The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, foot size, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)
Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 1 Regulatory framework: Relevant Federal laws, regulations, Forest Service policies, and Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest management plans ...... 1 Federal laws ...... 1 Forest Service policy ...... 2 Umatilla National Forest land and resource management plan ...... 2 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan ...... 5 Topics and Issues Addressed in This Analysis ...... 6 Purpose and Need ...... 6 Issues ...... 6 Resource Indicators and Measures ...... 6 Methodology ...... 6 Information sources ...... 6 Incomplete and unavailable information ...... 7 Habitat analysis groups...... 7 Spatial and temporal context for effects analysis ...... 8 Basis of effects determinations ...... 8 Affected Environment ...... 10 Botanical Surveys ...... 10 Historic Botanical Surveys ...... 10 Project Specific Botanical Surveys...... 10 Potential sensitive plants on project area ...... 12 Documented rare plant populations ...... 14 Federally listed, proposed, and candidate species ...... 14 Documented Region Six sensitive plants ...... 14 Documented strategic and Umatilla NF species of scientific interest ...... 16 Locations of sensitive and Umatilla NF species of local concern ...... 19 Sensitive plant habitat in the project area ...... 21 Non-forested dry upland communities ...... 22 Upland forested plant communities ...... 22 Aquatic and riparian-dependent communities ...... 24 Environmental Consequences ...... 26 Issues addressed and indicators for assessing effects...... 26 Alternative 1 – No-Action ...... 26 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 27 Potential Effects to Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants ...... 29 Direct and indirect effects-documented sensitive plant populations ...... 29 Direct and indirect effects to potential sensitive plant habitat ...... 31 Cumulative Effects ...... 33 Alternative 3 ...... 35 Direct and indirect effects-documented sensitive plant populations ...... 35 Direct and indirect effects to potential sensitive plant habitat ...... 35 Cumulative effects ...... 35 Alternative 4 ...... 36 Direct and indirect effects-documented sensitive plant populations ...... 36 Direct and indirect effects to potential sensitive plant habitat ...... 36 Cumulative effects ...... 36 Summary of Environmental Effects ...... 36 Compliance with Relevant laws, regulations, FS policies and Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman NF Forest Plans ...... 38
i
Federal Laws ...... 38 Forest Service Policy ...... 38 Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans .. 38 Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures ...... 38 Monitoring Recommendations ...... 39 References Cited ...... 40 Appendix A: Sensitive Plant Occurrence and Effects ...... A Appendix B : Vascular plant taxa encountered ...... B
Tables
Table 1 Resource Indicators and Measures ...... 6 Table 2 Botanical Surveys ...... 11 Table 3 FS Sensitive plant species ...... 12 Table 4 FS Strategic and Umatilla NF plant species of scientific interest ...... 13 Table 5 FS Sensitive plant populations documented in planning area ...... 16 Table 6 FS Strategic and Umatilla plant species of scientific interest ...... 18 Table 7 Botany project design criteria ...... 28 Table 8 Sensitive plant populations and habitat potentially impacted by various alternatives ..... 37
Figures
Figure 1 Sensitive and Umatilla NF species of local concern near Olive Lake ...... 19 Figure 2: Sensitive species near Mt. Ireland...... 19 Figure 3: Umatilla NF species of local concern near O'Rouick spring ...... 20 Figure 4: Umatilla NF species of local scientific interest on Wallowa-Whitman NF ...... 20 Figure 5: Sensitive plant species adjacent to project area on Wallowa-Whitman NF ...... 21
ii Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project Introduction The Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project is located in Grant County, Oregon, in the Granite Creek watershed, near the communities of Granite and Greenhorn. The majority of the project area (22,400 acres) is on the North Fork Ranger District of the Umatilla National Forest. The project area also includes 13,700 acres of the Whitman District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
The Forest Service is proposing a suite of treatments designed to reduce wildfire risk to private inholdings in the area, and to also to facilitate better management and control of wildfires in the entire project area. Potential treatments include prescribed fire, commercial and non-commercial thinning, and the designation of specific commercial and personal firewood and post and pole cutting areas. The primary project objective is to thin the forest in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and to provide a thinned buffer around other areas of management concern. These include the Olive Lake recreation area along Forest Service Road 10. Enhancement wildlife habitat is also a significant project goal. See the associated draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for details of the various alternatives and their proposed activities.
This botanical resources report/Biological Evaluation (BE) presents the existing conditions and analyzes effects from potential proposed actions to plants, lichens, and fungal species (and their respective habitats) that are federally-listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended. It also discusses species currently identified as sensitive by the Regional Forester of the Pacific Northwest Region (FSM 2670.5, USDA Forest Service, July 13, 2015). Species designated as sensitive are those for which there are conservation concerns, and for which special management considerations may be implemented. There is also a discussion of the existing condition of Umatilla National Forest species of scientific interest. These species are unusual in the area, and/or have local conservation concerns. For this report, these species are collectively called TES species. Regulatory framework: Relevant Federal laws, regulations, Forest Service policies, and Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest management plans
Federal laws
Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) mandates all Federal departments and agencies to conserve listed species and to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA. Section 7(a) (2) directs all Federal agencies to insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry-out does not jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or designated or proposed critical habitat. The Umatilla National Forest has one listed Threatened plant, Spalding’s Catchfly (Silene spaldingii). In addition, whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is a candidate for federal listing.
National Forest Management Act The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) reorganized, expanded and otherwise amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called for the management of renewable resources on national forest lands. NFMA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forestlands, develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System. It is the primary statute governing the administration of national forests.
1 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) directs federal agencies to “... insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken” [40 CFR §1500.1(b)].
Forest Service policy
Forest Service manual 2672.1 sensitive species management Sensitive species of native plant and animal species must receive special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal listing. There must be no impacts to sensitive species without an analysis of the significance of adverse effects on the populations, its habitat, and on the viability of the species as a whole.
Forest Service manual 2672.4: Biological evaluation process The Forest Service shall review all planned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and activities for possible effects on endangered, threatened, proposed, and sensitive species. The biological evaluation is the means of conducting the review and of documenting the findings. Document the findings of the biological evaluation in the decision notice. Where decision notices are not prepared, document the findings in Forest Service files. The biological evaluation may be used or modified to satisfy consultation requirements for a biological assessment of construction projects requiring an EIS.
The objectives of the biological evaluation process are: 1. To ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-native plant, or contribute to a trend towards Federal listing of any species. 2. To comply with the portion of the Endangered Species Act that requires that actions of Federal agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed species. 3. To provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision making process.
Forest Service Manual 2070.2: Native plants policy objectives 1. Maintain, restore or rehabilitate native ecosystems so that they are self-sustaining, resistant to invasion by non-native invasive species and/or provide habitat for a broad range of species including, threatened, endangered, and rare species.
2. Maintain adequate protection for soil and water resources, through timely and effective revegetation of disturbed sites that could not be restored naturally.
3. Promote the use of native plant materials for the revegetation, rehabilitation and restoration of native ecosystems.
Forest Service Region Six revegetation policy Use local native plant species to meet management objectives. Follow appropriate seed and plant movement guidelines.
Umatilla National Forest land and resource management plan The Umatilla NF Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1990) includes the following goals, standards and guidelines for ecosystem diversity, threatened and endangered and sensitive species (TES), and wildlife habitat resources.
2 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Forest plan goals Forest Management Goal #6: Protect and perpetuate special areas and related resources for their unique values (page 4-2).
Forest Management Goal#11: Maintain or improve habitats for all threatened or endangered plant and animal species on the Forest, and manage habitats for all sensitive species to prevent the species from becoming threatened or endangered (page 4-2).
Forest Management Goal #13: Provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities and species consistent with overall multiple-use objectives. Maintain or enhance ecosystem functions to provide for the long-term integrity (stability) and productivity of biological communities (page 4-2).
Forest Management Goal #14: Provide areas for research and education purposes which are typical of unique natural ecosystems and are in undisturbed or nearly undisturbed condition (page 4-2).
Forest plan desired future conditions Special areas: A variety of special management areas will be featured attractions as part of the diversity of recreation opportunities. Parts of the Grande Ronde, Wenaha, and North Fork John Day rivers, presently classified Wild and Scenic Rivers, will accommodate increased use; the two scenic areas (Grande Ronde and Vinegar-Indian Rock) are major attractions which will also receive increased use. The variety of special interest areas on the Forest (historical, botanical, geological, and cultural sites) is being developed as planned, and will contribute toward educational and other recreational experiences. The Forest Scenic Byway will also be a featured attraction (page 4-5).
Wildlife: Riparian areas will continue to provide a diversity of habitat conditions. Unique habitats, such as cliffs, talus, and wet areas, will receive protection (page 4-7).
Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species: All management activities recognize and will be responsive to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act: Surveys for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants will essentially be completed (within the next 15years), lists will be revised, and management plans will protect and enhance identified plants. Federal and regional lists (T&E) will continue to change. Surveys will probably document large numbers of some plants and will result in those species being removed from the lists; other species will probably be located for the first time and will be added. The number of botanical areas on the Forest can be expected to increase slightly as new unique areas are found during sensitive plant surveys (page 4-7).
Forest plan objectives Threatened, endangered, sensitive plant and animal species: There are no known federally listed threatened or endangered plant species on the forest (NOTE: This has changed, Spalding’s catchfly is now listed under ESA as threatened). Twenty-two plant species found on the Forest have been listed on the Region 6 Sensitive plant list (Note, this number has also now changed). Before a project is initiated, inventories for populations and distribution of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species will be conducted on a priority basis. Biological evaluations will be prepared. Each inventory will list all plant species found in the survey area. Previously surveyed areas can be check for specie occurrence when the Federal and regional plan lists change (page 4-28).
Biological evaluation and any required surveys and inventories of all threatened, endangered, and sensitive species will be completed prior to all project activities to insure the protection and/or mitigation of all TES species (page 4-29)
3 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
The Forest will coordinate closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning all proposed management activities that have the potential to impact threatened or endangered species. The Forest will participate in the recovery objectives for both bald eagles and peregrine falcons outlined in Chapter III of the FEIS (Note, also for Spalding’s catchfly now that it has been added to the ESA list) (page 4-29).
Monitoring will be used in the evaluation of estimated outputs in the FEIS and the anticipated habitat conditions described in the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, and in the management areas. The evaluation will determine if wildlife habitats and population trends occur as projected, and will form the basis for changing plan direction if necessary (page 4-29).
Forest-wide standards and guidelines Nongame wildlife habitat S&G #4: Cliffs, talus, and caves are recognized as relatively unique habitats of the Forest, and all potentially disturbing or altering management activities will be carefully evaluated on the ground during the planning process (page 4-57).
Nongame wildlife habitat S&G #5: Seeps, springs, bogs, wallows, and other wet areas…are inherently unique and will be evaluated on a project level basis for their value as wildlife habitat and to provide appropriate levels of protection (page 4-57).
Riparian and fish habitat S&G#5: Seeps, springs, bogs, and other wet areas, generally under 10 acres, are inherently unique and will be evaluated on a project level basis for their wildlife and other values and will be given appropriate levels of protection. Where needed, employ mitigation measures to protect unique vegetation, wildlife, and water related characteristics (page 4-59).
Range S&G #2: Allotment management plans will include a strategy for managing riparian areas for a mix of resource uses. A measurable desired future riparian condition will be established based on existing and potential vegetative conditions (page 4-63).
Ecosystems and diversity standards and guidelines (page 4-66):
1. Maintain native and desirable introduced or historic plant and animal species. 2. Provide or develop an ecologically sound distribution and abundance of plant and animal communities and species on the stand, basin, and forest levels. 3. Provide for all seral stages of terrestrial and aquatic plant associations in a distribution and abundance that meets the goal. ….. 4. Meet standard and guideline requirements…. 5. During project planning, site-specific management prescriptions should be developed and evaluated that meet objectives for biological diversity and ecosystem function…. 6. Reductions in diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species from that expected in a natural forest, or from that similar to the existing diversity in the planning area, may be prescribed to meet overall multiple-use objectives. 7. The introduction of plants will be assessed and controlled to meet management objective and to prevent any native species (or plant community) from becoming endangered or threatened. 8. Plant community ecology is sensitive to management changes. The communities will be monitored for diversity relative to successional stages and type conversions. 9. Identify, inventory, and provide for local, traditional Native American food and cultural plants.
Timber management species diversity S&G #2: Reforestation of “noncommercial” tree species (hardwoods and conifers such as Pacific yew, Western juniper) should be considered in meeting management area objectives (page 4-74).
4 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Timber management species diversity S&G #3: Special and unique ecological communities such as aspen and other hardwood stands, seeps, springs, bogs, and other riparian areas should receive special attention and protection from potentially damaging management activities. Silvicultural prescriptions will specifically address measures to protect, maintain, and enhance aspen and other hardwood clones, clumps, and stands (page 4-74).
Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species standards and guides (pages 4-89 to 4-90)
1. Legal and biological requirements for the conservation of endangered, threatened and sensitive plants and animals will be met. All proposed projects that involve significant ground disturbance or have the potential to alter habitat of endangered, threatened or sensitive plant and animal species will be evaluated to determine if any of these species are present (FSM 2670 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals).
2. Where endangered or threatened species are present, the required biological assessment process will be carried out according to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (Public Law 93- 205); consultation requirements with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and state agencies will be met. Before the project can be carried out, protection or mitigation requirements shall be specified (36 CFR 219.27(a) (8)). Habitat for existing federally classified threatened and endangered species will be managed and monitored to achieve objectives of recovery plans.
3. When sensitive species are present, a biological evaluation will be prepared. There must be no impacts to sensitive species without an analysis of the significance of adverse effects on its population, habitat, and on the viability of the species as a whole. Habitat for sensitive plants and animals will be managed to ensure that the species do not become threatened or endangered through Forest Service actions. Species management guides will be prepared over the next 5years and will be used as strategies for ensuring that sensitive species do not become threatened or endangered or result in a loss of species viability.
4. For endangered, threatened and sensitive species, determine and monitor the status of populations and habitats and the strategies implemented for protection. Maintain and update lists of threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants and animals periodically as new information is collected….
5. The Forest and ranger districts will keep records and inventories of essential and critical habitats and their distribution. Inventories will include careful monitoring of the species and their habitats.
6. Collection of TES plant species will only be allowed under permit. The issuance of permits must be preceded by the same degree of assessment required for other projects.
7. Maintain contacts with Federal, state, and other agencies, groups, and individuals concerned with the management of TES species (USDA Forest Service 1981)…
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan The 1990 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest plan includes both specific and indirect language that addresses sensitive plant resources. The chapter 2 management summary analysis on page 2-19 states: “Included is direction to protect certain sensitive species to ensure that they do not become threatened or endangered [under the Endangered Species Act].” In Chapter 4 – Forest Management Direction – page 4- 1 specifically states that management direction includes: “maintain native and desirable introduced or historic plant and animal species and communities.” Furthermore, a stated goal on page 4-30 is to “to protect and manage habitat for the perpetuation and recovery of plants and animals which are listed as threatened, endangered or sensitive”, and to “assure that management activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of sensitive species or result in adverse modification of their essential habitat.”
5 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project Topics and Issues Addressed in This Analysis
Purpose and Need See the associated environmental analysis document for a discussion of the purposed and need. This project was not initiated due to any particular need to improve habitat for sensitive plants.
