Bucks Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project: Biological Evaluation of Potential Effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species

Prepared for: Mt Hough Ranger District Plumas National Forest USDA Forest Service

December 2, 2011

Prepared by: /s/ Michelle Coppoletta Date: 12/2/11 Michelle Coppoletta Botanist, Mt Hough Ranger District

Reviewed by: /s/ Jim Belsher-Howe Date: 12/2/11 Jim Belsher-Howe District Botanist, Mt Hough Ranger District

Summary of Effects

Alternative B (No Action) It is my determination that the no-action alternative will not affect Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia), Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady's-slipper), Lupinus dalesiae (Quincy lupine), Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss), and Penstemon personatus (closed-throated beardtongue). This determination is based on the negligible direct and indirect effects to individuals and areas of suitable habitat. It is my determination that Alternative B (no action) will not affect any other Region 5 Sensitive species or any Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species. This determination is based on the absence of suitable habitat within the project area for these species and the lack of individuals known or expected to occur within the project area.

Action Alternatives (A, C, and D) It is my determination that the Bucks Project action alternatives (A, C, and D) may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia). This determination is based on the potential for impacts to individuals and areas of suitable habitat. It is my determination that the Bucks Project action alternatives (A, C, and D) will not affect Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady's-slipper), Lupinus dalesiae (Quincy lupine), Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss), and Penstemon personatus (closed-throated beardtongue). This determination is based on the lack of individuals within the project area and the negligible indirect effects to areas of suitable habitat. It is my determination that the Bucks Project action alternatives (A, C, and D) will not affect any other Region 5 Sensitive species or any Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species. This determination is based on the absence of suitable habitat within the project area for these species and the lack of individuals known or expected to occur within the project area.

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 1

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

2.1 Regulatory Environment ...... 1 2.1.1 Federal Laws ...... 1 2.1.2 Forest Service Manual (FSM) Direction ...... 1 2.2 Forest Plan Direction ...... 2 2.3 Interim Management Prescriptions ...... 2 3.0 Proposed Project ...... 2

4.0 Effects Analysis Methodology ...... 3

4.1 Geographic Area Evaluated ...... 3 4.2 Species Analyzed ...... 4 4.3 Specific Methodology ...... 7 4.4 Data Sources ...... 8 5.0 Types and Duration of Impacts ...... 8

5.1 Direct Effects ...... 8 5.2 Indirect Effects ...... 8 5.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 8 5.4 Duration of Effects ...... 9 6.0 Environmental Consequences: Effects on Specific Rare Plant Species ...... 10

6.1 Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia) ...... 10 6.1.1 Affected Environment ...... 10 6.1.2 Plumas NF Management Prescription (USDA 2007) ...... 11 6.1.3 Environmental Consequences: ...... 11 6.1.4 Determination for Mildred’s clarkia ...... 14 6.2 Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady's-slipper) ...... 15 6.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 15 6.2.2 Plumas NF Management Prescription (USDA 2007) ...... 16 6.2.3 Environmental Consequences: ...... 16

6.2.4 Determination for clustered lady's-slipper ...... 18 6.3 Lupinus dalesiae (Quincy lupine) ...... 18 6.3.1 Affected Environment: Quincy lupine ...... 18 6.3.2 Plumas NF Management Prescription (USDA 2007) ...... 19 6.3.3 Environmental Consequences: Quincy lupine ...... 20 6.3.4 Determination for Quincy lupine ...... 21 6.4 Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss) ...... 21 6.4.1 Affected Environment: ...... 21 6.4.2 Plumas NF Management Prescription (USDA 2007) ...... 22 6.4.3 Environmental Consequences: ...... 22 6.4.4 Determination for three-ranked hump-moss ...... 24 6.5 Penstemon personatus (closed-throated beardtongue) ...... 25 6.5.1 Affected Environment: closed-throated beardtongue...... 25 6.5.2 Plumas NF Management Prescription (USDA 2007) ...... 26 6.5.3 Environmental Consequences: closed-throated beardtongue ...... 26 6.5.4 Determination for closed-throated beardtongue ...... 28 7.0 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 28

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

8.1 Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia) ...... 29 8.2 Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss) ...... 30 9.0 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction ...... 30

10.0 List of Citations ...... 30

11.0 Sensitive Species Maps ...... 32

List of Tables Table 1. Description of the five alternatives considered in detail...... 3 Table 2. Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Sensitive species known within proposed treatment units or the Bucks Botany analysis area...... 5

iii

Table 3. Comparison of Mildred’s clarkia abundance at the global, state, forest, and project scale...... 11 Table 4. Estimated number of acres that will change from greater than 60 percent canopy closure to less than 60 percent following treatment...... 12 Table 5. Comparison of clustered lady's-slipper abundance at the global, state, forest, and project scale...... 16 Table 6. Comparison of Quincy lupine abundance at the global, state, forest, and project scale...... 19 Table 7. Comparison of three-ranked hump-moss abundance at the global, state, forest, and project scale...... 22 Table 8. Comparison of closed-throated beardtongue at the global, state, forest, and project scale...... 25

List of Appendices Appendix A: Botanical Report on Special Interest Species Appendix B: Bucks Project Plant Protection Plan Appendix C: Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Appendix D: Bucks Project Treatment Maps Appendix E: Description of Alternatives (from Environmental Assessment) Appendix F: Alternative A-modified Addendum

1.0 Introduction The purpose of this Biological Evaluation is to provide an analysis of the activities proposed under the Bucks Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project (referred to as the Bucks Project hereafter) and to determine whether they have the potential to affect any Federally Endangered, Threatened, Candidate plant species, or Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive plants. The Bucks Project was developed by the Mt Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest. Within the project area activities include mechanical harvest of trees in defensible fuel profile zone (DFPZ) and group selection units; hazard tree removal along roads and within recreation sites; hand thinning; hand and grapple piling and pile burning; underburning; mastication; stream restoration; and road reconstruction and decommissioning.

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

2.1 Regulatory Environment

2.1.1 Federal Laws Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.): This biological evaluation is being prepared in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Under this act, federal agencies must ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to (a) jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or (b) result in the destruction or adverse modification of a listed species’ designated critical habitat. Section 7 of the act requires federal agencies to consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning listed (i.e. threatened or endangered) plant species that fall under their jurisdiction.

2.1.2 Forest Service Manual (FSM) Direction FSM Section 2670 (USDA 2005): provides policy for the protection of sensitive species and calls for the development and implementation of management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions. It requires a review of all activities or programs that are planned, funded, executed, or permitted for possible effects on federally listed or U.S. Forest Service sensitive species (FSM 2672.4, USDA 2005). A Biological Evaluation (BE) provides the means to conduct this review, analyze the significance of potential adverse effects, and determine how negative impacts will be minimized or avoided for those species whose viability has been identified as a concern. The objectives of a BE are to:

ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired nonnative plant or animal species; ensure that Forest Service actions do not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of Federally listed species; and provide a process and standard through which rare plant species receive full consideration throughout the planning process, reducing negative impacts on species and enhancing opportunities for mitigation.

2.2 Forest Plan Direction Plumas NF Land Management Plan (USDA 1988b, 1999b, 2004b): provides management direction for all Plumas NF Sensitive plants; that direction is to “maintain viable populations of sensitive plant species” (USDA 1988b page 4-34). The 1988 Forest Plan also provides forest-wide standards and guidelines to: protect Sensitive and Special Interest plant species as needed to maintain viability; inventory and monitor Sensitive plant populations on an individual project basis; and develop species management guidelines to identify population goals and compatible management activities / prescriptions that will maintain viability. Management direction for sensitive plant species on the Plumas NF is also provided in the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Forest Recovery Act Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 1999a) and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 2004a). The standards and guidelines provided in the SNFPA include conducting field surveys, minimizing or eliminating direct and indirect impacts from management activities, and adhering to the Regional Native Plant Policy (USDA 2004a).

2.3 Interim Management Prescriptions Individual species conservation strategies, or species management guidelines, for the Plumas NF have not been completed for most of the Forest’s Sensitive species. Until these conservation strategies have been completed, the Plumas NF has developed Interim Management Prescriptions (USDA 2007) that will be followed to ensure compliance with the Plumas LRMP. These species-specific prescriptions are provided in Section 6.0 of this document.

