebbinsii, Phaeocollybia olivacea, Pinus albicaulis, Poa sierrae, Pyrrocoma lucida Sowerbyella rhenana, or Tauschia howellii

Resource Protection Measures Related to Sensitive Plants and Non-Native Invasive Plants 1) Plumas ivesia (Ivesia sericoleuca) inhabits the meadow in unit 50 of the Big Jack East Project Area. No slash or debris piles shall be placed within the ephemerally wet meadow community which includes the Plumas ivesia occurrences within unit 50, so that there shall not be any piles which may be burned in the meadow area. See Aerial Photo View attachment and note that unit 50 on the Project map. 2) C6.35# – Cleaning of Equipment; Purchaser shall ensure that all equipment that has operated off roads in areas infested with noxious / invasive-exotic weeds, that is being moved onto National Forest Land is free of soil, weeds, seeds, vegetative matter or other debris that could hold or contain seeds. See the TNF Weed S&G booklet. Clean equipment that is operating off roads before it moves from an infested area within the project to another area (within or outside the project).

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 58

3) Landing should be covered with approximately 4-6 inches of organics matter, preferable in the form of chips from the discarded slash or other woody materials to guard against the weed infestation of landings by non-native invasive plant species. 4) Any bare ground resulting from operations within the RCA will be mulched as needed to maintain greater than 60% cover. Native mulch from adjacent weed-free areas should be used such as pine needles, slash or wood chips. 5) Monitor and survey underburned areas during the second field season after the burn. The surveys would consist of a drive through along the roads in the under burn area and searching for areas that appear to have burned hot enough to expose the soil that could easily be invaded by noxious weeds. If noxious weeds are found, they will be mapped and flagged, and those weeds that are “A” or “B” rated that respond to pulling as a control method, would be pulled. 6) During the implementation of under burns, avoid ignition in sagebrush and bitterbrush shrub patches that are ½ acre or larger, to guard against widespread cheatgrass invasion, and to protect important shrub communities for forage production. Under burning of up to 30% of these shrub patches resulting from fire creep from the outside is acceptable. The shrub communities of concern include, mountain sagebrush and bitterbrush communities on flats and within forest openings on south facing slopes. 7) Utilize road surface gravel from noxious weed free sources. Pre-inspect gravel sources for the presence/absence of noxious weeds prior to utilization of gravel from those sources.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 59

Figure 1 - Overview of sensitive plant (Ivesia sericoleuca) occurrences outlined in green within Big Jack East, Unit 50 outlined in light yellow. All implementation actions shall include the Resource protection measures for unit 50. Specifically there shall not be any piling of fuels debris within the meadow contain the sensitive plant occurrences of Ivesia sericoleuca (Plumas ivesia).

Attachment #1 - Glossary Endangered Plant. Any species, including subspecies, “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” – Endangered Species Act 1973.

Proposed plant. Officially proposed (in the Federal register) for listing as endangered or threatened.

Sensitive plant. Those plants known or highly suspected to occur on National Forest System lands that are considered viable candidates for Federal threatened or endangered classification – a Forest Service designation.

Threatened Plant. Any species “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” – Endangered Species Act 1973.

Viability. A viable population is one that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence in the project area.

Watchlist plants and plant communities. These are selected plants and plant communities that may become increasingly rare, or are being tracked for other reasons (for example increased

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 60 illegal collection or interest for collection). Tahoe National Forest botanical personnel evaluate this list annually.

Attachment #2 REFERENCES (for plant BE)

Abrams, L. 1940. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States Vol. I-IV. Stanford University Press.

Barneby, R.C. 1964. Atlas of North American Astragalus. Memoirs of the New York Botanical Garden. 13:1-1188. Bergstrom, E. 2010. Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Ivesia webberi. Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest, 1200 Franklin Way, Sparks, Nevada 89431-6432 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Natural Diversity Database, 1998.

Dr. Dan Norris, UC Berkeley, pers. comm.

Dillingham C., 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. HFQLG Botany Monitoring Reports. Unpublished. Plumas National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Quincy, CA.

Duron, W. 1990. Survey of Historic Locations for Ivesia webberi On the Plumas and Tahoe National Forests. Unpublished. The Nature Conservancy and Plumas and Tahoe National Forests.

Eisler, R.1990. Boron Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report (85).

Ferguson, L., 2017. Fire/Fuels Specialist Report Big Jack East. See Big Jack Project Record at the Truckee Ranger District Office, 10811 Stockrest Springs Rd., Truckee, CA

Flowers, Seville, 1973. Mosses: Utah and the West. Brigham Young University Press.

Halford, A., 1992. Interim Management Guide for Lewisia longipetala. Unpublished, USDA.