Issues No botany related key or analysis issues, or indicators were identified during scoping. The following analysis will focus on effects as outlined in the Forest Service biological evaluation process.
Resource Indicators and Measures Enhancement of botanical resources was not identified as part of the purpose and need for the project, and no issues regarding botanical resources were identified during scoping. For these reasons, most of the discussion of impacts presented are qualitative in nature. Table 1, Resource indicators and measures provides a list of quantitative resource measures for this project.
Table 1 Resource Indicators and Measures Resource Indicator Element Documented Number of sensitive plant populations potentially impacted sensitive plant populations Potential Number of acres of potential sensitive plant habitat that may potentially be impacted sensitive plant habitat
Methodology This report describes sensitive plant species, and their habitats, potentially found in the planning area. Project design criteria (PDCs) are proposed to help protect known sensitive plant populations, and to protect potential sensitive plant habitat. Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives on known sensitive plant populations, and potential sensitive plant habitat, are presented. Effects analysis determinations follow definitions as outlined in Forest Service Manual 2672.42.
Rather than evaluate effects to so many species individually, this analysis focuses on how potential activities may impact habitats that may support sensitive plant populations. Species documented in the project area are addressed individually.
Information sources A pre-field review determined the probability that sensitive plant populations, and potential sensitive plant habitat, are located within, or adjacent to, the project planning area. This information was used to determine the need for, and intensity of, botanical surveys.
The following sources of information were used to determine which species, and their respective habitats, may occur within, or adjacent to, the project planning area:
• Region 6 Regional Forester Special Status Species List (USDA Forest Service July 13, 2015) • GIS mapping layers (vegetation, streams and wetlands, aerial imagery) • Project GIS layers showing potential activity units • Sensitive Plants of the Umatilla and Malheur National Forests (USDA FS, 2006).
6 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
• Field Guide to Sensitive Plants of the Malheur National Forest (unpublished document, 2015). • United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI-FWS) website. This website identifies which federally listed, proposed, and candidate species occur in each county of each state. This website was queried to determine which federally listed, candidate, and proposed plant species may occur in Grant and Baker Counties, Oregon. • Forest Service Natural Resource Manager database (USDA Forest Service 2013). This database includes information on where botanical surveys have been done on the forest in the past. It also contains information on sensitive plant populations.
Incomplete and unavailable information It is impractical to conduct botanical surveys that cover 100% of potential sensitive plant habitat in any particular project area. Surveys for this project were focused on areas that will experience activities that will use ground based heavy equipment. Much of the proposed landscape burn area was not surveyed specifically for this project. Historical surveys are not well documented, and the sensitive species list has changed significantly since many of those surveys were conducted. Therefore, it is possible that there may be undiscovered populations of sensitive plants in activity areas.
Some sensitive plant species do not produce above-ground plants every year. These plants include most grape-ferns (Botrychium spp.), and many annual species which are dependent upon sufficient early spring rains. Some of the annual sensitive species include least phacelia (Phacelia minutissima), dwarf evening- primrose (Eremothera pygmaea) annual muhly grass (Muhlenbergia minutissima), and lowland tooth-cup (Rotala ramosior). It is therefore possible that surveys may not detect these plants in years when conditions do not favor germination.
Some species, such as the least phacelia, dwarf evening-primrose, and grape-ferns, are also so tiny and difficult to find in dense vegetation that even expert botanists may overlook them during surveys. Many of the non-vascular plants (mosses, liverworts, and lichens) are very difficult to identify. Therefore, it is possible that botanists may overlook some of these species. For all of these reasons, it is not possible to state with 100% certainty that all sensitive plant species will be detected during sensitive plant surveys.
There are very few empirical studies on the impacts of disturbance due to harvest, thinning, and burning to most sensitive plant species. The strategy for management of known populations has generally been avoidance of activities that may impact populations. Therefore, all discussion of potential impacts to sensitive plant populations and habitat is based upon general experience and inferred responses based upon observations and studies of more common species.
Habitat analysis groups This analysis evaluates potential impacts of the proposed actions to sensitive plant species. There are nineteen TES plant species documented or highly suspected to occur within the project area. Rather than evaluate effects to these species individually, this analysis places species into major habitat groups. Effects are then discussed in relation to these habitat analysis groups.
Sensitive species lists are dynamic and changes to the lists occur every few years as new information is obtained. Many endemic and globally rare species are permanently on the sensitive species lists due to their inherent rarity. Other species are removed when a sufficient number of occurrences have been discovered throughout their range, and/or when populations are deemed to be secure and safe from threats. Conversely, other species are added to the list when it has been determined that the survey efforts indicate that the species is truly rare and in need of being deemed sensitive by the Regional Forester. Using habitat analysis groups to evaluate effects to sensitive species will thus cover potential impacts to sensitive species that are currently on the list, as well as those rare species that may be designated as
7 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
sensitive in the future. Thus, this analysis does not evaluate effects to every specific sensitive species. Sensitive species that are documented in the project area are discussed individually.
Habitat analysis groups are primarily based on the potential vegetation hierarchy of the Blue Mountains (Powell et al. 2007) and related plant associations (Crowe & Clausnitzer 1997, Johnson 2004, Johnson & Clausnitzer 1992, Johnson & Swanson 2005, Wells 2006). Plant associations, plant communities, and plant community types are all potential vegetation types (Powell et al. 2007). They are a relatively fine scale description of plant habitats. These categories are too detailed and numerous to be useful units for analysis on a large landscape scale. Potential vegetation types are lumped into plant association groups (PAGs). Plant association groups are relatively coarse-scale groups of various habitats that can be further lumped into potential vegetation groups (PVGs). Potential vegetation groups are aggregations of plant association groups with similar environmental regimes and dominant plant species. Each aggregation typically includes PAGs representing a predominant temperature or moisture influence.
The habitat analysis groups discussed in the affected environment section of this report are based on PVGs. For example, habitat analysis groups may correspond directly to a PVG (e.g. cold upland forests), correspond to a group of PVGs (e.g. warm riparian forests and shrublands), or PVGs may be further divided based on important ecological characteristics (e.g. cold and warm riparian herb lands are divided and recombined into wet meadows, moist meadows, peatlands). The habitat analysis groups presented below were developed because they represent the best approach to assess potential impacts to plant biodiversity. They are presented in two major categories: upland habitats and riparian/aquatic habitats.
Spatial and temporal context for effects analysis
Direct and indirect effects boundaries The spatial context for this analysis is the project area. Since plants do not generally move over large areas quickly, and no downstream effects are anticipated, it is not necessary to analyze effects to sensitive plants outside of the planning area.
The temporal context for effects analysis includes short term and long term effects. Short-term effects are considered to be one to two years after project implementation. These would generally be from direct effects such as destruction due to ground disturbance from heavy equipment, and incineration from burning. Long term effects for this analysis are considered to be more than two years after implementation of all activities (including burning). These effects would generally be from indirect effects such as changes in sunlight, erosion rates, hydrologic regimes, and changes in animal grazing patterns and intensity.
Cumulative effects boundaries The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects to botanical resources is the project area since plants do not move across the landscape to any significant extent. The temporal boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects are from the time of colonization by Europeans to ten years into the future.
Basis of effects determinations
Federally listed, proposed and candidate species Under the implementing regulations (50 CFR 402) of the Endangered Species Act, Federal agencies must review their actions and determine whether the action may affect federally listed and proposed species or proposed or designated critical habitat. To accomplish this, Federal agencies must request from the Service a list of species and critical habitat that may be in the project area or they can request our concurrence with their species list. This list is now obtained on the internet.
8 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Once a species list is obtained or verified as accurate, Federal agencies need to determine whether their actions may affect any of those species or their critical habitat. If no species or their critical habitat are affected, no further consultation is required. If they may be affected, consultation with the Service is required. This consultation will conclude either informally with written concurrence from the Service or through formal consultation with a biological opinion provided to the Federal agency. The possible effect determinations for federally listed plants are outlined in the Section 7 consultation process. They are:
No Effect: •If species or critical habitat will not be exposed directly or indirectly to the proposed action or any resulting environmental changes. No consultation with the FWS is required for No effect calls.
May Affect: •If data indicate the species and habitat may respond upon exposure, or if data are equivocal or lacking to justify a determination of "no effect", conclude "may affect".
If the listed resource is likely to respond in only a beneficial manner, conclude "May affect, not likely to adversely affect".
If the listed resource is likely to respond in a negative manner but such responses are expected to be insignificant, or if the listed resource is likely to respond in a negative manner, but the likelihood of either exposure, or such a response is discountable, then "May affect, not likely to adversely affect”.
If you cannot conclude that the response will be wholly beneficial or insignificant, or that the exposure or response is discountable, then you must conclude that the project “May affect, likely to adversely affect” and formal consultation must be done with the FWS.
Forest Service sensitive species The four possible effect determinations for sensitive plants are outlined in Forest Service Manual 2670:
. NI When sensitive species occur in habitats which are not expected to be directly or indirectly affected in any way, they are given a “No Impact” determination. This is also used for known specific existing populations where no project activities are proposed, or the population is buffered or otherwise protected. . BI When sensitive species, and their potential habitats, are expected to be favorably affected by a particular alternative, they are given a “Beneficial Impact” determination. . MIIHWhen sensitive species, and their potential habitats, occur that could possibly be negatively affected, they are given a determination of “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species”. This determination is used in cases where there is unsurveyed potential habitat, or where potential impacts are uncertain, or considered to be relatively minor. This determination acknowledges that the action could have negative impacts, but due to the following factors, the degree of consequences is not known with certainty. 1. the complexity of the proposed action 2. the differential impacts across the landscape 3. the lack of best available science . Additionally, the MIIH call recognizes that even the most substantial impacts of the proposed action will not contribute to a trend toward listing the species under the Endangered Species Act. The effects are expected to be minor enough that they will not cause a loss of viability of the species in the planning area.
9 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
. WIFV When sensitive species, and potential habitat, occur that will most likely be negatively affected by the project, they are given a determination of “Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a loss of viability to the population or species”. This determination is used in cases where negative impacts will clearly occur, and they are of a magnitude that they may contribute to crossing a threshold leading to Federal Listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Affected Environment Botanical Surveys
Historic Botanical Surveys A query of the USFS Natural Resources Manager database shows that much of the Umatilla National Forest portion of the area has had some level of botanical survey since the early 1990s. For the Wallowa- Whitman portion of the project area the documented surveys are all from the 1990s. The information in the database on these surveys often only includes a date and a mapped survey area. There is no information in the database on which species were searched for, or any information on habitat conditions. When most of these surveys were done there were only vascular plants on the sensitive plant list. The current sensitive list now includes non-vascular plants and lichens, as well as several vascular plants that were not on the sensitive list at the time of the historic surveys.
Project Specific Botanical Surveys Botanical surveys for this project were conducted in accordance with Forest Service procedures (USDA Forest Service 2008). Surveys were performed using the standardized intuitively controlled technique common to the profession. Thus, large areas are surveyed employing an emphasis on adequately sampling all habitat elements on the landscape within the planned treatment units in the assumption that this will result in a comprehensive snapshot of plant biodiversity within the area.
Botanical field surveys were conducted late in the 2014 field season and again late in the 2015 field season. Table 2 Botanical surveys presents the dates that botanical surveys were conducted, and the associated Umatilla N.F. staff. The lateness of the surveys and the historic drought year of 2015 resulted in a compromised ability to be able to detect the presence of some plant taxa thought likely to be present within the project area. Therefore, the “snapshot” of plant species richness presented here is not a complete assessment of the areas investigated.
A sampling of planned treatment units was conducted in 2015. Units were selected in such a fashion as to investigate all vegetation types to be expected. A particular emphasis was placed on units that include any ultramafic rock substrates, as these rock types provide habitat for many rare plant species. Not all proposed activity units were surveyed. Additional surveys in high probability habitat in proposed activity units were conducted during the 2016 field season.
The portion of the planning area administered by the Wallowa-Whitman N.F. was not surveyed by Umatilla NF staff in 2015. Some surveys were conducted in 2016 on the Wallowa-Whitman portion of the area. Much of this effort was focused on the riparian treatment areas, and areas with unusual rock substrates. No new sensitive plant populations were found in these areas in 2016.
10 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Table 2 Botanical Surveys Dates Surveys Were Ten Cent Units & Object ID’s Personnel Conducted Investigated
3 September 2014 209 Brumbelow / Darrach
4 September 2014 103 / 203 / 93R / 94R Brumbelow / Darrach
18 August 2015 170R / 192 / Burn Unit 42 Allen / Darrach / Robins
19 August 2015 193 / 194 / Burn Unit 42 Allen / Darrach / Robins
20 August 2015 163R / 195 / Burn Unit 42 Allen / Darrach / Robins
25 August 2015 194 / Burn Unit 42 Allen / Darrach / Robins
26 August 2015 49R / 55 / 187R / 189R / 190R / Allen / Robins – separate tracks 192R / 193R / 194R / 216 / 217 / 220 / 221 / 222 / 223 / 224
27 August 2015 196R / 197R / 212R / 225 /226 /247 Allen / Darrach / Robins / 248 / 249
1 September 2015 25 / 247R / 285 / 286 / 289 Allen / Robins
2 September 2015 2 / 3 / 213 / 214 / 259 Allen / Robins
3 September 2015 21 / 24R / 221R / 255 / 256 / 257 / Allen / Robins 258
July 2016 Veg Unit 12 Potions of riparian Duncan Thomas, contractor treatment units: 40R, 41R, 68R, 74R, 129R, 163R-165R, 177R, These surveys were all in riparian 179R, 184R habitats
Portions of prescribed fire units: 517, 532, 533, 577, 578, 582
July 2016 High probability habitats on the Darrach Wallowa-Whitman NF, including portions of the following units: Boulder 14a, 14c, 17a, 17t, 18a-c, 18b, 22a, 33a, Bug D.S P/P 1 & 2 City Station 1a, TSI 1a Second Sale 3, 4a, 4d, 4e, TSI 4e, & 32a Tick Firewood 1
11 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project Potential sensitive plants on project area There are 66 species of FS designated sensitive plants documented, or suspected, on the Oregon portion of the Umatilla National Forest. There are 101 sensitive species listed as documented or suspected for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (USDA Forest Service, July 13, 2015). Many sensitive species are listed for both forests. In addition, many of the species on the Wallowa-Whitman NF list are associated with low elevation canyons, or high elevation subalpine areas; there is no suitable habitat for these species in the project area. There are no documented or suspected species for the project area on the Wallowa- Whitman list that are not also on the Umatilla NF list. For this reason, all discussion here includes all listed sensitive species as they relate to both the Umatilla NF and to the portions of the Whitman RD that are in the project area. See Appendix A: Sensitive Plant Occurrence and Effects at the end of this report for a complete list of sensitive plant species with potential habitat in the project area.