3.0 Proposed Project Under the Bucks Project, the Mt. Hough Ranger District proposes to: implement fuel treatments by constructing shaded fuel breaks known as Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs);

harvest trees using group selection (harvesting of trees in 0.5- to 2-acre patches); remove hazard trees along roads and within recreation sites; perform road system improvement work and decommissioning; enhance habitat for US Forest Service wildlife species by radial thinning, removal of conifers in aspen stands, underburning, and brush mastication; and stabilize two sections of stream bank along Bucks Creek and Pat Maloy Ravine. Underburning, hand thinning, hand and grapple piling, and pile burning are proposed as primary and follow-up treatments and would be used to construct DFPZs in units with no commercial timber harvest. The Mt Hough Ranger District developed four alternatives: the Proposed Action (Alternative A), the no-action (Alternative B), and two other action alternatives (Alternatives C and D). The five alternatives considered in detail for this analysis are listed in below in Table 1. A detailed description of the proposed action and the alternatives considered in this analysis is presented in Chapter 2 of the “Bucks Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment”. Maps of the proposed alternatives are provided in Appendix E. Table 1. Description of the five alternatives considered in detail.

Alternative Description Includes hazard tree abatement, Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs), R5 Forest Service sensitive Alternative A wildlife species treatments, including aspen enhancement, and watershed treatments. Alternative B No action Non-commercial funding alternative: excludes any activities other than fuels reduction to meet Alternative C the proposed purposes and needs. Implements DFPZs only. Includes hazard tree abatement, DFPZs, group selections (GS), aspen treatments, and watershed treatments. Reduces acres in proposed underburning units; increases acres of drop and leave Alternative D hazard tree abatement; removes grapple piling and masticating treatments and skyline logging systems; and maintains 30-50 percent canopy cover in all mechanical thinning treatments. Watershed improvement treatments would be implemented using other funding.

4.0 Effects Analysis Methodology

4.1 Geographic Area Evaluated The area analyzed in this document is referred to as the “Botany analysis area”; it encompasses approximately 19,570 acres and consists of all proposed treatment units, access roads to the treatment units, and the area within one mile of treatment unit boundaries (Figure 1). This area was chosen to capture all rare plants and noxious weeds that occur (a) within the proposed treatment units or (b) have suitable habitat within the Bucks Project Area as well as a source population (i.e. potential for seed dispersal) located within close proximity to the proposed activities.

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

4.2 Species Analyzed Those species present within the Botany analysis area were considered to have the highest potential to be impacted by the proposed project activities. Conversely, species outside of the analysis area were not considered to have a high likelihood of being impacted by the proposed project either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. Table 2 lists all Federally Threatened, Candidate, and U.S. Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive vascular plant, moss, lichen, and fungi species that are known or thought to have potential to occur on the Plumas NF. The rare species analyzed in detail in this document (i.e. those that fall within the Botany analysis area) are also indicated in the table below.

The only Federally Threatened plant species known to occur on the Plumas NF is Packera layneae (Layne’s butterweed). This species grows in open rocky areas on gabbro and serpentine-derived soils that are between 650 and 3,300 feet in elevation. Two additional species of federal concern that have the potential to occur on the Plumas NF are the Federally Threatened Orcuttia tenuis (slender Orcutt grass) and the Candidate species Ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia). Orcuttia tenuis is limited to relatively deep vernal pools with clay soil. Ivesia

webberi is found in open areas of sandy volcanic ash to gravelly soils in sagebrush and eastside pine. No Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Species are considered likely to occur in the Botany analysis area. Due to the ephemeral nature of fungal fruiting bodies, surveys for Sensitive fungi are often impractical and inconclusive. Therefore, this analysis relied on a spatially explicit Sensitive fungi habitat model, which was developed to assist managers in the identification of potentially suitable habitat for Region 5 Sensitive fungi (Hoover and O'Hanlon 2008). Using this model, no high value suitable habitat was predicted for Sensitive fungi within any of the Bucks Project proposed treatment units. Table 2. Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Sensitive species known within proposed treatment units or the Bucks Botany analysis area.

Within Within Listing Analysis Treatment Species Common Name Status Area Units Allium jepsonii Jepson's onion Sensitive

Arabis constancei Constance's rock cress Sensitive

Astragalus lemmonii Lemmon’s milkvetch Sensitive

Astragalus lentiformis lens-pod milkvetch Sensitive

Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis Pulsifer's milkvetch Sensitive

Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae Suksdorf's milkvetch Sensitive

Astragalus webberi Webber's milkvetch Sensitive

Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. Big scale balsamroot Sensitive macrolepis Botrychium ascendens upswept moonwort Sensitive

Botrychium crenulatum scalloped moonwort Sensitive

Botrychium lineare moonwort Sensitive

Botrychium lunaria common moonwort Sensitive

Botrychium minganense Mingan moonwort Sensitive

Botrychium montanum western goblin Sensitive

Botrychium pinnatum northwestern moonwort Sensitive

Bruchia bolanderi Bolander's bruchia Sensitive

Buxbaumia viridis Bug-on-a-stick Sensitive

Calycadenia oppositifolia Butte County calycadenia Sensitive

Calystegia atriplicifolia ssp. buttensis Butte County morning- Sensitive glory

Within Within Listing Analysis Treatment Species Common Name Status Area Units Clarkia biloba ssp. brandegeae Brandegee's clarkia Sensitive

Clarkia gracilis ssp. albicaulis white-stemmed clarkia Sensitive

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

Clarkia mosquinii Mosquin's clarkia Sensitive

Cudonia monticola Earth tongue Sensitive

Cypripedium fasciculatum clustered lady's-slipper Sensitive x

Cypripedium montanum mountain lady's-slipper Sensitive

Dendrocollybia racemosa Branched collybia Sensitive

Eleocharis torticulmis Twisted spike rush Sensitive

Eriogonum umbellatum var ahartii Ahart’s buckwheat Sensitive

Fissidens aphelotaxifolius brook pocket moss Sensitive

Fissidens pauperculus minute pocket moss Sensitive

Fritillaria eastwoodiae Butte County fritillary Sensitive

Helodium bandowii Blandow's bog moss Sensitive

Hydrothyria venosa veined water lichen Sensitive

Ivesia aperta var. aperta Sierra Valley ivesia Sensitive

Ivesia sericolueca Plumas ivesia Sensitive

Ivesia webberi Webber's ivesia Federal Candidate

Lewisia cantelovii Cantelow's lewisia Sensitive

Lewisia kelloggii ssp kelloggii Kellogg’s lewisia Sensitive

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii Hutchison's lewisia Sensitive

Lomatium roseanum Adobe lomatium Sensitive

Lupinus dalesiae Quincy lupine Sensitive x

Meesia longiseta long-seta hump-moss Sensitive

Meesia triquetra three-ranked hump-moss Sensitive x

Meesia uliginosa broad-nerved hump-moss Sensitive

Mielichhoferia elongata Elongate copper moss Sensitive

Monardella follettii Follett’s monardella Sensitive

Within Within Listing Analysis Treatment Species Common Name Status Area Units Monardella stebbinsii Stebbin's monardella Sensitive

Orcuttia tenuis slender Orcutt grass Federally Threatened

Oreostemma elatum Plumas alpine-aster Sensitive

Packera eurycephalus var. lewisrosei cut-leaved ragwort Sensitive

Penstemon personatus closed-throated Sensitive x beardtongue

Penstemon sudans Susanville beardtongue Sensitive

Phaeocollybia olivacea Olive phaeocollybia Sensitive

Pyrrocoma lucida sticky pyrrocoma Sensitive

Sedum albomarginatum Feather River stonecrop Sensitive

Senecio layneae Layne's butterweed Federally Threatened

4.3 Specific Methodology The analysis of effects on rare plant species was a three-step process (FSM 2672.43; USDA 2005). In the first step, all listed or proposed rare species that were known or were believed to have potential to occur in the analysis area were identified. This list was developed by reviewing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife List for the Plumas NF (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011), USDA Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species list (USDA 2006), Plumas NF rare plant records and vegetation maps, and California Natural Diversity Database records (CNDDB 2011). The second step was field reconnaissance surveys. To date, field surveys have been conducted on approximately 3,355 acres within the Botany analysis area; this includes all of the proposed treatment units (Dittes and Guardino 2000, USDA 2011). For those areas outside of the surveyed areas, but within the Botany analysis area, species occurrence information was compiled using Plumas NF rare plant records and the California Natural Diversity Database (2011). Field surveys were designed around the flowering period and ecology of the rare plant species identified in step one. For each rare plant site found, information was collected that described the size of the occurrence and habitat characteristics and identified any existing or potential threats. Location information was collected using a Global Positioning System (GPS).