Harrod, R.J., D.E. Knecht, E.E. Huhlamm, M.W. Ellis, and R. Davenport. Effects of the Rat and Hatchery Creek Fires on Four Rare Plant Species. In: Proceedings – Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species and Habitats Conference, Nov. 13-16, 1995. Coeur D’Alene, Idaho.

Hickman, J., 1993. The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Ikeda, D. and J. Witzman, 1989. Ecological survey and Ecological status report for Astragalus webberi on the Plumas National Forest. A cost-share agreement between The Nature Conservancy and the Plumas National Forest. Unpublished.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 61

Kan, T. 1993. Interim Management Guide for Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum. Unpublished USDA.

Karron, J. D. 1987. The pollination ecology of co-occurring geographically restricted and widespread species of Astragalus (Fabaceae). Biological Conservation 39: 179-193.

Lawton, Elva (1971). "Moss Flora of the Pacific Northwest". Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory. Supplement. No. 1: 203–204.

Malcolm, Bill and Nancy, Jim Shevock, and Dan Norris (2009). California Mosses. Micro-Optics Press. McCune, B. and L. Geiser. 1997. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, April 1997. McCune, B., J. Grenon, L. S. Mutch, and E. P. Martin. 2007. Lichens in relation to management issues in the Sierra Nevada national parks. Pacific Northwest Fungi 2(3): 1-29. DOI: 10.2509/PNWF.2007.002.003.

MacDonald, L. H. unpublished. Year unknown. Analyzing Cumulative effects: Process and Constraints. In: Review for Environmental Management.

Munz, P.A. 1968. A California Flora and Supplement, U.C. Press.

Ochyra, Ryszard; Halina Bednarek-Ochyra & Roland I. Lewis-Smith (2002). "New and Rare Moss Species from sub-Antarctica South Georgia". Nova Hedwigia 74 (Feb.): 134. doi:10.1127/0029- 5035/2002/0074-012

Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. 471p.

Skinner, M.W. and B.M. Pavlik. 1994. California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision.

USDA, Forest Service. 2009. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-220, second printing. An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed Conifer Forests. North, M. Stine, P., O’Hara, K.O., Zielinski W. and Stephens, Scott.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list the plant Botrychium lunaria (slender moonwort) as threatened. Federal Register. 30368, Vol. 66, No. 109. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 62

Notice of Findings on Recycled Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register. (Vol. 67, Number 114) USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003. Endangered and threatened Wildlife and Plants; Delisting of the Berberis (=Mahonia) sonnei (Truckee Barberry). Federal Register; October 1, 2003 Volume 68, Number 190). USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Ivesia webberi (Webber’s Ivesia). Federal Register /Vol. 78, No 149/ August 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules. (pages 46862-46888)

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12- month finding and Candidate removal for Potentilla basaltica; Proposed Threatened Species Status for Ivesia webberi (Webber’s Ivesia). Federal Register /Vol. 78, No. 149/ August 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules. (pages 46888-46897).

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Ivesia webberi (Webber’s Ivesia). Federal Register /Vol. 78, No. 162/ August 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules. (page 51705).

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Ivesia webberi (Webber’s Ivesia). Federal Register /Vol. 79, No. 30/ February 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules. (pages 8668-8677).

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Ivesia webberi. Federal Register; June 3, 2014 Volume 79, Number 106). pp. 31878-31883 USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Ivesia webberi (Webber’s Ivesia). Action: Final Rule. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 June 3, 2014 / Final Rule. (pages 32126-32155).

Urie, S. 2009. Conservation Assessment of Ivesia sericoleuca (Rydb.) Rydb. Unpublished, USDA.

Van Zuuk, K. 2001. Tahoe National Forest Sensitive Plant Standards and Guidelines, Unpublished, USDA.

Van Zuuk, K., L. Hansen, and D. Weixelman. 1992. Interim Management Guide for Ivesia aperta var. aperta, Ivesia aperta var. canina, and Ivesia sericoleuca. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, Tahoe, Plumas, and Toiyabe National Forests.

Wagner, W. H. and T. B. Devine. 1989. Moonworts (Botrychium: Ophioglossaceae) in the Jonesville area, Butte and Tehama Counties, California. Madrono Vol. 36:131-135.

Weixelman, D. and Atwood, D. Sensitive Plant Field Guide, Toiyabe National Forest.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 63

Welsh, S.L., Ondricek, R., Clifton, G. 2002. Varieties of Astragalus pulsiferae (Leguminosae). Rhodora, Vol. 104, No. 919, pp. 271-279. Witham, Carol W. 2000. Current Knowledge and Conservation Status of Ivesia aperta (J. T. Howell) Munz var. aperta (Rosaceae), The Sierra Valley Ivesia, in Nevada.

Plant BE/BA – Big Jack East Project Page | 64