Sensitive plants tend to grow in specialized habitat types within broader plant communities. For example, some species grow in moist swales and depressions within otherwise shrub-dominated habitat. Others occur in the transition zones – ecotones – between habitat types, while many others are substrate endemics tied to their habitat by the unique chemistry of the soils and bedrock. Table 3 FS Sensitive plant species lists the potential sensitive species and their likelihood of occurrence in the project area. Table 4 FS Strategic and Umatilla NF Plant species of scientific interest includes Region 6 designated Strategic and Umatilla NF species of scientific interest. Table 3 FS Sensitive plant species
Species Name Habitat Likelihood Comments Moist meadows, springs, Botrychium crenulatum streambanks. Subalpine Moderate crenulate moonwort gravelly soils Botrychium hesperium Moist meadow edges. Also Moderate western moonwort disturbed roadside ditches Botrychium montanum Moist coniferous forest or Known from five Documented mountain moonwort mossy fens. Often w/spruce populations in planning area Known from 1 population in Botrychium paradoxum Moist montane meadows, Moderate Desolation Meadows, near twin-spiked moonwort into edge of forests the planning area Moist grassy meadows, Known from a population in Botrychium pedunculosum forest edges, springs, stream Moderate Desolation Meadows not far stalked moonwort terraces from the planning area Riparian terraces moist Carex cordillerana woods with good available Known from scattered Moderate cordilleran sedge light, dry ponderosa pine locations in Blue Mountains forests Carex lasiocarpa Moist to xeric meadow sites, One site known from near the Moderate slender woolly sedge usually with sphagnum planning area In southwest portion of Carex saxatilis Montane fens, often under Documented project area, not activities russet sedge tree canopy proposed. Castilleja flava var. rustica Subalpine shrub lands, with Reported from the general Moderate rural paintbrush mountain big sagebrush area, but not documented In southwest portion of Castilleja viscidula rocky ridges at higher Documented project area, not activities sticky paintbrush elevations proposed. Documented on Wallowa- Cryptantha simulans Dry open ponderosa pine Moderate Whitman NF east of project pine woods cryptantha forests and rocky areas area Known from just south of Eleocharis bolanderi Seasonally moist meadows, Moderate area, on the Wallowa- Bolander’s spikerush ephemeral stream channels Whitman N.F.
12 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Species Name Habitat Likelihood Comments One population in SW Harpanthus flotovianus Bogs and fens Documented portion of planning area, great mountain flapwort additional habitat present Seeps in serpentine One population in SW Listera borealis substrates. Fens, springs, Documented portion of area. Additional northern twayblade streams, moist forest, often habitat present w/spruce Two populations in SW Lophozia gillmanii Fens, seeps Documented portion of planning area. Gillman’s pawwort Additional habitat present Known south of project area Ophioglossum pusillum Moist meadows Moderate (Middle Fork of the John Day adder’s tongue river on the Malheur NF) Known from SW portion of Pellaea bridgesii project area, and also just Rock cliffs and talus sites Documented Bridge’s cliff brake outside project area on the Wallowa-Whitman N.F. Phacelia minutissima Vernally wet areas or Known from the Malheur NF Moderate least phacelia w/aspen to the south Documented in SW portion Pinus albicaulis High elevation rocky sites Documented of project area, and to whitebark pine northeast of project area. Coniferous forest (especially Documented near project area Pyrola dentata with ponderosa pine), found and on Malheur and Ochoco Moderate tooth-leaved pyrola on serpentine soils in NFs. Additional potential Greenhorn mountains. habitat present.
Table 4 FS Strategic and Umatilla NF plant species of scientific interest
Species Habitat Likelihood In Area Status / Comments
Botrypus virginianus fens, moist meadows, spruce Species of local scientific Documented rattlesnake fern forests interest. Rare in on Umatilla. Formerly sensitive, dropped Calochortus longebarbatus due to abundance in other var. longebarbatus moist meadows, streamsides Documented areas. Species of local long-bearded mariposa lily scientific interest for Umatilla. Dropped from Sensitive on Elodium blandowii calcic fens / seeps with 2015 list. Species of local (Helodium blandowii) waters with high Documented scientific interest for Umatilla Blandow’s feather moss conductivity NF. Several populations in project area. Isoetes minima vernally moist swales in dry Strategic, recently found on Moderate midget quillwort forests and mountain sage all three Blue Mtn. NFs Recently described species known from southern portion Lomatium tarantuloide seasonally moist serpentine Documented of area, no activities gravels spider biscuit root proposed. Umatilla species of local scientific interest
“Potentilla darrachii” Undescribed species, Subalpine gravely sites Documented Umatilla species of local Darrach’s cinquefoil interest
13 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Species Habitat Likelihood In Area Status / Comments
Swertia perennis Strategic. Known from serpentine fens Documented southern portion of project felwort area; no activities proposed Removed from sensitive list Tomentypnum nitens in 2015, due to abundance in bogs, fens Documented other areas. Species of local tomentypnum moss scientific interest for Umatilla.
Documented rare plant populations
Federally listed, proposed, and candidate species The Fish and wildlife Service website and the Forest Service NRM databases were queried to determine which plants of concern under the Federal ESA may be present in the project area (query conducted on June 14, 2016). The only species listed on the FWS website is whitebark pine, a federal candidate. Whitebark pine grows in cold high elevation settings on shallow rocky soils. There are several documented stands of whitebark pine present in the southwestern portion of the planning area. It is also in the Mount Ireland area, just to the north of the project area (Figure 2). The primary distributor of whitebark pine seed, Clark’s nutcracker, is active in the planning area (numerous personal observations, M. Darrach). It is therefore possible that abandoned seed caches have resulted in the establishment of isolated whitebark pine trees in the project area. There are no proposed activities anywhere near the documented whitebark pine trees and their potential habitat.
Documented Region Six sensitive plants There are seven documented sensitive plant species in the project planning area. Of these, only one, the mountain moonwort, has been found in any areas where there are proposed activities. The information listed below discusses the habitat, range, and locations of these species in the planning area.
Mountain moonwort (Botrychium montanum) There are five documented populations of this species in the planning area (Figure 1). None of these populations have been visited since their original discovery in 1992 and 1993. This species tends to occur in wet meadows, wet spruce forests, and in the transition zone areas between wet meadows and the adjacent forest. This species is very tiny (<3 inches tall) and difficult to find. It is highly likely that there are additional undiscovered populations of this species (and other moonworts) in the project area.
Russett sedge (Carex saxatilis) Russett sedge is documented in one population in the southwestern portion of the planning area. This species grows in fens, bogs, lakeshores, wet tundra, roadside ditches, ponds, and slow moving streams; often in shallow water. It is always found at high elevations.
Sticky paintbrush (Castilleja viscidula) A small population of this species is documented in the southern portion of the planning area. It is also found on the slopes of Mt. Ireland just north of the planning area (Figure 2). Additional undocumented populations of this plant have also been observed in the Vinegar Hill area, in the southwestern portion of the project area (Brooks and Darrach, June 2016). This species occurs in subalpine open rocky areas that are generally dominated by mountain big sagebrush. Although no new populations of this species were found during field surveys for this project, there may be additional undiscovered populations of this species in high elevation portions of the planning area.
14 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Great mountain flapwort (Harpanthus flotovianus) The great mountain flapwort is a liverwort that grows in bogs and fens; mostly on humus, soil covered rocks, and decaying wood in forests. The site on Umatilla NF is in a sub-alpine meadow. There is one small population in the southwestern portion of the project area.
Northern twayblade (Listera borealis) One population of northern twayblade has been documented in the southern portion of the project area. It occurs mostly at moderate elevations, in moist, rich humus of mossy coniferous forest, swamps, often along cold streams, in acidic soils. Most known sites are in older forests. Associated tree species include spruce, true firs, and Doug fir. This is a tiny species that can only be identified when it is in bloom. It is highly probable that there may be additional undiscovered populations of this species in the project area. Most sites would be within riparian conservation habitat areas.
Gillman’s paw-wort (Lophozia gillmanii) Gillman’s paw-wort is a tiny liverwort that has been documented in two locations within the southern portion of the project area. It is found on peaty soils in fens, or on mossy wet cliffs or ledges. It also occurs on bare banks and rocks by streams. It is generally reported to occur on calcareous or basic soils, but on mixed grained sediments or mixed lithologies in Blue Mountains. It is possible that there are additional populations of this species in the high elevation southwestern portion of the project area.
Bridge’s cliffbrake (Pellaea bridgesii) Bridge’s cliffbrake is documented, directly south of the planning area on the Wallowa-Whitman NF (Figure 5). There is also a population in the southern portion of the planning area. Bridge’s cliffbrake occurs on rocky slopes and cliffs, scree, talus slopes, often on granitic substrates. In the Wallowa and Blue Mountains it is usually found on southern exposures on argillite rocks. There may be additional undiscovered populations in the planning area.
15 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Table 5 FS Sensitive plant populations documented in planning area
Species NRM Database ID # Last Visit Legal Location Proposed Activities
0614050736 7/23/1992 T9S R34E S11 0614050738 8/18/1993 T9S R34E S2 Fire Unit 517 Botrychium 0614050739 8/18/1993 T9S R34E S2 montanum 0614050740 8/18/1993 T9S R34E S2 Fire Unit 581 0614050741 8/26/1993 T9S R34E S13 Roadside FW/CT- Unit 60 Carex 0614051062 0814/2012 T10S R34E S2 saxatilis
Castilleja 061631ECO8508 07/28/1994 T8S R36E S29 viscidula (ORBIC record)
Harpanthus 0612051030 07/14/2006 T9S R34E S28 flotovianus No activities proposed Southern margin of planning area Listera 0614051057 08/15/2012 T10S R35E S7 borealis
Lophozia 0614051029 07/14/2006 T9S R34E S33 gilmannii 0614051044 08/14/2012 T10S R34E S2
Pellaea 061609088 08/23/1990 T10S R35E S11 & 14 bridgesii 0614050875 06/262003 T9S R34E S28
Documented strategic and Umatilla NF species of scientific interest The species discussed below include Region Six designated strategic species that are documented in the project area. These are species for which there is currently not enough information to be able to determine if they below on the Region Six sensitive plant list. Also discussed here are species that botanists on the Umatilla NF have determined merit documentation and tracking due to local conservation concerns, and/or because they are too newly discovered to be included on the current Region Six sensitive or strategic lists. The Wallowa-Whitman does not track any plant species of local scientific or conservation concern (G. Yates, personal communication September 1, 2016).
Rattlesnake fern (Botrypus virginianum) This species is included as a Umatilla NF species of scientific interest due to its rarity on the Umatilla National Forest. The species is known from several populations on the Wallowa-Whitman and Malheur National Forests. Is has been recorded only twice before on the Umatilla National Forest. The species was encountered three times in small fens under dense forest canopy in co-occurrence with Blandow’s feather- moss (Elodium blandowii) (Fig 1). A total of 14 non-reproductive plants were found at this site.
Long-bearded mariposa lily (Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus) Long-bearded mariposa lily was removed from the Region Six sensitive list prior to 2004 due to it being relatively common on the LaGrande District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, as well as documented at many sites in south central Oregon. However, it is apparently quite rare on the Umatilla National Forest. This species was found as a linear population of approximately 150 plants along the margins of a seasonally wet meadow just to the west of Lake Creek (Figure 1). This species has been
16 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
found twice previously on the Umatilla National Forest, but the locations are poorly documented. The meadow in which it is located is slated for a landscape-scale prescribed burn. The population is not considered to be under threat from this activity.
Blandow’s feather moss (Elodium blandowii)-This formerly sensitive species (delisted in 2015) is present at several sites within and adjacent to the planning area. It is most typically restricted to groundwater dependent fens. The species is known from a cluster of populations around Olive Lake and a few sites on the Wallowa-Whitman NF portion of the project area (Figures. 3and 4). Four separate small sites were encountered while conducting surveys in August of 2015 (Figure 1).
Spider biscuit-root (Lomatium tarantularioides)- This newly described species is only known to occur on the Umatilla NF. It grows in very scabby, open areas with an underlying serpentine rock type. There are two documented populations in the project area. No activities are planned in these locations.
Darrach’s cinquefoil (“Potentilla darrachii”)-This newly discovered species that has not yet been published in a scientific journal. It occurs in high elevation sites, in open area. It is documented in the southwestern portion of the project area. No activities area planned in this area, or other potential habitat
Tomentypnum moss (Tomentypnum nitens)-This formerly sensitive moss species (delisted as of July 2015) is documented near Mahoney Meadows on the Wallowa-Whitman portion of the planning area (Figure 4). The species is found in wet fen settings.
Felwort (Swertia perennis)-Felwort was just added to the R6 strategic list in 2015. This species grows in mid to high elevation wetlands and fens. There is one population of this species in the southwestern portion of the planning area. No activities are proposed in this area.
17 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Table 6 FS Strategic and Umatilla plant species of scientific interest
NRM Database Species Last Visit Location Proposed Activities ID #
Fire Unit 533 Botrypus Not entered in 08/19/2015 T9S R34E S11 CT/NCT Ground based logging; virginianus NRM peripheral to Unit 192 Calochortus Fire Unit 533 Not entered in longebarbatus 08/19/2015 T9S R34E S2 CT/NCT Ground-based Logging NRM longebarbatus Unit 192 Fire Unit 581 0614051041 09/28/2010 T9S R34E S15 Roadside/FW/NCT/CT Ground/skyline Unit 59 T9S R34E S15 0614041042 09/28/2010 No activities & 22 T9S R34E S 22 0614051043 09/28/2010 No Activities & 27 Elodium 0614051046 08/16/2012 T9S R34E S2 Fire Unit 517 blandowii 0614051047 08/17/2012 T9s R34E S15 No Activities 0614051048 08/27/2012 T9S R34E S23 No Activities 0614051058 08/18/2015 T9S R34E S11 Adjacent to 170R, Fire Unit 533 0614051059 CT/NCT Ground Based Unit 192 0614051060 08/20/2015 T8S R34E S33 Fire Unit 533 CT/NCT Ground Based Unit 195 0616010001 08/11/2014 T9S R36E S21 Fire Unit 578 CT/NCT Ground Based Unit 38 Lomatium 0616051061 07/25/2014 T10S R35E S8 No activities tarantularioides 0616051063 0725/2014 T10S R35E S33 “Potentilla Not entered in unknown T10S R35E S7 No activities darrachii” NRM Tomentypnum 0616010002 08/12/2014 T9S R36E S19 Fire Unit 578 nitens RHCA NCT Unit 42R 0614051056 08/15/2012 T10S R35E S 33 Swertia perennis No activities
18 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Locations of sensitive and Umatilla NF species of local concern
Figure 1 Sensitive and Umatilla NF species of local concern near Olive Lake
Figure 2: Sensitive species near Mt. Ireland
19 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Figure 3: Umatilla NF species of local concern near O'Rouick spring
Figure 4: Umatilla NF species of local scientific interest on Wallowa-Whitman NF
20 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Figure 5: Sensitive plant species adjacent to project area on Wallowa-Whitman NF Sensitive plant habitat in the project area The wide-ranging elevation and precipitation zones of the Umatilla National Forest support a wide diversity of plant species and communities. This diversity includes wet to dry grasslands, sagebrush dominated steppe, wet meadows and diverse riparian areas. Trees adapted to various moisture and temperature regimes define the various forest habitat types. Virtually every habitat may potentially support one or more Forest Service sensitive plant species. Presented below is a general discussion of these habitats is. It is not practical to try to quantify how many acres of each habitat type are in the project area. Each sensitive plant species has been assigned to one or more of these habitat types.