All of this information was used in step three of the analysis—effects analysis. Data were imported into a Global Information System (GIS) and used to analyze proximity to the proposed treatments, identify direct and indirect effects, and develop mitigation measures.

4.4 Data Sources Basic information describing the life history, ecology, pollination biology, and specific habitat requirements is lacking for most of the Sensitive species that occur within the Botany analysis area. The scientific literature and internal government documents (i.e. species-specific Conservation Assessments) were utilized for the analysis whenever available; however more frequently the analysis of effects was based on observations by qualified individuals, field experience, unpublished monitoring results, and studies of comparable species.

5.0 Types and Duration of Impacts

5.1 Direct Effects Direct effects occur when plants are physically impacted. Examples of proposed treatment activities that have the potential to directly affect rare plants include timber falling; crushing by vehicles or equipment; application of borax; temporary road and landing construction; and prescribed fire treatments. These actions can result in death, altered growth, or reduced seed set through physically breaking, crushing, burning, scorching, or uprooting plants.

5.2 Indirect Effects Indirect effects are separated from an action in either time or space. These effects, which can be beneficial or detrimental to rare species, may include changes in vegetation composition, successional patterns, fire regimes, or the distribution and abundance of noxious weeds. Adverse indirect effects are more likely to occur to those species that are intolerant of disturbance and tend to occupy interior forest habitats with high canopy cover. In contrast, for those species that tolerate or are dependent upon some level of disturbance and inhabit gaps and forest openings, treatments may have beneficial indirect effects. For all rare species, negative effects may occur if prescribed burns are too hot; this has the potential to kill the seedbank and sterilize the soil. Burning hand or machine piles can also alter soil biotic and chemical properties for a number of years (Korb et al. 2004), which in turn greatly influences the degree and type of plant colonization into the fire-scarred site.

5.3 Cumulative Effects A cumulative effect can result from the incremental effect of the current action when added to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. These effects are considered regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other actions and regardless of

land ownership on which the other actions occur. An individual action when considered alone may not have a significant effect, but when its effects are considered in sum with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the effects may be significant (40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8 and FSH 1909.15 section 15.1). One crucial step in assessing cumulative impacts on a particular resource is to compare the current condition of the resource (i.e. rare plants) and the projected changes as a result of management activities (i.e. timber harvest) to the natural variability in the resources and processes of concern (MacDonald 2000). This assessment is particularly difficult for rare plant species because long-term data are often lacking. In addition, the habitats in which many rare plant species are presently found have a long history of disturbance, making an undisturbed reference difficult to find. For some rare plants, particularly those that do not tolerate disturbance or are found under dense canopy conditions, minimizing on-site change is an effective way of reducing the potential for larger-scale cumulative impact (MacDonald 2000). If the greatest impact on a rare species is both local and immediate, then this is the scale at which the effect is easiest to detect (MacDonald 2000). Undeniably, past, present, and future activities have and will continue to alter rare plant populations and their habitats to various degrees; however, the approach taken in this analysis is that, if direct and indirect adverse effects on rare plant species in the Bucks project are minimal or would not occur, then they would not contribute substantially to cumulative effects on the species. In addition, the effects of future projects would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing management guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare species locations, and noxious weed mitigations) remain in place

5.4 Duration of Effects It is difficult to state with certainty when the effects of the proposed treatments would no longer be altering the life history dynamics (i.e. germination, seed production, etc.) of the rare species considered in this analysis. One method to estimate duration of effects is to assume that the effects of the action alternatives last as long as they are, singly or in combination with other anticipated effects, distinguishable from the effects of the no-action alternative. Using this as an assumption, the duration used to estimate effects in this analysis, is the recovery time of the vegetation to near baseline (current) conditions, which is approximately 100 years for group selection treatments and 50 years for fuel treatments. The additive effects of past actions (such as wildfires, wildfire suppression, timber harvest, mining, nonnative plant introductions, and ranching) have shaped the present landscape and corresponding populations of rare plants; however, data describing the past distribution and abundance of rare plant species is extremely limited, making it impossible to quantify the effects of historic activities on the resources and conditions that are present today.

Undoubtedly, some plant species have always been rare due to particular ecological requirements or geographic isolation. It is also likely that past actions have caused some species to become rarer and encouraged others to become more common. Within the Botany analysis area, documentation of rare plant surveys began in the early 1980s; therefore, the baseline used for the effects analysis of past activities is 30 years.

6.0 Environmental Consequences: Effects on Specific Rare Plant Species

The following section provides a discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects specific to the five Sensitive species that are within the proposed treatment units. The effects of the treatments on rare species were similar across all action alternatives; therefore, this discussion is organized to highlight differences between the no-action alternative and the action alternatives A, C, and D.

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

6.1.1 Affected Environment Mildred’s clarkia is an annual species that is geographically limited to eastern Butte County and western Plumas County. There are approximately 33 occurrences of Mildred’s clarkia on the Plumas NF, the majority of which are located in the Feather River Canyon (Table 3). Nine of the ten occurrences that have been documented outside of the forest boundary occur on private lands. Mildred’s clarkia is commonly found on sandy, granitic soils in cismontane woodland and lower montane coniferous forest. Wildfire suppression has likely restricted the amount of suitable habitat for this species. As a result, most of the Plumas NF occurrences are found on road cut banks or previously disturbed sites, where there is minimal plant competition and open light conditions. The current trend for this species is unknown; however most occurrences appear to be stable.

Distribution within the Analysis Area: A portion (roughly 59 acres) of one large Mildred’s clarkia occurrence overlaps with the Botany analysis area; approximately four acres of this occurrence falls within Treatment Unit 5. This unit is proposed for skyline hazard tree removal under Alternative A and hazard tree drop and leave under Alternative D. Road improvement activities are proposed under both Alternatives A and D. This large Mildred’s clarkia occurrence (CLMIM_001) extends beyond the Botany analysis area boundary; it covers a total area of over 200 acres and extends for roughly 6.5 miles along the NFS Road 24N24. Within this occurrence, patches of Mildred’s clarkia have been found on the road berms and cut-banks, in pull-outs, and on the slopes above and below the road.

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

Number of Occurrences Global Plumas Bucks Treatment Species Ranking California NF Analysis Area Units

Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae G31 43 33 1 1

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

6.1.2 Plumas NF Management Prescription (USDA 2007)

Protect occurrences from ground disturbance before seed set. Evaluate ground disturbance outside the growing season; however in general, disturbance (without major habitat alteration) after plants had set seed could occur. Canopy removal in and adjacent to occurrences is encouraged to open the habitat. Investigate the use of prescribed fire as a management tool and monitor effects. To the extent possible, avoid ignitions within occurrences and avoid building fire control lines in or near occurrences. Also, allow fire to creep or back into occurrences from adjacent terrain if the fuel loading permits. Evaluate other activities on a site-by-site basis considering species abundance, population size, geographic distribution, and known species ecology.

6.1.3 Environmental Consequences:

6.1.3.1 Alternative B – No-action Alternative

Direct Effects. No direct effects are anticipated because no project-related activities would occur. Indirect Effects. The indirect effects of not implementing the proposed project would be negligible. The suppression of wildfire over the past century has likely reduced the amount of suitable habitat for this species across the landscape. Consequently, most occurrences are restricted to road cut banks or areas of past disturbance, such as clearcuts or wildfires, where there is minimal plant competition and open light conditions (L. Janeway, personal communication, 2011). Although Mildred’s clarkia has been found in undisturbed sites, less than one percent has been documented in dense forested stands with canopy closure greater than 60 percent. Under the no-action alternative, the number of trees within stands would continue to increase, resulting in areas with greater canopy closure, reduced light to the understory, and increased duff and litter deposition. Within the proposed treatment units, there are almost 300 acres that are currently classified as being at or above 60 percent canopy closure (see Table 4). In the absence of treatments, this could result in a loss of suitable habitat for Mildred’s clarkia across the landscape over time.

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

Target Canopy Cover Number of Acres that Change from >60% Canopy Cover to <60% Canopy Cover (after treatment) Alternative A Alternative C Alternative D 30-40% 129.4 129.4 40-50% 60.0 20.9 60.0 50-60% 109.6 13.9 95.7 TOTAL 298.9 34.8 285.1

The effects of wildfire on Mildred’s clarkia are not well understood; however observations suggest that even high intensity wildfires do not appear to negatively impact the following year’s population numbers and may even enhance habitat by decreasing shrub and canopy cover (L. Janeway, personal communication, 2011). Cumulative Effects. The effect of past projects on Mildred’s clarkia is largely unknown. This species was added to the Plumas NF Sensitive species list in 2006; prior to that it had been identified as a Special Interest, or watch list species, since 1996. Because of its relatively recent listing, projects implemented more than 18 years ago may not have avoided or mitigated effects to known occurrences. The one documented Mildred’s clarkia occurrence within the Botany analysis area has likely been impacted by both past management activities and natural disturbance processes. Within the past 18 years, at least one large wildfire (Bucks Fire 1999), one roadside hazard tree project, and one road improvement project have occurred within the known occurrence. In addition, individual plants are situated directly adjacent to NFS Road 24N24, which is regularly maintained and frequently used by forest visitors for recreation. The amount of suitable, but unoccupied habitat, within the analysis area has not been quantified; however the ability of Mildred’s clarkia to colonize previously disturbed sites suggests that this species has and will continue to benefit from management activities that create open conditions and increase light reception to the understory. Under the no-action alternative, treatments would not be implemented and additional areas of potential habitat would not be created. Overall, there would be negligible cumulative effects to Mildred’s clarkia from the no-action alternative due to the lack of direct effects and minor indirect effects to this species’ potential habitat.

6.1.3.2 Action Alternatives (A, C, and D)

Direct Effects. Some individuals of Mildred’s clarkia may be directly impacted by the hazard tree and watershed improvement treatments proposed under Alternatives A and D; however

the percentage of individuals with the potential to be affected is very low (estimated at less than 2 percent) compared to the population as a whole. Direct effects from hazard tree treatments are more likely to occur under Alternative A, which proposes hazard tree removal, rather than dropping the trees and leaving them in place (which is proposed under Alternative D). Because hazard trees by definition are those that are likely to fall within one year, dropping and leaving them in place can be considered an acceleration of a natural ecological process; therefore the direct effects to individuals under Alternative D would be similar to those that could occur under the no-action alternative. The road treatments proposed under Alternatives A and D could directly impact individuals of Mildred’s clarkia. Within the documented occurrence, plants have been observed in close proximity to the road, which greatly increases the potential for direct impacts from road treatments and maintenance activities. Implementation of a limited operating period (i.e. after seed set) or designation of control areas will greatly reduce the potential for direct impacts to individuals. Indirect Effects. The indirect effect of implementing the action alternatives would be minor to negligible and may be beneficial. Mildred’s clarkia is an annual species; it germinates, flowers, and dies in a single year or season. As a result, the long-term persistence of the population is highly dependent upon the ability of the plants to set seed. Treatments that occur after seed set (i.e. after mid to late August) will have a much smaller effect on the following year’s population than those that are implemented prior to seed set. Even in the absence of the proposed mitigation measures (described in Section 8.0), the indirect effects to Mildred’s clarkia are considered minor due to the low intensity of the proposed treatments within the known occurrence, the patchy distribution of plants, and the species’ positive response to past management activities. At the landscape scale, the proposed treatments could have a minor beneficial indirect effect to Mildred’s clarkia. Observations have demonstrated that this species tolerates and even thrives in areas of past disturbance. Mildred’s clarkia has been found along road cut-banks, forest edges, in past clearcuts, and within the boundary of high intensity wildfires, where there is minimal plant competition and open light conditions (L. Janeway, personal communication, 2011). Although Mildred’s clarkia has been found in undisturbed sites, less than one percent has been documented in dense forested stands with canopy closure greater than 60 percent. Taking these factors into consideration, it is expected that the proposed thinning and prescribed fire treatments, would result in the creation of additional areas of suitable habitat for Mildred’s clarkia. In general, Alternatives A and D will create a larger area of potential suitable habitat for Mildred’s clarkia than Alternative C; this is primarily due to the number of acres within proposed treatment units that are expected to decrease from an existing canopy

closure of greater than 60 percent (i.e. a dense forest canopy) to less than 60 percent (i.e. a more open forest canopy) (Table 4). Cumulative Effects. The single occurrence of Mildred’s clarkia within the Botany analysis area represents a small fraction (two percent) of all known occurrences in California. In addition, the portion (four acres) of Mildred’s clarkia that overlaps with Treatment Unit 5 is less than two percent of the total area occupied by the occurrence. Therefore, there is low potential for the proposed treatments to have substantial negative impacts to the species as a whole, and even more specifically to the occurrence within the analysis area. The effect of past projects on Mildred’s clarkia is largely unknown. This species was added to the Plumas NF Sensitive species list in 2006; prior to that it had been identified as a Special Interest, or watch list species, since 1996. Because of its relatively recent listing, projects implemented more than 18 years ago may not have avoided or mitigated effects to known occurrences. The one documented Mildred’s clarkia occurrence within the Botany analysis area has likely been impacted by both past management activities and natural disturbance processes. Within the past 18 years, at least one large wildfire (Bucks Fire1999), one roadside hazard tree project, and one road improvement project have occurred within the known occurrence. In addition, individual plants are situated directly adjacent to NFS Road 24N24, which is regularly maintained and frequently used by forest visitors for recreation. The amount of suitable, but unoccupied habitat, within the analysis area has not been quantified; however the ability of Mildred’s clarkia to colonize previously disturbed sites suggests that this species has and will continue to benefit from management activities that create open conditions and increase light reception to the understory. Alternatives A, C, and D propose treatments that could create additional areas of suitable habitat for this species. Although implementation of these action alternatives may have some minor direct and indirect impacts on individuals, cumulatively, these effects will not lead to a trend toward listing for Mildred’s clarkia. This is based on the small percentage of individuals with potential to be directly impacted, the species’ high tolerance to disturbance, and the creation of additional areas of suitable habitat through implementation of the proposed treatments.

6.1.4 Determination for Mildred’s clarkia

No-action Alternative (B): It is my determination that the no-action alternative will not affect Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia). This determination is based on the negligible direct and indirect effects to individuals and areas of suitable habitat. Action Alternatives (A, C, and D): It is my determination that the Bucks Project action alternatives (A, C, and D) may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward

Federal listing or loss of viability for Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia). This determination is based on the potential for impacts to individuals and areas of suitable habitat.

6.2 Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady's-slipper)

6.2.1 Affected Environment

This orchid has a wide distribution that extends from British Columbia, south to the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges of California, and east to the Rocky Mountains. While the distribution of this species is broad, occurrences are often small and widely scattered. In California, the highest distribution of clustered lady’s-slipper is on the Klamath and Plumas National Forests. There are close to 150 occurrences on the Plumas NF; these range in size from one to over 3,000 stems. A total of 200 occurrences have also been recorded on the Six Rivers, Shasta- Trinity, Klamath, Mendocino, and Tahoe National Forests (Kaye and Cramer 2005). In California, clustered lady’s-slipper is most commonly associated with mixed conifer forests in the mid-to-late stages of successional development. On the Plumas NF, plants most frequently occur in microsites with moist soils, steep slopes, sufficient dogwood (Cornus nuttallii) cover, and a relatively open overstory canopy (Brown 2008). Clustered lady’s-slipper orchids lack physiological adaptations to regulate and tolerate drought and heat stress; therefore they depend on species, such as dogwoods, to limit the amount of direct solar radiation that reaches the forest floor (Brown 2008). Mycorrhizal fungi play a pivotal role in the biology of orchids and several stages in the orchid’s life-cycle, particularly the early stages of seedling development, depend on mycorrhizal fungal symbioses. Clustered lady’s-slipper appears intolerant of disturbances that directly reduce the duff layer and expose or damage the plant’s rhizomes (underground stems) or mycorrhizal symbionts. It is usually found in areas that have not been disturbed, or in areas where the disturbance was light or in the distant past. Clustered lady’s-slipper orchids appear to tolerate, and in some cases even benefit from, low severity fires. In contrast, high severity fires that eliminate the duff layer or destroy the overstory canopy have been shown to severely impact or kill individuals (Vance 2005). The overall trend for this species is thought to be declining. In a recent population viability analysis of Oregon occurrences, Thorpe et al. (2010) determined that 59 percent of clustered lady’s slipper populations had declined in size and 31 percent fell to zero. They also determined that smaller populations (less than 10 individuals) had a higher rate of extinction compared to larger populations. The primary threat to this species is disturbance that severely alters the light and soil moisture regime at the microsite level. Examples of other threats include: timber harvest activities that remove most of the overstory canopy; soil compaction from equipment and vehicles; high intensity, stand-replacing wildfires; and illegal collection (Vance 2005).