Owing to the large number of potential TES plant species that may be found within the project area, it is efficient to talk about the broad habitat types (and indirectly the species that occur in those habitat types) most likely to be encountered within the area. For this analysis, plant communities and special habitats are grouped into broad habitat associations. Only the potential vegetation groups present within the planning area are included in the following discussion.
Each sensitive plant species has been assigned to one, or more, of each of the described habitat groups. It is assumed for the purposes of the effects analysis that all plants growing in a particular habitat would have similar responses to activities. If there are specific cases that are different, they will be discussed individually. Potential project impacts will be discussed in regards to the habitat type affected. Sensitive plant species documented in the project planning area are discussed individually.
Most areas that do not support trees are described simply as “non-forested” or “shrubland” in the Forest Service existing vegetation database, and associated GIS layers. There is generally no further distinction for various shrub and grassland types. Due to this generalization, it is not possible to quantify how many acres of various non-forested habitat types are present in the project planning area. Habitat types that occur in the project planning area that conform to the potential vegetation classification system will be briefly discussed, as will special habitats that are not covered by the classification system (e.g. fens).
21 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Non-forested dry upland communities
Subalpine areas The entire southwestern portion of the planning area supports the majority of sub-alpine habitat on the Umatilla National Forest. For this discussion, this habitat type includes all areas above approximately 7,000 feet. This includes open shrublands (mostly mountain big sage), and dry grassland communities, high elevation wet meadows, fens, and riparian areas. Subalpine plant communities also include forested areas dominated by whitebark pine and subalpine fir. The majority of the rare plants that occur in the project area are in these communities. These include the federal candidate whitebark pine, as well as the russet sedge, sticky paintbrush, Gillman’s paw-wort, great mountain flapwort, and Bridge’s cliffbrake. This habitat type in the project area includes many acres of serpentine derived soils. This soil type has a high potential to support unusual plant species.
Low to moderate elevation cliffs, rock outcrops, and talus Cliffs, rock outcrops and talus present xeric growing conditions where very few plants are able to survive; those that do tend to be quite specialized. Owing to its limited extent, this specialized habitat type is not discussed in the potential vegetation hierarchy for the Blue Mountains. This community type is extremely limited in this project planning area, but is present in isolated locales – often under forest canopy. There are a few sensitive plants that occur in this habitat type. Several of them are further restricted to specific, rock types, such as limestone, argillite or serpentine / peridotite.
Lithosols and grasslands Lithosols, are habitats with very shallow rocky soils underlain by either volcanic rocks or, in this planning area, serpentine. They are very limited in spatial extent within the planning area. The large majority of these areas are confined to the far western portion of the planning area near Rabbit Butte just north of Olive Lake on the Umatilla N.F. They are not within any of the planned mechanical treatment units. These ‘scabland’ sites are characterized by soils that tend to be at least partially saturated following spring snow melt. They dessicate quickly as they are exposed to full sun for the entire growing season. Plants adapted to this harsh environment usually bloom and fruit early in the growing season. Basalt underlain lithosols can be found in the dry upland shrubland and the dry upland herbland potential vegetation groups. Serpentine lithosols are sufficiently rare in the region that they have never been classified in a potential vegetation context. Lithosols are often found as small inclusions within a larger matrix of grassland, shrubland and forest. Given their low productivity and spotty fuel connectivity these habitats have historically burned infrequently at low intensities. Plant species that grow in these settings are in general not fire adapted. With the notable exception of serpentine lithosol sites these habitats are rapidly changing region-wide with the introduction of the invasive annual grass North Africa grass (Ventenata dubia). This species, by filling in the unoccupied niche gaps in lithosol communities has greatly increased fuel loading on lithosols. Recent hot fires across these habitats accentuate the growing concern that unique botanical resources are under a greatly increased risk. Lithosol sites, particularly those with serpentine substrates harbor a significant suite of rare plants throughout the region.
Upland forested plant communities Forested plant communities on the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest are overwhelmingly dominated by conifers. Potential vegetation groups (PVG’s) are described as they occur along a temperature and moisture regime spectrum. Although these communities are discussed separately here, effects from project activities will be discussed collectively in terms of potential impacts to the four larger groups: upland coniferous forests, upland woodlands, warm riparian (deciduous) forests, and cold riparian forests.
22 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Cold upland coniferous forest Cold upland forests in the planning area are characterized in the project area largely as stands with lodgepole pine and subdominant western larch as the “climax” conifers even though they truly represent an arrested succession trajectory. Subalpine fir dominated areas are also present in very limited acreages, and white bark pine forests in the highest and coldest areas are not represented in the southern portions of the planning area. The subordinate plant association groups (PAG) within the Cold Upland PVG are the Cool Dry, Cold Dry, and Cold Moist upland forest types. The dominant shrub species are grouse whortleberry (Vaccinium scoparium) and pinemat manzanita (Arctostaphylos nevadensis) with subordinate buffalo berry (Shepherdia canadensis), pipsissewa (Chimaphila umbellatum), mountain lover (Paxistima myrsinites), sidebells pyrola (Orthilia secunda) and currant (Ribes sp.).
This PVG is a co-dominant forest type in the project planning area with a total of 40 vegetation treatment units designated within this vegetation type. Most of these areas are slated for commercial thinning and small-tree thinning with ground (tractor) based systems and subordinate skyline logging systems prevailing. In general plant biodiversity (both vascular and non-vascular) is quite low in this PVG.
Moist upland coniferous forest The moist upland forest PVG type includes the Warm Moist, Cool Moist, to Cool Wet PAG’s. The dominant climax species of trees in these areas range from Douglas-fir in warmer sites, to grand fir in moist areas, to lodge pole pine, in co-dominance with grand fir, at higher elevation cooler areas. Within the area, the dominant shrub in these areas is big huckleberry. Moist site dominant indicator forbs prominent include twin-flower (Linnaea borealis), queen’s cup bead-lily (Clintonia uniflora), and heartleaf arnica (Arnica cordifolia). Throughout the Blue Mountain ecoregion this PVG has typically incurred the heaviest alteration due to timber harvest and fire suppression. This PVG is scattered throughout the project planning area with most of the units on the Umatilla N.F. portion of the project. Many of these areas are slated for commercial thinning and non-commercial thinning with ground (tractor) based systems and subordinate skyline logging systems on those sites with steeper slopes. In general plant biodiversity is moderate in this PVG.
Dry upland coniferous forest The dry upland forest PVG includes the Hot-Dry, and Warm-Dry PAG’s. These PAG’s are found on xeric southerly aspect slopes and on gently-sloping sites. True Hot-Dry PAG’s with a ponderosa pine climax were not observed within the planned project harvesting units.
Warm-Dry forest vegetation PAG types include plant associations with the dominant climax conifer ranging from ponderosa pine, through the entire Douglas-fir series, to the xeric portions of the grand fir series. This PAG is well-represented. The understory in these areas is often dominated by low shrubs such as common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), pinemat manzanita, and birch-leaf spiraea (Spiraea betulifolia). Prominent graminoids found in these areas are pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens), western fescue (Festuca occidentalis), Ross’s sedge (Carex rossii), and Geyer’s sedge (Carex geyeri). These plant communities represent the areas that were historically heavily logged. Most of the large old non-defect ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir have been removed. Signs of old harvest are common throughout the area, with scattered rotted old-growth stumps a common sight. Fire exclusion has facilitated the growth of relatively thick stands of younger trees in many areas in this PAG, and much of the increased wildfire risk is centered in vegetation types within the PAG. There are relatively few sensitive plant species that are suspected to occur in these areas. Most of the sensitive plants / plants of local conservation concern that may be found in these dry forest types are those that rely on deep organic duff, or slightly moister sites within the broader area. The dry upland coniferous forest type is very common in the planning area with a total of 39 treatment units planned in this PAG.
23 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Aquatic and riparian-dependent communities Aquatic and riparian habitats are collectively defined by high soil moisture and/or running water. There are several significantly different aquatic and riparian plant communities on the Forest. They are described in detail below. These wetland and riparian areas provide important habitat for many of the sensitive plants on the forest. Because the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National forest plans, as amended, provide a similar management framework of these habitats as Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), the effects to species dependent upon these habitats will be addressed together in the effects analysis.
Subalpine wetland and riparian areas Subalpine wetland and riparian areas occur at higher elevations; consequently, they typically experience deep snow accumulations and tend to remain wet late into the summer. The growing season is also shortened. Wet subalpine shrub communities are included in the cold riparian shrub group. Herb, grass, and sedge dominated communities are included in the cold riparian herb group. Some of the wetland associated sensitive plant species that are found at lower elevations are also found at these higher elevations. In addition, there are numerous species that are only found at higher elevations. There are a few mapped polygons of the cold riparian shrub and herb groups in the project planning area, but they are not in planned treatment areas. Most of the documented sensitive plant species in the project area are in this habitat type.
Warm riparian forest (Aspen, Cottonwood) and shrublands Aspen and cottonwood communities are included within the Warm Riparian Forest potential vegetation group. In the planning area, nearly all of the vegetation that falls into this category occurs as very discontinuous stringers and patches along streams and intermittently wet draws. On the area of the Umatilla N.F. that was investigated none appear to fall within planned mechanical treatment units. The fire frequency interval has not been established for the Warm riparian forest potential vegetation group; although recent research indicates that the return interval in riparian areas is very similar to the adjacent uplands. Findings documented in the Status for the Interior Columbia Basin Summary of Scientific Findings (USDA Forest Service 1996) show that fire exclusion has resulted in declines in aspen communities within the Interior Columbia Basin. This has largely resulted from conifers competing with the aspen. Ungulate grazing has also altered the reproductive and growth cycles of both aspen and cottonwoods. There is no current cattle grazing in the project area, but there are significant populations of native deer and elk in the area that are undoubtedly impacting the young trees and shrubs in this habitat.
Warm riparian shrublands are typically found in narrow bands along streams and around wetlands. They often are found as understory with conifers growing in the adjacent uplands. Shrubs that are typical of this vegetation group in the area include mountain alder (Alnus incana), water birch (Betula occidentalis), and various willow species (Salix sp.). In addition, lower-growing shrubs such as currants (Ribes sp.), choke- cherry (Prunus virginiana), mock orange (Philadelphus lewisii) and red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) are often associated with these areas. The stream banks are often populated with a range of sedges (Carex sp.) and grasses. The introduced invasive species Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) has successfully colonized many of these areas.
Some aspen occur on the forest in isolated patches within much drier surrounding forest. Most aspen in the project area is found within these isolated patches. The understory plants in these areas are indicative more of the surrounding dry forest than those found in typical riparian plant communities. The more upland stands of aspen with conifer encroachment are the ones that are often targeted for restoration. Sensitive plants are more likely to occur in the wetter areas that support aspen and cottonwood. Aspen stands are usually well-delineated in the GIS system. Other warm riparian forest and shrub types are generally not as well documented in the Forest Service vegetation database. They can generally be identified by their association with the stream layers.
24 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Fens Fens are at type of wetland that is defined by the accumulation of partially decayed plant matter with moisture provided by persistent groundwater flow. Peat accumulates under saturated conditions where there is little oxygen to facilitate decomposition. Fens tend to form long-term stable distinctive and unique plant communities that are self-perpetuating in the absence of disturbance. Fens are the primary type of peatland in the Blue Mountains, and support relatively rich, marsh-like vegetation. The combination of habitat rarity, stability, and extreme conditions in peatlands supports a distinctive flora with high concentrations of rare species. Peatlands are moderately common on the Umatilla and Wallow- Whitman National Forests with many present in the project area. There are several documented populations of sensitive and unusual mosses, sedges and vascular plants in fens within and closely peripheral to the area (Figs. 1-4). Fen community types are generally not mapped as separate elements on Forest Service vegetation GIS layers. They are often identified on National Wetlands Inventory maps as freshwater emergent wetlands and can sometimes be correlated in soil GIS layers with hydric soil types. The one formerly sensitive moss species – Elodium blandowii – and the one vascular plant of local conservation concern – Botrypus virginianus – that is documented in the project planning area are found in small fens under forest canopy.
Springs and Seeps Springs are points where groundwater emerges and flows. Groundwater also feeds seeps, but seeps do not produce perennial flow beyond intermittent dripping. Springs and seeps are typically small, and well distributed throughout the planning area. Many springs are mapped on forest GIS layers, but many are missing on the coverage as well. Seeps are generally poorly documented on the forest. Seeps and springs are often developed for cattle watering troughs. Historically, many of these areas have been dewatered and/or trampled due to these developments. Many developed springs now have fences to protect the water source. These areas provide important habitat for several sensitive plant species, most notably several species of mosses and liverworts. There are both mapped, and unmapped, springs and seeps in this project planning area. None of the springs and seeps encountered while surveying Umatilla N.F. holdings on this project were developed, as the area is not actively grazed. However, during botanical surveys, some of these areas were noted as disturbed by elk usage.
Intermittent and Perennial Streams Intermittent streams are channelized areas with some scouring evident where water only runs part of the year. Most of the water in these streams is directly tied to snowmelt runoff, but some may have perennial springs, seeps and fens in their headwaters. These areas are classified as category 4 for riparian management standards and objectives (PACFISH). Perennial streams are channelized areas where water flows all year long. These areas are classified as stream category 1 (fish-bearing) or stream category 2 (non-fish bearing). These habitat types are generally quite narrow with riparian influenced vegetation typically extending upslope less than 100 feet above the active stream course. In gently sloping areas riparian areas may transition into moist and wet meadow types. Stream courses on most portions of the forest are dominated by trees. The potential vegetative groups in the forested areas have been described above, under riparian forest types.
This habitat type supports many sensitive plant species in the Blue Mountains. Riparian areas have high evapotranspiration and attendant high humidity and are sites which provide excellent habitat for non- vascular plants (mosses, liverworts), and lichens. Consequently, many rare non-vascular plants are found in riparian areas. Several sensitive plant species are found in the transition zone between the riparian zones and the surrounding uplands. Riparian areas are delineated in GIS layers as Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA’s) and have buffer logging. Prescribed fire is still allowed in these areas in some cases.
25 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Moist and Wet Meadows Moist meadows are typically saturated in the spring, but by mid to late summer the water table has fallen below the soil surface. Wet meadows are saturated throughout the growing season with the water table at or slightly below the soil surface. Shallow subsurface confining layers – typically devitrified silicic volcanic ash in the Blue Mountains ecoregion – are the primary factor influencing their formation. For riparian management and mapping in GIS, the wet meadow areas greater than 1 acre are placed in PACFISH stream category 3, those less than 1 acre are placed in PACFISH stream category 4. These areas are buffered from logging activities at 100 feet (as per PACFISH standards).
Potential vegetation groups included are the warm riparian herb, and the cool associations of the Cold Riparian Herb group. These meadow habitat types support many sensitive plant species throughout the Blue Mountain region. Most rare non-vascular plants are found in these habitat types. Several sensitive plant species are also found in the transition zone between the wet or moist meadows and the surrounding forest or otherwise drier areas.
Wet and moist meadow systems are scattered throughout the planning area. They represent a significant portion of the overall project, but of the area intensively surveyed they are largely relegated to an area along Lake Creek on the portion of the Umatilla N.F. The Umatilla NF local species of scientific interest long bearded mariposa lily (Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus) has been documented in this small meadow complex, and populations of the R6 sensitive species mountain moonwort (Botrychium montanum) are documented nearby (Figure. 1).
Environmental Consequences Issues addressed and indicators for assessing effects All sensitive species that are documented in the project planning area are discussed individually. Effects calls are made for all sensitive plant species that are documented or suspected on the Oregon portion of the Umatilla NF (which also is inclusive of all potential sensitive species on the Wallowa-Whitman portion of the planning area). The existing condition of documented strategic species, and Umatilla NF species of scientific interest were discussed in the affected environment section above. As per Forest Service direction, analysis and effects calls are not made in this document for strategic or Umatilla NF species of scientific interest. In order to discuss potential impacts to sensitive plant habitat, the following analysis is largely based upon potential impacts to various habitat types. It is assumed that all plants growing in a particular habitat would have similar responses to project activities. Table 1, Resource indicators and measures in the topics and issues addressed section of this document, displays the quantitative resource indicators and measures used to analyze botanical resources. Alternative 1 – No-Action Alternative 1, The No Action Alternative does not propose any new activities in the project planning area. By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No-Action Alternative. Therefore, if the No Action Alternative is selected, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to sensitive plant populations, or potential habitat. If Alternative 1 is selected, it would lead to an effects call of “No Effect (NE)” for any Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species (including whitebark pine), and “No Impact (NI)” for all sensitive plant species.
26 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 2 was designed to address the purpose and need of the project. The Forest Service proposes roadside treatments, small diameter thinning and commercial thinning (up to 21inches in diameter at breast height), mechanical fuels reduction, riparian habitat conservation treatment, prescribed burning, and prescribed fire in wilderness to address the purpose and need of the project. These treatments, with the exception of some prescribed burning, are within 1.5 miles of identified values at risk (cities of Granite and Greenhorn, private inholdings/structures, ingress and egress routes) with most of the treatments occurring within 0.25 miles of the values at risk. For details, see the associated environmental analysis.
Project design criteria Project design criteria (PDC’s) and best management practices are part of the proposed action. The objectives for all the project design criteria for botany are to provide protection for sensitive plant populations and unique habitats where they occur. Additional objectives include to provide protection to sensitive wetland and other habitats that can be damaged by ground disturbance. Several other PDCs to protect soil, water, and wildlife resources will also inherently help to protect rare plant resources. See the environmental analysis for a complete listing of the PDCs.
27 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Table 7 Botany project design criteria Regulatory Project Design Criteria Applies To Guidance
BOT-1 Vegetation Forest Service Manual Populations of Forest Service designated sensitive plant species and plant Management Units 38, 2610.2 species of local conservation concern that are in, or near, areas with 42R, 59, 60, 170R, 192, proposed ground disturbing activities shall be designated as “Areas To 195 Umatilla N.F. Standard Protect” (ATPs). These sites shall be buffered and protected from all ground Chapter 4-64 of 1990 disturbances. Vehicle and equipment parking, log decking, yarding, slash Prescribed Fire Units: forest planning document piling and burning, and construction of fire lines shall be prohibited within 517, 533, 578, 581 these areas. ATPs shall be clearly marked on sale maps, and on Wallowa-Whitman N.F. implementation planning maps. ATPs may be flagged on the ground prior to Standard Chapter 4-1, 4- treatment. A botanist may assist with unit layout in areas where the ATPs 30 occur. Aerial, hand, or vehicle-based fire ignition in areas with populations of plants of conservation occur may be done in consultation with a botanist. This would depend upon the particular species expected response to fire.
Any additional populations of plant species of conservation concern discovered during field surveys shall be evaluated for the need to be designated as ATPs.
Timber sale administrator and/or implementing staff shall notify botany staff when activities are scheduled to begin in areas where ATPs are designated. BOT-2 Pre-implementation monitoring of selected high probability habitats Areas to be determined for sensitive plants shall be conducted in specific areas of proposed as activities are planned activities. Fuels-1 Landscape burning shall be conducted during the fall burn window. Portions of the planning Umatilla N.F. Standard In areas dominated by subalpine fir, where feasible, prescribed burn blocks area that harbor Chapter 4-64 of 1990 will be reduced in size to allow for creation of a smaller scale mosaic pattern significant populations forest planning document that serves as a mitigating measure for the loss of subalpine fir. of subalpine fir that are Wallowa-Whitman N.F. slated for prescribed Goal Chapter 4-1 of 1990 burn treatment. forest planning document Fuels-2 When slash piles are planned for burning, each of these pile All burn pile locations will be documented with a GPS waypoint. Those waypoints will in turn be communicated to both the botany program and to the district weed coordinator(s) for subsequent monitoring and potential treatment should infestations occur at these susceptible sites. WL-13 Protect unique habitats: lithosols (scablands), seeps, springs, Umatilla N.F. Desired wallows, and wetland areas including wet meadows) from harvest activities. Future Condition Wildlife Buffer these areas a minimum of 100 feet from vegetative treatment Goal Chapter 4-6 All unique and special activities. Man-made ponds without spring influence would be buffered 50 Umatilla N.F. habitats. feet from harvest activities. Wetlands and ponds greater than 1 acre would Management Goals Lithosol areas include be buffered 150 foot from the edge of the wetland. Log decking, piling, and Chapter 4-2 areas adjacent to burning of slash piles shall not occur in these areas. If caves, cliff faces, or Wallowa-Whitman N.F. vegetation units 193- other unique habitats not listed above are encountered during recon or Standard Chapter 4-42 195 (Chrome and layout, their value to wildlife ad botany would be evaluated, and appropriate O’Rouick spring areas). protection, as determined by the District Wildlife Biologist and botanist, would be provided.
WQ-1 There will be no mechanized entry for vegetation management in Units Include: 1R-245R RHCAs. Handwork only would occur within the outer halves of the buffer widths in RHCAs. These treatments may include non-commercial thinning, pruning, and ladder fuel removal. WQ-6 (in part): Avoid ground equipment operations (including ATV and All wet areas both Wallowa-Whitman N.F. truck driving and parking) on unstable, wet or easily compacted soils and within and adjacent to Watershed Management steep slopes as described per Umatilla Forest Plan (USDA, 1990). harvest units Standard 17, Chapter 4-24 Umatilla N.F. Timber Management Species Diversity Standard 3, Chapter 4-71
28 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Potential Effects to Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants Whitebark pine is a federal candidate for listing. The southwestern portion of the project area has substantial stands of whitebark pine. In addition, the species is documented just north of the far eastern boundary of the project planning area (Fig. 2). It is also likely that there may be undocumented, isolated trees in the planning area. The reason that this species is a candidate for federal listing is due to concerns regarding its decline throughout most of its range due to a combination of white pine blister rust, and mountain pine beetle infestations (Logan et al. 2010). Climate-change driven temperature rise is a closely- related concern that is considered likely to result in encroachment of other conifers into the preferred habitat of whitebark pine. Since the species mostly occurs already at the highest elevations areas in the Blue Mountains, there is no opportunity for the trees to migrate to higher elevations.
The presence of large undocumented stands of the whitebark pine within the planning area is considered very unlikely. However, if whitebark pine individuals are found at a later date in proposed activity areas, they will be identified as “areas to protect” as outlined in the project design criteria. The trees will be buffered 100 feet from ground disturbing project activities. The species is not fire resistant (USFS Fire effects information system). This is especially true of young establishing trees. For this reason, if any trees are discovered, the populations will (to the extent possible) be excluded from burning activities.
There are no proposed activities in the areas where whitebark pine is documented in the project area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed action should have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on whitebark pine Therefore, implementation of this alternative will have “no effect (NE)” to whitebark pine in the project area.
Direct and indirect effects-documented sensitive plant populations All documented sensitive plant populations will designated as “areas to protect” on all implementation documents, and will be buffered from all ground disturbing activities. Populations will be buffered from ground disturbing activities during project layout. Only effects specific to those species known to occur within the planning area, or closely adjacent to it, are presented below. For species that have no known populations in the planning area, the effects calls are based upon potential impacts to their respective habitats. See Appendix A for the complete list of sensitive species and their associated effects calls.
Mountain moonwort All five populations of the mountain moonwort are in fire prescription units 517 or 581. These are areas where no landscape burning is proposed in alternative 2. Element occurrence #0614050741 is within cutting unit 60, where firewood cutting, small-diameter thinning, and commercial thinning are proposed. The population will be designated as an area to protect and a 100 foot buffer from ground based activities will be implemented. This buffering should be sufficient to protect this population from the cutting activities. Therefore, with the project design criteria, there should be “No impact (NI) to the documented populations of mountain moonwort in the project area.
It is possible that undiscovered populations of Mountain moonwort may occur in areas of proposed logging and burning. This species tends to occur in moist to wet meadows and riparian areas. PDCs that minimize impacts to riparian areas should help to prevent negative impacts to any of these undiscovered populations. There are several other sensitive moonwort species that also are found in similar riparian and wetland habitats.
A discussion with Botrychium expert Dr. Don Farrar at Iowa State University (M. Darrach, personal communication, November 10, 2015) regarding the potential impacts of fire on Botrychiums is paraphrased as follows:
29 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
“It is suspected that Botrychium montanum, and other [Botrychium] species of mesic sites have survived fire in their evolutionary past. The most important consideration may be how hot and how quickly the fire moves. If significant heat does not penetrate more than a few centimeters into the substrate, the plants should be okay. Our studies have indicated that the seasonal loss of above-ground leaves does not harm the underground [portions] of the plants. In fact, some studies have found that leaves produced in the following year are larger and more robust. My one recommendation would be that the management team find a way to avoid burning a segment of the population – perhaps by wetting it down prior to the burn – so that you can monitor the effects and use this information in future management.”
Landscape scale burning will be implemented in the planning area during the fall burn window (most probably October) when ambient humidity levels are relatively high and temperatures are low. It is considered very unlikely that a controlled burn will create sufficient radiant heat to damage any below- ground Botrychium parts. Indeed it seems rather unlikely that fire will carry to any significant extent through the generally wet habitats preferred by mountain moonwort and other sensitive Botrychium species.
Indirect effects upon sensitive Botrychium species are not well-defined. Removal of overstory tree canopy will allow more light to reach the forest floor. This may be a contributing factor to both accelerated desiccation of plants earlier in the growing season, and possibly also to increased competitive interactions with other plants. Conversely, the creation of bare soil may provide a good site for spore dispersal and germination, and may actually reduce competition from other species.
The effects call for undocumented populations of mountain moonwort and all other sensitive Botrychium species is “May impact individuals and habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH)”.
Russett sedge (Carex saxatilis) The russet sedge is found only in high elevation wet meadows. There are no activities proposed near the documented population of this species in the project area. In addition, there are no activities proposed in any potential habitat for the species in the project area. Therefore, implementation of Alternative two would have “no impact (NI)” to the documented population or any potential habitat.
Sticky paintbrush (Castilleja viscidula) The sticky paintbrush is found only in high elevation dry, rocky habitats. There are no activities proposed near the documented population of this species in the project area. In addition, there are no activities proposed in any potential habitat for the species in the project area. Therefore, implementation of Alternative two would have “no impact (NI)” to the documented population or any potential habitat.
Great mountain flapwort (Harpanthus flotvianus) and Gillman’s paw-wort (Lophozia gillmanii) There are no project activities proposed near the populations of great mountain flapwort and Gillman’s pawwort in the project area. Both of these species are found at moderately high elevation in wetland and riparian settings. Therefore, there will be “no impact (NI)” to the documented populations due to the implementation of alternative two. There is additional potential habitat for this species in many riparian areas, including areas proposed for riparian habitat conservation area thinning and burning. The PDCs that will reduce impacts to riparian areas would help to reduce the chance of negative impacts to undiscovered populations of these species. Even with proper implementation of the PDCs, there is a small chance that negative impacts could occur to undiscovered populations of great mountain flapwort and Gillman’s pawwort. For this reason, the call for potential undocumented populations of these species is “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH)”.
30 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Northern twayblade (Listera borealis) Northern twayblade is found in riparian areas, moist spruce forests, and along the edges of wet meadows. Ground disturbance from heavy equipment could potentially directly impact plants by destroying the plants and could indirectly impact the plants by opening up the canopy, changing water holding capacity of the soil, and the introduction of non-native invasive species (especially Canada thistle). Burning of piles directly on top of plants would probably kill them. The one known population is in an area where no activities are planned under alternative two. Therefore, there will be no impact (NI) to this particular population from implementation of this alternative. There is additional potential habitat for this species in many riparian areas, including areas proposed for riparian habitat conservation area thinning and burning. The PDCs that will reduce impacts to riparian areas would help to reduce the chance of negative impacts to undiscovered populations of this species. Even with the PDCs identified, there is a small chance that negative impacts could occur to undiscovered populations of the northern twayblade. For this reason, the call for potential undocumented populations of northern twayblade is “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH)”.
Bridge’s cliffbrake (Pellaea bridgesii) Bridge’s cliffbrake is known from one population in the southwestern portion of the project area, and also directly south of the planning area on the Wallowa-Whitman NF. This species is restricted to very rocky sites, and most typically, grows out of cliff faces, or between rocks. Project design features specifically restrict any project-related activities from occurring in these areas and a 100 foot buffer is required. Due to the very rocky habitat and deep seated roots into the rock areas, it is unlikely that fire will negatively impact any populations. Informal monitoring of a burned population on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest demonstrated that over 95% of the plants burned in a wildfire near Fish Lake in the 1990s survived the fire (P. Brooks, personal observations). There are no proposed activities near the documented populations of this species in the project area. Due to the protection buffers for logging, and the low probability of fire effects, it is expected that there will be no direct or indirect effects to any undiscovered populations of this species from implementation of alternative two. Therefore, the determination for this species is No impact (NI).
Direct and indirect effects to potential sensitive plant habitat
Potential impacts to subalpine plant communities Several of the documented sensitive plant species in the project area occur in subalpine plant communities. There is potential habitat for additional populations of these species, as well as additional subalpine affiliated species. There are no proposed activities in this habitat type. There would be no direct or indirect effects to this habitat type and any species that may occur there. Therefore, if alternative 2 is selected, the call for all species that are found only in subalpine habitats is “no impact (NI)”.
Potential impacts to low to moderate elevation cliffs, rock outcrops, and talus Very few human activities have potential for direct or indirect impacts to this habitat type. Due to the low fuel levels, prescribed fire generally does not burn in this habitat type,. The main activity that may impact this habitat type is rock quarrying, or road construction. The removal of rocks could directly kill plants by excavating them. Quarrying may potentially indirectly impact this habitat by exposing roots of plants that are not directly removed.
PDCs that protect “unique” and sensitive plant habitat would provide a high level of protection to these habitats. The PDC that states “Pre-implementation monitoring of selected high probability habitats for sensitive plants may be conducted in specific areas of proposed activities” would ensure that quarrying for road work does not impact undiscovered sensitive plants habitat. Because the PDCs would protect
31 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
cliffs, rock outcrops, and talus in the project planning area, the implementation of Alternative 2 should have “No Impact (NI)” to cliffs, rock outcrops, and talus habitats, or to any sensitive species that may occur there.