Clustered lady’s-slipper orchids can also be negatively impacted by dense, homogenous stand conditions where fire has been excluded for over a century (Brown 2008). Distribution within the Analysis Area: Three occurrences of clustered lady’s-slipper, covering approximately 29 acres, fall within the Botany analysis area. No occurrences are within any of the proposed treatment units. The closest occurrence (CYFA_122) is within 0.3 miles of a proposed treatment unit. Table 5. Comparison of clustered lady's-slipper abundance at the global, state, forest, and project scale.

Number of Occurrences Global Plumas Bucks Treatment Species Ranking California NF Analysis Area Units

Cypripedium fasciculatum G41 3512 151 3 0

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

6.2.2 Plumas NF Management Prescription (USDA 2007)

Buffer all plant occurrences by approximately 100 feet from ground disturbance to maintain canopy closure, hydrologic conditions, and mycorrhizal relationships. Keep hand piles at least 50 feet from plants to protect individuals, seedbank, and mycorrhizae from excessive heat. Avoid scattering slash on plants. Evaluate potential effects of prescribed fire on a site-by-site basis considering factors such as population size, fuel load, season of burn, predicted intensity and duration of burn, and risk of wildfire vs. potential effects from prescribed fire. Develop monitoring plans to evaluate fire effects on individuals and populations before prescribed burning operations. To the extent possible, avoid ignitions within occurrences and avoid building fire control lines in or near occurrences. Also, allow fire to creep/back into occurrences from adjacent terrain if the fuel loading permits. Do not advertise locations, to minimize poaching. Evaluate other activities on a site-by-site basis considering species abundance, population size, geographic distribution, and known species ecology.

6.2.3 Environmental Consequences:

6.2.3.1 Alternative B – No-action Alternative Direct Effects. No direct effects are anticipated because no project-related activities would occur. Indirect Effects. The three clustered lady’s-slipper sites that occur within the Botany analysis area are more than 0.3 miles from the proposed project units; therefore the indirect effect to individual plants is considered negligible. At the landscape scale, the no-action alternative could reduce the amount of suitable habitat for this species. Under this alternative, the stands within the Bucks project area would continue to become dense and overcrowded, which would

increase the risk of high-intensity wildfire within these forested habitats. Severe wildfires could create areas of unsuitable habitat for clustered lady’s-slipper by removing the overstory canopy and adversely impacting soil conditions. Cumulative Effects. Clustered lady’s-slipper has likely lost individuals and a considerable amount of suitable habitat over the last 100 years due to human activities related to mining, logging, road building, fire suppression, and homesteading. These activities have, to one extent or another, resulted in a reduction in canopy cover, modification of stand dynamics, alteration in fire frequency and intensity, and change in microclimate conditions. Clustered lady’s-slipper has been designated as a Plumas NF Sensitive or Special Interest species since the early 1980’s; therefore it is expected that projects implemented over the past 30 years would have avoided or mitigated negative effects to known occurrences. Within the Botany analysis area, at least four timber sales (salvage logging, hazard tree removal, and commercial thinning) have occurred within the documented lady’s-slipper occurrences. A revisit to one of the occurrences (CYFA_004) after the 1999 Bucks wildfire found that the occurrence continued to support healthy plants and appeared stable. These past projects and wildfire events underscore the fact that management activities have occurred within the Botany analysis area and have potentially impacted clustered lady’s-slipper occurrences and areas of suitable habitat. There would be no cumulative effects from the no-action alternative because the direct and indirect effects are expected to be negligible. The effects of future projects on clustered lady’s- slipper would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing management guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare species locations, and noxious weed mitigations) remain in place.

6.2.3.2 Action Alternatives (A, C, and D) Direct Effects. No direct effects will occur because all of the clustered lady’s-slipper orchid occurrences are outside of the proposed treatment units. Indirect Effects. The indirect effect of implementing the proposed action alternatives would be minor to negligible and may be beneficial. The three occurrences of clustered lady’s-slipper orchid that occur within the Botany analysis area are greater than 0.3 miles from the proposed project units; therefore it is unlikely that the proposed treatments would have any significant indirect effect on individuals or suitable habitat. The optimal site conditions for clustered lady’s-slipper orchids are undisturbed forested sites, in the mid-to-late stages of successional development. Consequently, the proposed treatments could result in a short-term loss of unoccupied suitable habitat by reducing canopy cover and increasing areas of ground disturbance over the landscape. This negative indirect effect would be counterbalanced by the positive effect of reduced risk of high-intensity wildfire.

Cumulative Effects. Clustered lady’s-slipper has likely lost individuals and a considerable amount of suitable habitat over the last 100 years due to human activities related to mining, logging, road building, fire suppression, and homesteading. These activities have, to one extent or another, resulted in a reduction in canopy cover, modification of stand dynamics, alteration in fire frequency and intensity, and change in microclimate conditions. Clustered lady’s-slipper has been designated as a Plumas NF Sensitive or Special Interest species since the early 1980’s; therefore it is expected that projects implemented over the past 30 years would have avoided or mitigated negative effects to known occurrences. Within the Botany analysis area, at least four timber sales (salvage logging, hazard tree removal, and commercial thinning) have occurred within the documented lady’s-slipper occurrences. A revisit to one of the occurrences (CYFA_004) after the 1999 Bucks wildfire found that the occurrence continued to support healthy plants and appeared stable. These past projects and wildfire events underscore the fact that management activities have occurred within the Botany analysis area and have potentially impacted clustered lady’s-slipper occurrences and areas of suitable habitat. No adverse cumulative effects are anticipated for clustered lady’s-slipper, primarily because there are no occurrences within the treatment units. The three occurrences within the Botany analysis area represent less than one percent of all known occurrences in California (Table 5). Overall, the proposed treatments are expected to have a slightly beneficial indirect effect within areas of potential suitable habitat. The effects of present and future projects on this species would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing management guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare species locations, and noxious weed mitigations) remain in place.

6.2.4 Determination for clustered lady's-slipper

No-action Alternative (B): It is my determination that the no-action alternative will not affect Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady's-slipper). This determination is based on the negligible direct and indirect effects to individuals and areas of suitable habitat. Action Alternatives (A, C, and D): It is my determination that the Bucks Project action alternatives (A, C, and D) will not affect Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady's-slipper). This determination is based on the lack of individuals within the project area and the negligible indirect effects to areas of suitable habitat.

6.3 Lupinus dalesiae (Quincy lupine)

6.3.1 Affected Environment: Quincy lupine This perennial lupine species is known to occur in Plumas County and in isolated occurrences in Sierra and Yuba counties in California. Within this limited range, Quincy lupine is locally

abundant. There are currently 266 occurrences documented on the Plumas NF. Outside of the Plumas NF, there are 22 occurrences, all of which occur on lands adjacent to the National Forest. Quincy lupine is found in a variety of habitats that include undisturbed and disturbed sites (such as old skid trails and road cut banks), openings in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, and mixed conifer forests. Recent visits to old project areas have shown that this species tolerates and even thrives on disturbance; however the intensity, extent, or frequency of the disturbance associated with these occurrences has not been quantified in a manner that facilitates the development of prescriptions that consistently mimic historical disturbance regimes. The trend for this plant is stable. The California Native Plant Society recently lowered the listing status of Quincy lupine (from List 1B to List 4) based on the number of mapped occurrences in the California Fish and Game’s California Native Diversity Data Base (CNDDB).

Distribution within the Analysis Area: One occurrence of Quincy lupine (LUDA_093), covering approximately 0.02 acres, has been documented within the Bucks Botany Analysis Area. No occurrences are within any of the proposed treatment units. Table 6. Comparison of Quincy lupine abundance at the global, state, forest, and project scale.

Number of Occurrences Global Plumas Bucks Analysis Treatment Species Ranking California NF Area Units

Lupinus dalesiae G31 288 266 1 0

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

6.3.2 Plumas NF Management Prescription (USDA 2007)

Protect 30 percent of known occurrences within a project area from ground disturbance. Favor protection of locations that have open tree and shrub canopies (less than 50 percent cover) over those with closed tree and shrub canopies. In control areas, keep hand piles at least 20 feet from plants to protect individuals and seedbank from excessive heat. Avoid scattering slash on plants. Evaluate potential effects of prescribed fire on a site-by-site basis considering factors such as population size, fuel load, season of burn, predicted intensity and duration of burn, and risk of wildfire vs. potential effects from prescribed fire. Develop monitoring plans to evaluate fire effects on individuals and populations before prescribed burning operations. Favor allowing ground disturbance and prescribed fire in areas of dense shrub or tree cover. Evaluate other activities on a site-by-site basis considering species abundance, population size, geographic distribution, and known species ecology.