Potential impacts to lithosols and grasslands Since there are generally few trees in these habitat types, the main potential activity would be prescribed landscape scale burning. Since these habitats have low fuel loads, and prescribed burning is usually done under low intensity conditions, it is most likely that any fire would not kill most plants in these habitat types. In general, there is very little risk of detrimental impacts to these habitats due to prescribed burning. With the increase of the invasive non-native grasses such as cheat grass and North Africa grass, the dynamics related to burning of lithosols and grasslands may be changing. No specific data is available related to this situation for the project area. Road construction in these habitats may lead to detrimental direct effects such as plant excavation, and burial by dirt and gravel. Potential indirect effects of road construction include increased vehicle use on the new road and adjacent areas, increases in invasive plants, and changes in water movement across the landscape. Road decommissioning and building may be planned across limited areas in these habitat types. These areas with high potential habitat for sensitive plants may be surveyed for rare plants before project implementation.
PDCs that protect “unique” and sensitive plant habitat would provide a high level of protection to these habitats. The PDC that states “Pre-implementation monitoring of selected high probability habitats for sensitive plants may be conducted in specific areas of proposed activities” would ensure that road construction or decommissioning does not impact undiscovered populations of sensitive plants in this habitat. There is also a PDC that states that landings, grapple piles, and parking areas will not be allowed in these areas. Because the PDCs would protect lithosol, and grassland habitats in the project planning area, the implementation of Alternative 2 should have “No Impact (NI)” to lithosols, and grassland habitats, or to any sensitive species that may occur in these areas.
Potential impacts to upland forested plant communities Vegetation management actions that may have direct impacts to sensitive plants in upland coniferous forested habitats (cold, moist, and dry upland forests) include commercial and non-commercial thinning, biomass removal, and associated yarding, slash piling, grinding, or scattering, and application and control of prescribed fire. Potential detrimental direct impacts include the destruction of sensitive plants from ground disturbance associated with cutting of trees, yarding trees, piling slash, or scattering slash.
Prescribed fire or slash pile burning could scorch sensitive plant individuals within the fire area, and also may kill plants under and directly adjacent to slash piles. Fire line construction has the potential to directly kill or dislodge sensitive plants in the area that is denuded. Natural fire generally occurs in mid to late summer. Much of the prescribed fire of piles is done in spring or early summer. This is the time of year when plants are actively growing. It is unknown if burning sensitive plants when they are actively growing would cause more mortality than when they may be senescent later in the summer. Road maintenance, decommissioning, and new construction can directly kill or dislodge sensitive plants.
Indirect effects could result from altering the hydrologic regime and changing light intensity. Vegetation management may also alter the interaction of herbivores and plants. By opening up the canopy of the forest, grasses and other palatable plants may increase. This may in turn increase grazing activity in the treated areas. Conversely, logging created slash may impede travel by ungulates. Road work and new roads may also indirectly lead to an increase in grazing activity due to the increased ease of travel for animals on the roads. New and improved roads may also lead to increases in the amount of off-road driving to collect firewood, camp, and retrieve game. Road maintenance activities contribute to the movement of invasive species along road shoulders and ditches, and to and from quarry and waste disposal areas. Invasive species may potentially outcompete or prevent the recruitment of new sensitive
32 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
plant populations. PDCs are included that should help to reduce the chance of increasing invasive plant abundance in the project planning area. Closure of temporary roads and currently closed roads that would be reopened should help to reduce these impacts in the long-term. The risk would only occur during the time that the sale is active until the roads are reclosed, and or, decommissioned.
Many of the areas proposed for vegetation treatment activities were not specifically surveyed for this project. Therefore, it must be assumed that undiscovered populations of sensitive plant species may be impacted. Since most sensitive plant species occur in specific microhabitats, the probability that sensitive plant species may occur in the project planning area in these upland general forested habitats is relatively low. None of the sensitive plant species that may occur in coniferous forest habitats on the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests are extremely rare on a global scale.
Therefore, even if project activities may impact individual plants or habitat, implementation of this alternative should not increase the need for Federal listing of any sensitive species. Therefore, the determination of effects for forested communities, and any sensitive plants that may occur there, for the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) is “May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to populations of sensitive plant species (MIIH)”.
Potential impacts to aquatic and riparian dependent communities The mechanisms for direct and indirect effects to riparian dependent communities are similar as for upland coniferous forest communities. See the discussion above related to potential direct and indirect impacts to coniferous forest communities for details of similar potential effects to riparian communities.
To protect soil and water resources, most activities would be greatly restricted in riparian and wetland habitats. Many PDCs are included in the proposed project that would help to prevent ground disturbance due to logging, and detrimental impacts from prescribed fire in riparian dependent communities. PDCs would also limit the use of heavy equipment, log landings, and skidding in RHCAs. In addition, there would be no temporary road construction in RHCAs. These PDCs would provide important protection to sensitive plants that may occur in these habitats.
Most of the documented sensitive plant species in the project planning area occur in riparian dependent communities. Known populations of sensitive plant species would be buffered from all ground disturbing activities, and a botanist would be consulted before prescribed fire is implemented in these populations. Many of the botanical surveys conducted for this project focused on riparian dependent communities. However, not every acre of riparian dependent community was surveyed. Therefore, there may be undiscovered populations of sensitive plants in these areas.
None of the sensitive plant species that may occur in riparian dependent habitats is considered to be extremely rare on a global scale. Therefore, even if project activities may impact individual plants or habitat, implementation of this alternative should not increase the need for Federal listing of any sensitive species. Therefore, the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to populations of sensitive plant species (MIIH)” potentially found in aquatic and riparian dependent communities.
Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). The geographic scale considered for cumulative effects is the project planning area. This is due to the fact that most populations of plant species generally do not shift significantly across the landscape over relatively brief time frames. The time scale for this cumulative effects analysis covers the span from 1880,
33 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
coincident with when significant mining and sheep grazing began to alter the area, to 2045 – 30 years into the future. It is thought that the 30-year timeline into the future should account for the potential of increasing temperatures and reduced moisture that are expected to occur if climate change proceeds as predicted. With the exception of small-scale projects such as stream enhancements and local meadow restoration efforts, it seems likely that for the next 30 years that this project will be the only landscape- scale project implemented by the Forest Service in the area. If a large wildfire were to impact the area, is likely that danger tree and possible salvage operations might be implemented. These activities would add an element of added disturbance, possibly significantly so, to some of the planning area. This would be in addition to the effects of the fire itself.
It is highly likely that historical activities, particularly intensive cattle and sheep grazing, and timber harvest, mining activities, road construction, and fire suppression activities have destroyed populations, and altered habitats for sensitive plants. Since records of rare plant populations have only been kept for the last thirty years, historical effects are not quantifiable.
Changes in climate influence vegetation, water, and disturbance frequencies, and these changes, in turn, influence one another. A change in one aspect may cause a cascade of responses that in some cases counteract, and in others may magnify the initial change. Such interactions make prediction of the likely effects of climate change difficult at the scale of the analysis area even if the nature of climate change at the local scale were known. The nearly complete absence of long-term vegetation monitoring specifically targeted at establishing a climate-change leaves little room in a cumulative effects analysis for other than speculation.
At this point one can be certain that climate mediated changes will be, and clearly are, occurring at a broad scale. Yet we do not know most of the mode, timing, nor magnitude of changes of environmental responses at the project scale. Until these changes are better understood and quantified in a monitoring context, it will require a significant element of speculation to predict the environmental outcomes of particular actions.
Logically the species most at risk in a rapidly changing climate regime are those with small geographic ranges (e.g., local endemics, locally rare species), narrow habitat tolerances, limited dispersal abilities, strong interspecific dependencies, low genetic diversity, and those that have recently experienced, or are actively experiencing population declines. Attempts to quantify the degree of change would be largely speculative at this point.
An example wherein climate change is very likely already playing a role locally in the project planning area is with subalpine fir. Research by Mitchell and Buffam shows that with increasing temperatures, both in winter and summer, the survivorship of the 1st instars of the introduced pest balsam woolly adelgid – Adelges piceae – rises in areas that have heretofore been considered non-optimal for the insect. This in turn results in the spread of, and the severity of the impacts, of this pest into areas that have to date only experienced minor branch gouting and ephemeral infestations. Clearly the project planning area is seeing active decline of subalpine fir and it can most probably be directly attributed to ongoing climate change. Considering the 30-year timeline it seems probable that this climate-mediated decline is likely to continue and perhaps accelerate as well. Numerous other studies strongly indicate that anthropogenically-induced climate change is rapidly modifying forest composition at regional scales (Smith et al. 2015; van Mantgem 2009).
Since 1990, protection and management of sensitive species and their habitats in the form of project design features, avoidance, or other mitigations have been included in nearly all projects. This is in accordance with forest planning documents and policy set forth in FSM 2670. These strictly adhered to policies have, and will continue to, reduce the potential of cumulative effects to sensitive plant populations and supporting habitats.
34 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Direct and indirect effects to sensitive plant populations and potential habitat have been described above. The determination of either “May Impact Individuals and Habitat (MIIH), or No Impact (NI) was made for known populations of sensitive plants in and immediately adjacent to the project planning area. Since these determinations indicate that there would be minor or no impact to these resources, there should be no cumulative effects to those resources resulting directly from project activities. It is intended that projects such as this ultimately provide a beneficial impact to sensitive plant communities in the long run, and may even enhance sensitive plant resiliency over time. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 addresses issues that were raised during scoping. These issues include air quality concerns, inappropriate use of prescribed fire in moist and cold upland forests, maximizing economic values by using mechanical treatments, and inability to protect forest investments such as white pine plantations and subalpine fir stands. Alternative 3 limits the amount of prescribed fire applied to the landscape by using more mechanical treatment. In order to reach the desired condition and meet purpose and need of the project mechanical treatments would be used in some areas in place of prescribed fire and fireline would be constructed to protect values at risk. For this alternative stands identified in the description of Alternative 2 would be thinned to a heavier degree. For details of the alternative, see the EA.
Direct and indirect effects-documented sensitive plant populations The same project design criteria that were developed for Alternative 2 will also apply to Alternative 3. These PDCs should protect all known populations of sensitive plants. There will still be no project activities in the southwestern portion of the project area, where all of the subalpine dependent sensitive species occur. Therefore, the effects calls for all of the documented populations of sensitive plant species in the project area is the same as for Alternative 2, “No impact (NI)”.
Direct and indirect effects to potential sensitive plant habitat In terms of potential impacts to sensitive plant habitat, the discussion under Alternative two generally applies to alternative three also. The main difference is that Alternative three will have more intensive mechanical treatment of trees, more slash and pile burning, and less landscape burning (although the number of acres disturbed remains the same). This could lead to higher risk of negative impacts to dry coniferous forest habitat due to potentially more ground disturbance due to heavier cutting with equipment in the units. If additional large piles are created from the logging slash, there would be a greater chance of killing any undiscovered populations of sensitive plants that happen to be under where the piles are created. Conversely, if less landscape burning is done, fewer firelines will be constructed, so the risk to plants from direct impacts due to the creation of fire lines will be reduced. In addition, by reducing the number of acres burned, there will be a lower risk of negative impacts to sensitive species and habitats that are not fire adapted.
Overall, the calls that were made for alternative 2 for the various habitat types (and their associated species) remain the same for alternative 3. The risk is just a bit higher for the areas that will have mechanical treatments, and much lower for the areas that will not be subject to landscape burning. The magnitude of these differences is not enough to change the overall calls for these habitat types, however.
Cumulative effects See the discussion under Alternative two cumulative effects. Since the overall direct and indirect effects of alternative 3 are essentially the same as for Alternative 2, the same cumulative effects are expected under alternative 3 as for alternative 2.
35 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project Alternative 4 Alternative four addresses issues additional issues identified during scoping. These include use of prescribed fire in wilderness, wildlife connectivity, and reducing the amount of mechanical treatment by using a lighter thinning approach. It also will focus on leaving larger wildlife islands within units, not thinning the wildlife corridors, and feathering treatments away from islands, corridors and private land boundaries. Heavy to light feathering would occur adjacent to the private land and light to heavy feathering would occur adjacent to the wildlife corridors. For details, see the draft EIS.
Direct and indirect effects-documented sensitive plant populations The same project design criteria that were developed for Alternative 2 will also apply to Alternative 4. These PDCs should protect all known populations of sensitive plants. There will still be no project activities in the southwestern portion of the project area, where all of the subalpine dependent sensitive species occur. Therefore, the effects calls for all of the documented populations of sensitive plant species in the project area is the same as for Alternative 2, “No impact (NI)”
Direct and indirect effects to potential sensitive plant habitat In terms of potential impacts to sensitive plant habitat, the discussion under Alternative two generally applies to alternative four also. The main difference is that Alternative four will have less intensive mechanical treatment of trees, less slash and pile burning, and less landscape burning (although the number of acres disturbed remains the same). This could lead to a reduced risk of negative impacts to dry coniferous forest habitat due to potentially less ground disturbance due to lighter cutting with equipment in the units. If fewer large piles are created from the logging slash, there would be less chance of killing any undiscovered populations of sensitive plants that happen to be under where the piles are created. In addition, if less landscape burning is done, fewer firelines will be constructed, so the risk to plants from direct impacts due to the creation of fire lines will be reduced. In addition, by reducing the number of acres burned, there will be a lower risk of negative impacts to sensitive species and habitats that are not fire adapted.
Overall, the calls that were made for alternative 2 for the various habitat types (and their associated species) remain the same for alternative 4. The risk is just a bit lower for the areas that will have mechanical treatments, and much lower for the areas that will not be subject to landscape burning. The magnitude of these differences is not enough to change the overall calls for these habitat types, however.
Cumulative effects See the discussion under Alternative two cumulative effects. Since the overall direct and indirect effects of alternative 4 are essentially the same as for Alternative 2, the same cumulative effects are expected under alternative 4 as for alternative 2. Summary of Environmental Effects The United States Forest Service biological evaluation (BE) process was completed by a journey-level botanist for this project. This process includes a pre-field review of existing information, botanical surveys to search for sensitive plants, and development of project design criteria to protect both known sensitive plant populations and potential sensitive plant habitat. Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to federally listed, candidate, and proposed plant species were analyzed. Potential effects to Region six designated sensitive plants were also analyzed. There are seven documented sensitive plant species in the project planning area. Of these, only one, the mountain moonwort, has been found in any areas where there are proposed activities.
36 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Since the No action alternative will not change management on the ground, the choice of this alternative will lead to “no effect (NE)” to any federally listed, candidate, and proposed plant species. In addition, there would be “no impact (NI)” to any Forest Service Region six designated sensitive plant species. For all three action alternatives, all documented populations of sensitive plants will be designated as areas to protect for all ground disturbing project activities. Implementation of fire in documented sensitive plant populations will be done in a manner that should not adversely impact the populations. Therefore, there will be “no impact (NI)” to documented population of sensitive plants for any of the action alternatives.
Since there are no activities proposed in subalpine habitats for all action alternatives, there would be “no impact (NI)” to any species that occur in those habitats. The call for all sensitive species affiliated with low to moderate elevation cliffs, rock outcrops, or talus slopes is also “no impact (NI)”. This is because there are no ground disturbing activities proposed in these habitat types, and any fire that may occur should not negatively impact undiscovered populations that may be there.