6.3.3 Environmental Consequences: Quincy lupine

6.3.3.1 Alternative B – No-action Alternative Direct Effects. No direct effects are anticipated because no project-related activities would occur. Indirect Effects. This species is most commonly associated with open habitats, many of which have been previously disturbed. Although Quincy lupine has been found in undisturbed sites, it has not been documented in dense forest stands with high overstory canopy cover. Under the no-action alternative, the number of trees within stands would continue to increase, resulting in areas with greater canopy cover, reduced light to the understory, and increased duff and litter deposition. Over time, this would decrease the amount and quality of suitable habitat for Quincy lupine across the landscape. Cumulative Effects. The amount of suitable, but unoccupied habitat, within the analysis area has not been quantified; however the ability of Quincy lupine to colonize both previously disturbed and undisturbed sites, and tolerate and even thrive on disturbance, suggests that this species has and will continue to benefit from management activities that create open conditions and increase light reception to the understory. The Quincy lupine occurrence within the Botany analysis area is situated on a road cut bank and is within the boundary of two past timber sales; signs of previous logging activity were noted at the time of the last visit.

Under the no-action alternative, treatments would not be implemented and additional areas of potential habitat would not be created. Overall, there would be no direct effects from the no- action alternative and minor indirect effects to this species’ potential habitat. The effects of present and future projects on this species would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing management guidelines (such as field surveys and protection of known rare species locations) remain in place. Cumulatively, these effects will not lead to a trend toward listing for Quincy lupine.

6.3.3.2 Action Alternatives (A, C, and D) Direct Effects. No direct effects will occur because all of the Quincy lupine occurrences are outside of the proposed treatment units. Indirect Effects. The proposed project activities are expected to have a minor beneficial indirect effect on Quincy lupine. This species is most commonly associated with open habitats; it is not found under dense forest canopies. Quincy lupine has been shown to readily colonize disturbed sites such harvest units, skid trails, and old roads. Past observations also demonstrate that populations respond favorably to both thinning and prescribed fire treatments. Based on these factors, the proposed treatments are expected to increase the amount of suitable habitat for Quincy lupine across the landscape.

Cumulative Effects. The single occurrence of Quincy lupine within the Botany analysis area represents a small fraction (less than one percent) of all known occurrences on the Plumas NF and in California (Table 6); therefore, the potential for substantial negative impacts to the species as a whole, and even more specifically to the occurrence within the analysis area, is low.

The amount of suitable, but unoccupied habitat, within the analysis area has not been quantified; however the ability of Quincy lupine to colonize both previously disturbed and undisturbed sites, and tolerate and even thrive on disturbance, suggests that this species has and will continue to benefit from management activities that create open conditions and increase light reception to the understory. The Quincy lupine occurrence within the Botany analysis area is situated on a road cut bank and is within the boundary of two past timber sales; signs of previous logging activity were noted at the time of the last visit. Under the proposed alternatives, treatments would be implemented and additional areas of potential habitat created. Overall, there would be no direct effects to the known Quincy lupine occurrence and a minor beneficial indirect effect of creating additional areas of suitable habitat for this species. The effects of present and future projects on this species would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing management guidelines (such as field surveys and protection of known rare species locations) remain in place. Overall, the cumulative effects to this species are anticipated to be beneficial.

6.3.4 Determination for Quincy lupine

No-action Alternative (B): It is my determination that Alternative B (no action) will not affect Lupinus dalesiae (Quincy lupine). This determination is based on the negligible direct and indirect effects to individuals and areas of suitable habitat. Action Alternatives (A, C and D): It is my determination that the Bucks Project action alternatives (A, C, and D) will not affect Lupinus dalesiae (Quincy lupine). This determination is based on the lack of individuals within the project area and the negligible indirect effects to areas of suitable habitat.

6.4 Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss)

6.4.1 Affected Environment:

Although three-ranked hump-moss is well distributed in the northern hemisphere, it is geographically limited in California where the majority of occurrences are found in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (Dillingham 2005). Ten occurrences of three-ranked hump-moss have been documented on the Plumas NF; of the remaining occurrences in California, 24 occur on the Sierra NF and 25 occur on the Lassen NF.

Three-ranked hump-moss is most commonly associated with montane fen habitats (groundwater-fed wetland ecosystems). These habitats are considered significant resources due to their unique hydrologic characteristics (USDA 2004a); ability to support high levels of biodiversity, including rare species such as three-ranked hump-moss (USDA 2004a); relative rarity across the Sierra Nevada (Bartolome et al. 1990); and ability to remain relatively stable for long periods of time, storing plant and climatic data over millennia (Chimner et al. 2002). The abundance and distribution of three-ranked hump-moss is strongly tied to hydrological processes within fens. It has been demonstrated that small-scale disturbances caused by management actions, such as timber harvest and road construction, can have substantial negative impacts on rare fen species and their habitat (Cooper et al. 1998, Weixelman and Cooper 2009). Distribution within the Analysis Area: Three occurrences of three-ranked hump-moss, occupying less than 100 square feet, fall within the Botany analysis area. No occurrences are within any of the proposed treatment units; however one occurrence (METR_009) is within 10 feet of Treatment Unit 87, which is proposed for mechanical thinning, biomass removal, and underburning. Table 7. Comparison of three-ranked hump-moss abundance at the global, state, forest, and project scale.

Number of Occurrences Global Plumas Bucks Analysis Species Ranking California NF Area Treatment Units

Meesia triquetra G51 75 10 3 1 (within 10’ of unit boundary)

1 G5 = Demonstrably Secure: Common; widespread and abundant

6.4.2 Plumas NF Management Prescription (USDA 2007)

Protect occurrences from all ground disturbances. Maintain bank stability and hydrologic conditions. Evaluate activities and use mitigations consistent with Riparian Management Objectives (HFQLG FEIS) or Riparian Conservation Objectives (Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment ROD, pp. 32-35) as appropriate. If the establishment of a no-disturbance buffer is appropriate, consider the following when determining the size and shape of the buffer: site conditions, topographic position, slope, aspect, stand structure (including canopy height), intensity of the proposed management activity, and proximity to water.

6.4.3 Environmental Consequences:

6.4.3.1 Alternative B – No-action Alternative Direct Effects. No direct effects are anticipated because no project-related activities would occur. 22

Indirect Effects. The no-action alternative is expected to have a negligible effect on three- ranked hump-moss This species grows in fens where high soil moisture levels during the fire season and the dominance of fine fuels (i.e. sedges and rushes) greatly reduce the likelihood of high-severity fire (Dwire and Kauffman 2003). Based on this, the lack of treatments in adjacent stands is not expected to significantly alter the future wildfire risk or intensity within three- ranked hump-moss occurrences or areas of unoccupied suitable habitat. Cumulative Effects. Three-ranked hump-moss has likely lost individuals and a considerable amount of suitable habitat over the past 100 years due to land use activities such as water diversions, habitat type conversion (i.e. meadow to annual grassland), intense grazing by domestic livestock, and construction of roads and trails. This species was added to the Plumas NF Sensitive species list relatively recently in 1998; therefore it is unknown whether projects implemented more than 14 years ago avoided or mitigated negative effects to known occurrences. One occurrence (METR_006) falls within the boundary of three past projects (salvage logging, commercial thinning, and prescribed fire), while another (METR_003) is in close proximity to Bucks Summit, which is a popular recreation destination. With the exception of some land use activities (such as off highway vehicle use, fire suppression, etc.), protection measures for meadows have generally been in place for nearly 25 years (USDA 1988b). Based on this, it is likely that the three three-ranked hump-moss occurrences have received little impact from management activities in the past few decades. There would be no cumulative effects from the no-action alternative because the direct and indirect effects are expected to be negligible. The effects of future projects on three-ranked hump-moss would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing management guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare species locations, and noxious weed mitigations) remain in place.

6.4.3.2 Action Alternatives (A, C, and D) Direct Effects. No direct effects will occur because the three-ranked hump-moss occurrences will be avoided during project implementation. The occurrence that is within 10 feet of Treatment Unit 87 will be flagged for avoidance; the remaining two occurrences are greater than 0.25 mile from the treatments and will not be directly affected by project activities. Indirect Effects. The indirect effects from the action alternatives are anticipated to be negligible. Three-ranked hump-moss is found in wet meadows and fens. These types of habitats differ from their surrounding uplands in moisture regime, microclimate, and vegetative composition (Pettit and Naiman 2007). In general, high soil moisture levels and the dominance of grass-like species (i.e. fine fuels) greatly reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire within these habitats. Based on this, the thinning and underburning treatments in adjacent stands are not expected to

significantly alter the future wildfire risk or intensity within three-ranked hump-moss occurrences or unoccupied suitable habitat. Positive effects of the proposed thinning treatments may include increased water percolation and groundwater, which could slightly increase the water availability within adjacent meadow and fen habitats where three-ranked hump-moss is found. Occurrences and suitable habitat for three-ranked hump-moss will be avoided during project implementation; therefore the proposed activities are not expected to negatively affect the timing or hydrologic regime within areas of suitable habitat. Cumulative Effects. Three-ranked hump-moss has likely lost individuals and a considerable amount of suitable habitat over the past 100 years due to land use activities such as water diversions, habitat type conversion (i.e. meadow to annual grassland), intense grazing by domestic livestock, and construction of roads and trails. This species was added to the Plumas NF Sensitive species list relatively recently in 1998; therefore it is unknown whether projects implemented more than 14 years ago avoided or mitigated negative effects to known occurrences. . One occurrence (METR_006) falls within the boundary of three past projects (salvage logging, commercial thinning, and prescribed fire), while another (METR_003) is in close proximity to Bucks Summit, which is a popular recreation destination. With the exception of some land use activities (such as off highway vehicle use, fire suppression, etc.), protection measures for meadows have generally been in place for nearly 25 years (USDA 1988b). Based on this, it is likely that the three three-ranked hump-moss occurrences have received little impact from management activities in the past few decades. The three occurrences in the Botany analysis area represent four percent of the three-ranked hump-moss occurrences in California (Table 7). All of these occurrences will be avoided during implementation of the action alternatives. In addition, areas of suitable habitat will be protected through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The effects of future projects on three-ranked hump-moss would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing management guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare species locations, and noxious weed mitigations) remain in place. Based on these protection measures, as well as the negligible direct and indirect effects to three-ranked hump-moss no adverse cumulative effects are anticipated from implementation of the action alternatives.

6.4.4 Determination for three-ranked hump-moss

No-action Alternative (B): It is my determination that No-action alternative (B) will not affect Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss). This determination is based on the negligible direct and indirect effects to individuals and areas of suitable habitat.

Action Alternatives (A, C, and D): It is my determination that the Bucks Project action alternatives (A, C, and D) will not affect Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss). This determination is based on the negligible direct and indirect effects to individuals and areas of suitable habitat.

6.5 Penstemon personatus (closed-throated beardtongue)

6.5.1 Affected Environment: closed-throated beardtongue Closed-throated beardtongue is a rare species that is presently known from 42 occurrences in four counties in the northern portion of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Most of the closed- throated beardtongue occurrences (79 percent) are found within the boundary of the Plumas NF where this rhizomatous perennial occurs in 33 large but localized populations that vary in size from thousands of individuals to less than 10. Closed-throated beardtongue occurs in west-side mixed conifer and red fir plant communities. Past observations suggest that this species may tolerate or even benefit from some timber harvest activities (i.e. mechanical thinning) that reduce the forest canopy, as long as the activities do not change the microhabitat or result in high levels of ground disturbance (Urie et al. 1989, Coppoletta et al. 2010). Monitoring has demonstrated that some high intensity treatments, such as clearcuts, can result in a significant decline in closed-throated beardtongue frequency within the first three years following treatment (Coppoletta et al. 2010). Closed- throated beardtongue appears able to tolerate a wide range of canopy and light conditions. While it occurs in areas with moderate to dense overstory canopy, some studies have shown that open canopy conditions can promote flowering and growth of individuals (Urie et al. 1989). Although there are may be local fluctuations in population size, the overall trend for this species appears stable. General threats to this species include road construction and maintenance, timber site preparation and release, landing construction, grazing, mining, and off-highway vehicle use. Distribution within the Analysis Area: Three large closed-throated beardtongue occurrences, encompassing 21 sub-occurrences, have been recorded within 242 acres of the Bucks Botany analysis area (Table 8). None of these occurrences occur within any of the proposed treatment units. Table 8. Comparison of closed-throated beardtongue at the global, state, forest, and project scale.

Number of Occurrences Global Plumas Bucks Treatment Species Ranking California NF Analysis Area Units

Penstemon personatus G2 1 42 33 3 0

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

6.5.2 Plumas NF Management Prescription (USDA 2007)

Use guidance in the Preferred Alternative of the approved Penstemon personatus Species Management Guide of 1987 to develop a set of key Penstemon personatus Areas (occurrences or portions of occurrences) within each metapopulation, which will be protected from management disturbances. These key areas would be established within occupied habitat to maintain the species' geographic distribution. Priority for the delineation of key areas would be given to those occurrences that currently exhibit a diversity of habitat types. Avoid building landings or temporary roads through known occurrences. Avoid sub-soiling through known occurrences. Strive to apply mechanical treatments after seed-set. Avoid machine piling within known occurrences. To the degree possible, lop-and-scatter hand fuel and mechanical fuel treatments to avoid creating piles within known occurrences. If other resource issues necessitate pile burning, work with the District Botanist to avoid placing piles on individual plants within the occurrence to the degree feasible. Strive to apply prescribed fire in the fall. Evaluate other activities on a site-by-site basis considering species abundance, population size, geographic distribution, and known species ecology.

6.5.3 Environmental Consequences: closed-throated beardtongue

6.5.3.1 Alternative B – No-action Alternative Direct Effects. No direct effects are anticipated because no project-related activities would occur. Indirect Effects. Closed-throated beardtongue is able to tolerate a relatively wide range of habitat conditions; it is found in disturbed and undisturbed sites, and within open and densely shaded forests. Although monitoring indicates that this species is able to tolerate and even increase in abundance or vigor following ground disturbance, it is not required for regeneration or survival. Based on these ecological characteristics the indirect effects of the no-action alternative are expected to be negligible. Cumulative Effects. Suitable habitat for closed-throated beardtongue has been impacted by past timber management practices, which generally favored removal of larger, more dominant trees (i.e. overstory removal). This management practice, as well as the suppression of wildfire, has resulted in a greater number of dense forests that are dominated by small trees and a reduction in open forest habitat across the landscape. The ability of closed-throated beardtongue to colonize both previously disturbed and undisturbed sites suggests that this species may have benefited from past management activities that created open conditions and increased light reception to the understory. This species has been on the regional sensitive species list since at least 1979 and the Penstemon personatus Species Management Guide has been in place since 1987. A review of

past projects indicates that at least nine projects, with activities ranging from commercial thinning to underburning, have occurred within 16 (or 76 percent) of the documented sub- occurrences within the Botany analysis area. None of these projects occurred prior to 1980; therefore it is expected that they would have avoided or mitigated negative effects to known occurrences. There would be no cumulative effects from the no-action alternative because the direct and indirect effects are expected to be negligible. The effects of present and future projects on this species would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing management guidelines (such as field surveys and protection of known rare species locations) remain in place.

6.5.3.2 Action Alternatives (A, C, and D) Direct Effects. No direct effects will occur because all of the closed-throated beardtongue occurrences are outside of the proposed treatment units. Indirect Effects. As mentioned above, closed-throated beardtongue is able to tolerate a wide range of habitat conditions. Monitoring suggests that this perennial plant is able to tolerate and even benefit from thinning activities that open up the forest canopy if ground disturbance is minimized (Coppoletta et al. 2010). Past observations have also noted morphological differences between plants growing in deep shade and full sun. Populations in areas with greater than 60 percent overstory canopy cover tend to have fewer flowering individuals and fewer flowers per plant; individuals also have thinner leaves and are generally shorter in stature. These observations suggest that the proposed thinning treatments could have a minor beneficial effect on areas of unoccupied suitable habitat, particularly for the two occurrences (PEPE3_007M1 and PEPE3_007O) that are less than 200 feet from the project unit boundary. In general, based on the distance to the proposed treatment units, which are on average greater than 0.5 mile away, as well as the species’ ability to tolerate a range of habitat conditions, the overall impact of the action alternatives is considered negligible. Cumulative Effects. Suitable habitat for closed-throated beardtongue has been impacted by past timber management practices, which generally favored removal of larger, more dominant trees (i.e. overstory removal). This management practice, as well as the suppression of wildfire, has resulted in a greater number of dense forests that are dominated by small trees and a reduction in open forest habitat across the landscape. The ability of closed-throated beardtongue to colonize both previously disturbed and undisturbed sites suggests that this species may have benefited from past management activities that created open conditions and increased light reception to the understory.