The species with greatest risk due to project activities from all three action alternatives are those that occur in upland coniferous and aquatic and riparian dependent communities. The effects call for all sensitive plant species that occur in these areas is “May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to populations of sensitive plant species (MIIH)”. The risk to riparian dependent species is significantly less than the risk to upland coniferous communities. This is due to the fact that the heavy equipment that will be used in upland coniferous communities has much greater potential to negatively impact habitat and associated soils. No heavy equipment will be used in aquatic and riparian dependent communities, and no mechanical slash piling will be allowed in those areas.
Table 8 Sensitive plant populations and habitat potentially impacted by various alternatives displays how many sensitive plant populations and how many acres of potential sensitive plant habitat may be potentially impacted by project activities for each alternative.
Table 8 Sensitive plant populations and habitat potentially impacted by various alternatives Resource Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Element Documented Number of No sensitive 8 populations in areas 8 populations in areas 8 populations in areas with sensitive plant sensitive plant plant populations with no proposed with no proposed no proposed activities populations populations would potentially activities activities One population in logging potentially be impacted One population in One population in Unit 60. It will be avoided impacted logging Unit 60. It will logging Unit 60. It will be by designation as an ATP be avoided by avoided by designation One population may be designation as an ATP as an ATP subject to slash and pile No populations in One population may be burning (fire unit 581). areas of proposed subject to slash and pile Four populations may be burning burning (fire unit 581). subject to landscape scale burning (fire unit 517) 8,546 acres of upland 9,907 acres of upland 9,907 acres of upland coniferous habitat may be coniferous habitat may coniferous habitat may impacted by ground disturbing activities Number of be impacted by ground be impacted by ground acres of disturbing activities. disturbing activities potential No sensitive 3,535 acres of riparian Potential sensitive plant plant habitat habitat conservation areas sensitive plant 3,538 acres of riparian 3,538 acres of riparian habitat that would potentially subject to hand tree felling, habitat habitat conservation habitat conservation may be impacted. areas subject to hand areas subject to hand hand pile burning, and potentially be tree felling, hand pile tree felling, hand pile landscape burning impacted burning, and landscape burning, and landscape burning burning 8,582 acres may be subject to mechanically piled burning
37 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project
Resource Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Element 8,582 acres subject to 13,712 acres subject to mechanically piled mechanically piled 19663 acres may be burning burning subject to landscape burning 29,220 acres may be 3,512 acres may be subject to landscape subject to landscape burning burning
Compliance with Relevant laws, regulations, FS policies and Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman NF Forest Plans
Federal Laws
Endangered Species Act Whitebark pine is a federal candidate species that occurs in the southwestern portion of the project area. No activities are planned in areas where this species is documented. There is some potential habitat where isolated whitebark pine trees may occur in the project area. If any plants are found before in activity areas, or during project implementation, the populations will be analyzed and protected from negative impacts due to project implementation. Therefore, this project will have no effect to whitebark pine, and therefore, all alternatives comply with the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations.
National Forest Management Act and National Environmental Policy Act This biological evaluation discloses the existing condition of sensitive plant populations and habitats, and analyzes the potential effects from the proposed activities to these resources. This report therefore provides all necessary scientific information to comply with the National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental policy act.
Forest Service Policy This biological evaluation discloses the existing condition of sensitive plant populations and habitats, and analyzes the potential effects from the proposed activities to these resources. This report therefore provides all necessary scientific information to comply with Forest Service Manual direction and policies regarding sensitive species and native plant restoration management.
Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans All proposed project activities are consistent with the applicable Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest plan goals, desired future conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines as they relate to botanical resources. The BE process that was undertaken for this project include the pre-field review process to access potential species and habitat in the area, on the ground botanical surveys in high probability habitats, development of project design features, and viability analysis for sensitive plant species. These analysis steps comply with the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman forest plan components as they relate to botanical resources. Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures There are no other relevant mandatory disclosures related to sensitive plants or other botanical resources for this project.
38 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project Monitoring Recommendations It is recommended that implementation monitoring of known sensitive plant populations in activity areas is done. Monitoring would largely consist of site visits before and after implementation with the collection of photo points and updated population information. This monitoring would provide assurance that project design criteria as they relate to botanical resources are implemented as planned. Monitoring would also allow an opportunity to confirm that the assumptions used for development of the PDCs are correct. For example, a revisit to areas buffered a certain distance from activities would confirm is the distance is sufficient to prevent blow down, or unacceptable changes in hydrology or sunlight.
39 Botanical Resources Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project References Cited Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria. 2007-2015. University of Washington Herbarium, Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture, University of Washington, Seattle. Viewed online on various dates
Fryer, Janet L. 2002. Pinus albicaulis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2015, November 11].
Logan, J.A., W.W. MacFarlane and L Willcox. 2010. Whitebark pine vulnerability to climate-driven mountain pine beetle disturbance in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ecological Applications 20: 895-902.
Mitchell, R.G., and P.E. Buffam. 2001. Patterns of long-term balsam woolly adelgid infestations and effects in Oregon and Washington. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 16(3): 121-126.
Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. 2013. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon. Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. 111 pp.
Powell, D.C., C.G. Johnson Jr., E.A. Crowe, A. Wells and D.K. Swanson. 2007. Potential vegetation hierarchy for the Blue Mountains section of northeastern Oregon, southeastern Washington, and west-central Idaho. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-709.
Smith, J.M., J. Paritsis, T.T. Veblen and T.B. Chapman. 2015. Permanent forest plots show accelerating tree mortality in subalpine forests of the Colorado Front Range from 1982 – 2013. Forest Ecology and Management 341: 8-17.
USDA Forest Service, and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1996. A Framework for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-374.
USDA Forest Service. 2008. Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670, Section 2672.4).
USDA Forest Service. December 9, 2011. Pacific Northwest Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy
van Mantgem, P.J., N.L. Stephenson, J.C. Byrne, L.D. Daniels, J.F. Franklin, P.Z. Fule, M.E. Harmon, A.J. Larson, J.M. Smith, A.H. Taylor and T.T. Veblen. 2009. Widespread Increase in Tree Mortality Rates in the Western United States. Science 323: 532-523.
Walker, G.W. and MacLeod, N.S., 1991, Geologic map of Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:500,000
40
Appendix A: Sensitive Plant Occurrence and Effects Presence in or Effects calls Effects calls Scientific name Common name near planning Alternative 1 Alts 2-4 area (No action)
Liverworts Harpanthus flotovianus great mountain flapwort Documented NI MIIH Lophozia gillmanii Gillman’s swamp booger Documented NI MIIH Vascular Plants Botrychium crenulatum crenulate moonwort Suspected NI MIIH Botrychium hesperium western moonwort Suspected NI MIIH Botrychium montanum mountain moonwort Documented NI MIIH Botrychium paradoxum twin-spiked moonwort Suspected NI MIIH Botrychium pedunculosum stalked moonwort Suspected NI MIIH Carex cordillerana cordilleran sedge Suspected NI MIIH Carex lasiocarpa slender woolly sedge Suspected NI NI Carex saxatilis limestone or russet sedge Documented NI NI Castilleja flava var. rustica rural paintbrush Suspected NI NI Castilleja viscidula sticky paintbrush Documented NI NI Cryptantha simulans pine woods cryptantha Suspected NI MIIH Eleocharis bolanderi bolander’s spikerush Suspected NI MIIH Listera borealis northern twayblade Suspected NI MIIH Ophioglossum pusillum adder’s-tongue Suspected NI MIIH Pellaea bridgesii Bridge’s cliff-brake Documented NI NI Phacelia minutissima dwarf or least phacelia Suspected NI NI Pinus albicaulis whitebark pine Documented NE NE Pyrola dentate tooth-leaved pyrola Suspected NI MIIH Note, this list only contains species with potential habitat in the project area. Any Sensitive species not included here do not have potential habitat, and therefore the call for effects is No impact (NI).
A1
Appendix B : Vascular plant taxa encountered Guide to Vascular Plant Species List
Ab: Abundance. An abundance rating system indicates how common each species is in the project. The 6 rating levels are: Nativity: Species that are not native to the region are indicated with a “I” Hitchcock & Cronquist Synonym: Indicates previous nomenclature, when different from current, 1—Abundant in multiple plant communities Status: Any species designated as RFSSSL sensitive or strategic or listed noxious 2—Common in multiple plant communities Habit: T-tree | F-H–forb/herb | S,SS-shrub-subshrub | G-graminoid | F-fern/fern ally | M-moss 3—Abundant in specific plant communities 4—Common in specific plant communities 5—Uncommon in specific plant associations 6—Rare, 3 or fewer sightings on the project.
Code: Alphanumeric species code as shown on the USDA PLANTS database (USDA, NRCS. 2015).
# Ab Symbol Accepted Scientific Name Common Name Family Habit Nativity Synonomy / Comments 1 1 ABGR Abies grandis grand fir Pinaceae T N 2 3 ABLA2 Abies lasiocarpa subalpine fir Pinaceae T N 3 1 ACMI2 Achillea millefolium common yarrow Asteraceae F-H N/I 4 5 ACNEN2 Achnatherum nelsonii nelsonii Columbia needlegrass Poaceae G N 5 4 ACCO4 Aconitum columbianum Columbian monkshood Ranunculaceae F-H N 6 6 ACPH4 Aconogonon phytolaccifolium alpine fleeceflower Polygonaceae F-H N Polygonum phytolaccifolium 7 6 ACRU3 Actaea rubra baneberry Ranunculaceae F-H N 8 3 ADBI Adenocaulon bicolor pathfinder Asteraceae F-H N 9 3 AGUR Agastache urticifolia nettleleaf giant hyssop Lamiaceae Ss, f/h N 10 4 AGHE2 Agoseris heterophylla annual agoseris Asteraceae F-H N 11 4 AGHU Agrostis humilis alpine bentgrass Poaceae G N 12 3 AGST2 Agrostis stolonifera creeping bentgrass Poaceae G I 13 4 ALAC4 Allium acuminatum tapertip onion Amaryllidaceae F-H N 14 3 ALVA Allium validum Pacific onion Amaryllidaceae F-H N 15 3 ALINT Alnus incana tenuifolia thinleaf alder Betulaceae T-S N 16 3 ALPR3 Alopecurus pratensis meadow foxtail Poaceae G I 17 4 ALAL3 Alyssum alyssoides pale madwort Brassicaceae F-H I 18 2 AMAL2 Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon serviceberry Rosaceae S N 19 2 ANMA Anaphalis margaritacea pearly everlasting Asteraceae F-H N 20 6 ANAR3 Angelica arguta Lyall’s angelica Apiaceae F-H N 21 6 ANHOH Antennaria howellii howellii Howell’s pussytoes Asteraceae F-H N 22 4 ANLU2 Antennaria luzuloides rush pussytoes Asteraceae F-H N 23 4 ANRA2 Antennaria racemosa raceme pussytoes Asteraceae F-H N 24 4 ANRO2 Antennaria rosea rosy pussytoes Asteraceae F-H N 25 3 ANOD Anthoxanthum odoratum sweet vernalgrass Poaceae G I
Appendix B