This species has been on the regional sensitive species list since at least 1979 and the Penstemon personatus Species Management Guide has been in place since 1987. A review of past projects indicates that at least nine projects, with activities ranging from commercial thinning to underburning, have occurred within 16 (or 76 percent) of the documented sub- occurrences within the Botany analysis area. None of these projects occurred prior to 1980; therefore it is expected that they would have avoided or mitigated negative effects to known occurrences. The two occurrences of closed-throated beardtongue within the Botany analysis area represent a fraction (seven percent) of all known occurrences in California (Table 8). The potential for substantial negative impacts to the species as a whole, and even more specifically to the occurrences within the analysis area, is low. Under the proposed alternatives, treatments would be implemented and additional areas of potential habitat created. Overall, there would be no direct effects to the known closed- throated beardtongue occurrences and a minor beneficial indirect effect of creating additional areas of suitable habitat for this species. The effects of present and future projects on this species would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing management guidelines (such as field surveys and protection of known rare species locations) remain in place. Overall, the cumulative effects to this species are anticipated to be negligible.

6.5.4 Determination for closed-throated beardtongue

No-action Alternative (B): It is my determination that Alternative B (no action) will not affect Penstemon personatus (closed-throated beardtongue). This determination is based on the negligible direct and indirect effects to individuals and areas of suitable habitat. Action Alternatives (A, C and D): It is my determination that the Bucks Project action alternatives (A, C, and D) will not affect Penstemon personatus (closed-throated beardtongue). This determination is based on the lack of individuals within the project area and the negligible indirect effects to areas of suitable habitat.

7.0 Comparison of Alternatives

The no-action alternative will not affect any Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Region 5 Sensitive plant species. This determination is based on the negligible direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to individuals and areas of unoccupied suitable habitat. Some individuals of Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae (Mildred’s clarkia) may be directly impacted by the hazard tree and watershed improvement treatments proposed under Alternatives A and D; however, this species’ ability to tolerate and even thrive in disturbed areas, suggests that these two alternatives could also have a beneficial indirect effect by creating additional areas of suitable habitat for Mildred’s clarkia. Alternative C would have no

direct effects and negligible indirect effects on this species. None of the three action alternatives would result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for Mildred’s clarkia. Alternatives A, C, and D would not affect Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss) or any other Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Region 5 Sensitive species. This determination is based on the negligible direct and indirect effects to individuals or areas of suitable habitat; lack of individuals known or expected to occur within the project area; or absence of suitable habitat within the project area for these species.

8.0 Specific Design Features or Mitigations Sensitive plant species within the proposed treatment units would be protected under Alternatives A, C, and D through the designation of Control Areas. The following species-specific protection measures and design features were developed using the guidance provided in the Plumas NF interim management prescriptions (USDA 2007), which are described above (Section 6.0). Maps of these locations and prescriptions are also provided in Section 11.0. Rare species within the Botany analysis area, but greater than 200 feet outside of the proposed treatment units, do not require specific design features or mitigations for protection. Additional mitigation measures for Special Interest species are included the Bucks Project Plant Protection Plan (Appendix B).

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

The occurrence within Treatment Unit 5 will be protected using one of the following two options: 1. Option 1: Implement the hazard tree removal portion of the project and road treatments after individuals have set seed; there is no protection measure required for felling hazard trees. Utilize the Limited Operating Period (LOP) already in place for the spotted owl, which limits treatments until after August 15. 2. Option 2: Implement the project prior to seed set with the following design features in place: o During project implementation, minimize direct impacts to individuals wherever possible. Flag Control Areas for avoidance prior to implementation. o Do not pile or dump material within flagged areas without prior approval from the botanist.

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

8.2 Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss)

The occurrence situated within 10 feet of Treatment Unit 87 will be designated as control areas where all ground disturbing activities will be prohibited.

9.0 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

All of the alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan and other direction. Under these alternatives, sensitive plant species are protected as needed to maintain viability.

10.0 List of Citations Bartolome, J. W., D. C. Erman, and C. F. Schwarz. 1990. Stability and Change in Minerotrophic Peatlands, Sierra-Nevada of California and Nevada. Usda Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Research Paper:R2-11. Brown, M. R. 2008. Predicting the Persistence of a Rare Forest Orchid (Cypripedium fasciculatum) Under Simulated Land Management. University of California, Davis. California Natural Diversity Database. 2011. RareFind Version 4. California Department of Fish and Game. Chimner, R. A., D. J. Cooper, and W. J. Parton. 2002. Modeling carbon accumulation in Rocky Mountain fens. Wetlands 22:100-110. Cooper, D. J., L. H. MacDonald, S. K. Wenger, and S. W. Woods. 1998. Hydrologic restoration of a fen in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA. Wetlands 18:335-345. Coppoletta, M., K. Merriam, C. Dillingham, and L. Hanson. 2010. The effect of timber management activities on Penstemon personatus on the Plumas National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Dillingham, C. 2005. Conservation Assessment for Meesia triquetra (L.) Aongstr. (three-ranked hump-moss) and Meesia uliginosa Hedwig (broad-nerved hump-moss) in California with a focus on the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. Dittes, J., and J. Guardino. 2000. Botanical Investigation Conducted for the Waters Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (WDFPZ) Project, Plumas National Forest, Mt Hough District, Plumas County, California. Dwire, K., and J. Kauffman. 2003. Fire and riparian ecosystems in landscapes of the western USA. Forest Ecology and Management 178:61-74. Endangered Species Act (ESA). 1973. Public Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544. Hoover, L. D., and R. O'Hanlon. 2008. Northern California Fungi Habitat Modeling - A Proof of Concept. Kaye, T. N., and J. R. Cramer. 2005. Conservation Assessment for Cypripedium fasciculatum and Cypripedium montanum; September 2005; Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Region 5. Institute for Applied Ecology. Korb, J., N. Johnson, and W. Covington. 2004. Slash pile burning effects on soil biotic and chemical properties and plant establishment: Recommendations for amelioration. Restoration Ecology 12:52-62.

MacDonald, L. 2000. Evaluating and managing cumulative effects: Process and constraints. Environmental Management 26:299-315. NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Pettit, N., and R. Naiman. 2007. Fire in the Riparian Zone: Characteristics and Ecological Consequences. Ecosystems 10:673-687. Thorpe, A. S., R. T. Massatti, R. Newton, and T. N. Kaye. 2010. Population Viability Analysis for the clustered lady’s slipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum). Institute for Applied Ecology. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that occur in or may be affected by projects in Lassen or Plumas Counties. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Urie, S., R. Tausch, and L. Hanson. 1989. A Statistical Analysis of Penstemon personatus. USDA Forest Service, Plumas NF. USDA. 1988a. Plumas National Forest Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. USDA. 1988b. Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, Quincy, CA. USDA. 1999a. Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Final Environmental Impact Statement. Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests, USDA Forest Service, Quincy. USDA. 1999b. Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Record of Decision and Summary. Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe National Forests, USDA Forest Service, Quincy, CA. USDA. 2004a. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. USDA. 2004b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. USDA. 2005. Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2670. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Animals. USDA. 2006. 2006 Sensitive Plant List, Pacific Southwest Region, Region 5. Letter from Regional Forester Weingardt. File Code: 2670. Dated July 27, 2006. USDA. 2007. Plumas National Forest Interim Management Prescriptions for Threatened, Endangered, and Special Interest Plants. Plumas National Forest, Region 5. USDA. 2011. U.S. Forest Service Botanical Surveys, Bucks Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project: 2008-2011. Vance, N. 2005. Conservation Assessment for Cypripedium fasciculatum Kellogg ex S. Watson.in O. a. W. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, editor. Weixelman, D. A., and D. Cooper. 2009. Assessing proper functioning condition for fen areas in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade ranges in California, a user guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. R 5:4-4.

11.0 Sensitive Species Maps