# Ab Symbol Accepted Scientific Name Common Name Family Habit Nativity Synonomy / Comments 26 3 APAN2 Apocynum androsaemifolium spreading dogbane Apocynaceae F-H N 27 4 AQFO Aquilegia formosa western columbine Ranunculaceae F-H N 28 4 ARAM Arceuthobium americanum American dwarf mistletoe Viscaceae F-H N 29 3 ARNE Arctostaphylos nevadensis pinemat manzanita Ericaceae S N 30 4 ARCOC4 Arenaria congesta congesta ballhead sandwort Caryophyllaceae F-H N 31 3 ARCO9 Arnica cordifolia heartleaf arnica Asteraceae F-H N 32 2 AREL3 Arrhenatherum elatius tall oatgrass Poaceae G I 33 6 BOLA Botrychium lanceolatum lanceleaf grapefern Ophioglossaceae F N historically RFSSSL species 34 6 BOMU Sceptridium multifidum leathery grapefern Ophioglossaceae F N Botrychium multifidum 35 6 BOVI Botrypus virginianum rattlesnake fern Ophioglossaceae F N Botrychium virginianum 36 4 BRCA5 Bromus carinatus mountain brome Poaceae G N 37 6 BRCI2 Bromus ciliatus fringed brome Poaceae G N 38 4 BRINI Bromus inermis inermis smooth brome Poaceae G I 39 4 BRVU Bromus vulgaris Columbia brome Poaceae G N 40 5 CACAC10 Calamagrostis canadensis canadensis bluejoint reedgrass Poaceae G N 41 3 CARU Calamagrostis rubescens pinegrass Poaceae G N 42 4 CAEU Calochortus eurycarpus white mariposa lily Liliaceae F-H N 43 6 CALOL Calochortus longebarbatus longebarbatus longbeard mariposa lily Liliaceae F-H N locally rare – see text 44 6 CAMAM9 Calochortus macrocarpus macrocarpus sagebrush mariposa lily Liliaceae F-H N 45 6 CATA2 Camissonia tanacetifolia tansyleaf evening primrose Onagraceae F-H N new to forest / collection made 47 5 CAMO32 Canadanthus modestus giant mountain aster Asteraceae F-H N 48 6 CACOL4 Cardamine cordifolia lyalli heartleaf bittercress Brassicaceae F-H N 49 6 CAAM10 Carex amplifolia bigleaf sedge Cyperaceae G N 50 4 CAAQA Carex aquatilis aquatilis water sedge Cyperaceae G N 51 6 CAAU3 Carex aurea golden sedge Cyperaceae G N 52 4 CACO11 Carex concinnoides northwestern sedge Cyperaceae G N 53 6 CADI6 Carex disperma softleaf sedge Cyperaceae G N 54 1 CAGE2 Carex geyeri Geyer's sedge Cyperaceae G N 2 55 4 CAHO5 Carex hoodii Hood’s sedge Cyperaceae G N 56 5 CAJO Carex jonesii Jone’s sedge Cyperaceae G N 57 5 CALA13 Carex laeviculmis smoothstem sedge Cyperaceae G N 58 4 CALE8 Carex lenticularis lakeshore sedge Cyperaceae G N 59 4 CALUL2 Carex luzulina luzulina woodrush sedge Cyperaceae G N 60 3 CAMI7 Carex microptera littlewing sedge Cyperaceae G N 61 4 CANE6 Carex neurophora alpine nerve sedge Cyperaceae G N 62 4 CAPA14 Carex pachystachya chamisso sedge Cyperaceae G N 63 4 CAPE42 Carex pellita woolly sedge Cyperaceae G N 64 3 CARO5 Carex rossii Ross' sedge Cyperaceae G N
Appendix B
# Ab Symbol Accepted Scientific Name Common Name Family Habit Nativity Synonomy / Comments 65 4 CAUT Carex utriculata bladder sedge Cyperaceae G N 66 5 CAVE6 Carex vesicaria blister sedge Cyperaceae G N 67 4 CALI4 Castilleja linariifolia Wyoming Indian paintbrush Orobanchaceae F-H N 68 4 CAMI12 Castilleja miniata giant Indian paintbrush Orobanchaceae F-H N 69 5 CESA Ceanothus sanguineus redstem ceanothus Rhamnaceae S N 70 5 CEVE Ceanothus velutinus snowbrush ceanothus Rhamnaceae S N 71 2 CEGL2 Cerastium glomeratum sticky chickweed Caryophyllaceae F-H I 72 4 CHAN9 Chamerion angustifolium fireweed Onagraceae F-H N 73 3 CHUMO2 Chimaphila umbellata occidentalis pipsissewa Ericaceae SS N 74 5 CILA2 Cinna latifolia drooping woodreed Poaceae G N 75 4 CIALP2 Circaea alpina enchanter’s nightshade Onagraceae F-H N 76 5 CIAR4 Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Asteraceae F-H I Oregon Noxious B 77 4 CISC2 Cirsium scariosum meadow thistle Asteraceae F-H N 78 4 CISU Cirsium subniveum Jackson Hole thistle Asteraceae F-H N 79 5 CIVU Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Asteraceae F-H I Oregon Noxious B 80 4 CLUN2 Clintonia uniflora queen’s cup Liliaceae F-H N 81 3 COPA3 Collinsia parviflora maiden blue-eyed Mary Plantaginaceae F-H N 82 4 COLI2 Collomia linearis tiny trumpet Polemoniaceae F-H N 83 3 COCA5 Conyza canadensis horseweed Asteraceae F-H I 84 3 COSES Cornus sericea sericea red osier dogwood Cornaceae S N 85 4 CRTO4 Cryptantha torreyana Torrey’s cryptantha Boraginaceae F-H N 86 6 CYOF Cynoglossum officinale hounds tongue Boraginaceae F-H I Oregon Noxious B 87 6 CYMO2 Cypripedium montanum mountain lady’s slipper Orchidaceae F-H N 88 4 CYFR2 Cystopteris fragilis brittle bladder fern Dryopteridaceae F N 89 5 DAGL2 Dactylis glomerata orchard grass Poaceae G I 90 5 DAIN Danthonia intermedia timber oatgrass Poaceae G N 91 4 DAUN Danthonia unispicata onespike oatgrass Poaceae G N 92 5 DEGL3 Delphinium glaucum Sierra larkspur Ranunculaceae F-H N 93 3 DECE Deschampsia cespitosa tufted hairgrass Poaceae G N 94 4 DEEL Deschampsia elongata slender hairgrass Poaceae G N 95 6 DOAL Dodecatheon alpinum alpine shootingstar Primulaceae F-H N 96 5 DOJE Dodecatheon jeffreyi Jeffrey’s shootingstar Primulaceae F-H N 97 4 DRGL7 Drymocallis glandulosa sticky cinquefoil Rosaceae F-H N Potentilla glandulosa 98 3 ELELE Elymus elymoides elymoides bottlebrush squirreltail Poaceae G N 99 4 ELGLG Elymus glaucus glaucus blue wildrye Poaceae G N 100 5 ELTR7 Elymus trachycaulus slender wheatgrass Poaceae G N 101 4 EPBR3 Epilobium brachycarpum tall annual willowherb Onagraceae F-H N 102 5 EPCIG Epilobium ciliatum glandulosum fringed willowherb Onagraceae F-H N
Appendix B
# Ab Symbol Accepted Scientific Name Common Name Family Habit Nativity Synonomy / Comments 103 6 EPGLG Epilobium glaberrimum glaberrimum glaucous willowherb Onagraceae F-H N 104 3 EQAR Equisetum arvense field horsetail Equisetaceae F N 105 4 EQLA Equisetum laevigatum smooth horsetail Equisetaceae F N 106 4 ERIGE2 Erigeron sp. fleabane Asteraceae F-H N too late in season for accurate ID 107 4 ERFLP Eriogonum flavum piperi Piper’s golden buckwheat Polygonaceae F-H N 108 4 ERHE2 Eriogonum heracleoides parsnipflower buckwheat Polygonaceae F-H N 109 4 ERUME Eriogonum umbellatum ellipticum sulphur-flowered buckwheat Polygonaceae F-H N 110 3 ERLA8 Eriophyllum lanatum Oregon sunshine Asteraceae F-H N 111 4 MIGU Erythranthe guttatus seep monkeyflower Phrymaceae F-H N Mimulus guttatus 112 4 MIMO3 Erythranthe moschatus musk monkeyflower Phrymaceae F-H N Mimulus moschatus 113 3 ERGR7 Erythronium grandiflorum glacier lily Liliaceae F-H N 114 4 FEID Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue Poaceae G N 115 4 FEOC Festuca occidentalis western fescue Poaceae G N 116 3 FRVE Fragaria vesca woodland strawberry Rosaceae F-H N 117 4 FRVI Fragaria virginiana platypetala Virginia strawberry Rosaceae F-H N 118 4 GAAP2 Galium aparine sticky willy Rubiaceae F-H N 119 5 GABI Galium bifolium twinflower bedstraw Rubiaceae F-H N 120 4 GABO2 Galium boreale northern bedstraw Rubiaceae F-H N 121 4 GATR3 Galium triflorum fragrant bedstraw Rubiaceae F-H N 122 5 GAHU Gaultheria humifusa alpine spicy wintergreen Ericaceae SS N 123 6 GEAF Gentiana affinis pleated gentian Gentianaceae F-H N 124 5 GEAMA Gentianella amarella acuta autumn dwarf gentian Gentianaceae F-H N 125 4 GEMAP Geum macrophyllum perincisum largeleaf avens Rosaceae F-H N 126 3 GLST Glyceria striata fowl mannagrass Poaceae G N Glyceria elata 127 4 GOOB2 Goodyera oblongifolia western rattlesnake plantain Orchidaceae F-H N 128 6 HEBL2 Helodium blandowii Blandow’s feather moss Helodiaceae M N Elodium blandowii / OR Sensitive 129 4 HEMA80 Heracleum maximum cow parsnip Apiaceae F-H N 130 4 HECY2 Heuchera cylindrica roundleaf alumroot Saxifragaceae F-H N 131 3 HIAL3 Hieracium albiflorum white hawkweed Asteraceae F-H N 132 3 HICY Hieracium cynoglossoides houndstongue hawkweed Asteraceae F-H N 133 6 HIGR Hieracium gracile slender hawkweed Asteraceae F-H N 134 4 HOBR2 Hordeum brachyantherum meadow barley Poaceae G N 135 4 HYAN2 Hypericum anagalloides tinkers penny Clusiaceae F-H N 136 5 HYPE Hypericum perforatum common St. Johnswort Clusiaceae F-H N 137 4 IRMI Iris missouriensis Rocky Mountain iris Iridaceae F-H N 138 3 JUARL Juncus arcticus littoralis mountain rush Juncaceae G N 139 3 JUCO2 Juncus confusus Colorado rush Juncaceae G N 140 6 JUCOO Juncus covillei obtusatus Coville’s rush Juncaceae G N
Appendix B
# Ab Symbol Accepted Scientific Name Common Name Family Habit Nativity Synonomy / Comments 141 4 JUEF Juncus effusus common rush Juncaceae G N 142 4 JUEN Juncus ensifolius swordleaf rush Juncaceae G N 143 6 JUHO Juncus howellii Howell’s rush Juncaceae G N listed sensitive in WA 144 6 KEGA Kelloggia galioides milk kelloggia Rubiaceae F-H N 145 5 KOMA Koeleria macrantha prairie junegrass Poaceae G N 146 6 LASE Lactuca serriola wall lettuce Asteraceae F-H I 147 3 LAOC Larix occidentalis western larch Pinaceae T N 148 3 LEHA11 Leptosiphon harknessii Harkness’s flaxflower Polemoniaceae F-H N 149 4 LIGR Ligusticum grayi Gray’s licorice-root Apiaceae F-H N 150 3 LIBO3 Linnaea borealis twinflower Caprifoliaceae SS N 151 5 LICA10 Listera borealis northwestern twayblade Orchidaceae F-H N 152 5 LOMAT Lomatium sp. biscuitroot Apiaceae F-H N too late in season for accurate ID 153 6 LOINI Lonicera involucrata involucrata twinflower honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae S N 154 4 LUPIN Lupinus sp. lupine Fabaceae F-H N too late in season for accurate ID 155 4 LUMUM Luzula multiflora multiflora common woodrush Juncaceae G N 156 4 MAGL2 Madia glomerata mountain tarweed Asteraceae F-H N 157 3 MARE11 Mahonia repens creeping barberry Berberidaceae S N 158 4 MAST4 Maianthemum stellatum starry false lily-of-the-valley Asparagaceae F-H N 159 5 MELU Medicago lupulina black medick Fabaceae F-H I 160 6 MEPAB Mertensia paniculatus borealis northern bluebells Boraginaceae F-H N 161 6 MERTE Mertensia sp. bluebells Boraginaceae F-H N material not identifiable 162 4 MIOD2 Micranthes odontoloma brook saxifrage Saxifragaceae F-H N 163 4 MINUN2 Minuartia nuttallii nuttallii Nuttall’s sandwort Caryophyllaceae F-H N serpentine obligate species in area 164 5 MIST3 Mitella stauropetala smallflower mitrewort Saxifragaceae F-H N 165 3 MOMA3 Moehringia macrophylla largeleaf sandwort Caryophyllaceae F-H N 166 6 MOUN2 Moneses uniflora frog’s reading lamp Ericaceae F-H N 167 6 MOHY3 Monotropa hypopithys pinesap Ericaceae F-H N 168 3 MUFI2 Muhlenbergia filiformis pullup muhly Poaceae G N 169 4 NOFEG Noccaea fendleri glauca alpine pennycress Brassicaceae F-H N Thlaspi fendleri 170 3 ORSE Orthilia secunda sidebells wintergreen Ericaceae SS N Pyrola secunda 171 3 OSBE Osmorhiza berteroi sweet cicely Apiaceae F-H N 172 4 PAFI3 Parnassia fimbriata fimbriata fringed grass of Parnassus Celastraceae F-H N 173 4 PAMY Paxistima myrsinites Oregon boxleaf Celastraceae S N 174 3 PAGR2 Pedicularis groenlandica elephanthead lousewort Orobanchaceae F-H N 175 4 PERAR Pedicularis racemosa racemosa sickletop lousewort Orobanchaceae F-H N 176 5 PEGAB Perideridia gairdneri borealis Gairdner’s yampah Apiaceae F-H N 177 4 PHAL2 Phleum alpinum alpine timothy Poaceae G N 178 4 PHPR3 Phleum pratense timothy Poaceae G I
Appendix B
# Ab Symbol Accepted Scientific Name Common Name Family Habit Nativity Synonomy / Comments 179 5 PHHO Phlox hoodii Hood’s phlox Polemoniaceae F-H N 180 3 PIEN Picea engelmannii Engelmann spruce Pinaceae T N 181 1 PICOL Pinus contorta latifolia lodgepole pine Pinaceae T N 182 3 PIPO Pinus ponderosa ponderosa pine Pinaceae T N 183 4 PIELE4 Piperia elegans elegans elegant piperia Orchidaceae F-H N 184 4 PLDID Platanthera dilatata dilatata scentbottle Orchidaceae F-H N 185 4 PLST4 Platanthera stricta slender bog orchid Orchidaceae F-H N 186 4 POCO Poa compressa Canada bluegrass Poaceae G I 187 6 POPA2 Poa palustris fowl bluegrass Poaceae G N 188 4 POPR Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Poaceae G I 189 4 POWH2 Poa wheeleri Wheeler’s bluegrass Poaceae G N 190 4 POCA3 Polemonium californicum California polemonium Polemoniaceae F-H N 191 4 POOC2 Polemonium occidentale western polemonium Polemoniaceae F-H N 192 4 POAV Polygonum aviculare prostrate knotweed Polygonaceae F-H N 193 5 POTR5 Populus tremuloides aspen Salicaceae T N 194 4 POGRF Potentilla gracilis flabelliformis slender cinquefoil Rosaceae F-H N 195 4 PRVUL2 Prunella vulgaris lanceolata lance selfheal Lamiaceae F-H N 196 1 PSMEG Pseudotsuga menziesii glauca Douglas fir Pinaceae T N 197 4 PTAN2 Pterospora andromedea woodland pinedrops Ericaceae F-H N 198 3 PYAS Pyrola asarifolia liverleaf wintergreen Ericaceae F-H N 199 6 PYPI2 Pyrola picta whiteveined wintergreen Ericaceae F-H N 200 4 PYCAC2 Pyrrocoma carthamoides carthamoides largeflower goldenweed Asteraceae F-H N 201 4 RAUNU Ranunculus uncinatus uncinatus woodland buttercup Ranunculaceae F-H N 202 4 RHAL Rhamnus alnifolia alderleaf buckthorn Rhamnaceae S N 203 4 RICEC2 Ribes cereum cereum wax currant Grossulariaceae S N 204 5 RIHUP Ribes hudsonianum petiolare western blackcurrant Grossulariaceae S N 205 6 RIINI Ribes inerme inerme whitestem gooseberry Grossulariaceae S N 206 4 RILA Ribes lacustre prickly currant Grossulariaceae S N 207 6 RIVI3 Ribes viscocissimum sticky currant Grossulariaceae S N 208 5 ROGY Rosa gymnocarpa dwarf rose Rosaceae S N 209 4 RUOC2 Rudbeckia occidentalis western coneflower Asteraceae F-H N 210 6 RUAQF Rumex aquaticus fenestratus western dock Polygonaceae F-H N 211 5 RUCR Rumex crispus curly dock Polygonaceae F-H N 212 5 RUSA Rumex salicifolius willow dock Polygonaceae F-H N 213 6 SALE Salix lemmonii Lemmon’s willow Salicaceae S N 214 5 SASC Salix scouleriana Scouler’s willow Salicaceae S N 215 3 SAAN2 Sanguisorba annua prairie burnet Rosaceae F-H N 216 3 SACA14 Sanguisorba canadensis Canada burnet Rosaceae F-H N
Appendix B
# Ab Symbol Accepted Scientific Name Common Name Family Habit Nativity Synonomy / Comments 217 3 SCMI2 Scirpus microcarpus panicled bulrush Cyperaceae F-H N 218 6 SCLA Scrophularia lanceolata lanceleaf figwort Scrophulariaceae F-H N 219 3 SEST2 Sedum stenopetalum wormleaf stonecrop Crassulaceae F-H N 220 3 SEDES Selaginella densa scopulorum Rocky Mountain spikemoss Selaginellaceae F N 221 4 SEINE Senecio integerrimus exaltatus Columbia ragwort Asteraceae F-H N 222 3 SHCA Shepherdia canadensis russet buffaloberry Elaeagnaceae S N 223 4 SIORP2 Sidalcea oregana procera Oregon checkerbloom Malvaceae F-H N 224 6 SIOR3 Silene oregana Oregon silene Caryophyllaceae F-H N 225 5 SIIDO Sisyrinchium idahoense occidentale Idaho blue-eyed grass Iridaceae F-H N 226 4 SOCAS Solidago canadensis salebrosa rough Canada goldenrod Asteraceae F-H N 227 6 SPSA5 Spergularia salina salt sand spurry Caryophyllaceae F-H N in roadbed / odd occurrence 228 3 SPBE2 Spiraea betulifolia birchleaf spiraea Rosaceae S N 229 5 SPRO Spiranthes romanzoffiana hooded lady’s tresses Orchidaceae F-H N 230 6 STAM2 Streptopus amplexifolius claspleaf twisted stalk Liliaceae F-H N 231 4 SYALL Symphoricarpos albus laevigatus common snowberry Caprifoliaceae S N 232 4 SYOR2 Symphoricarpos oreophilus mountain snowberry Caprifoliaceae S N 233 4 SYFOF Symphyotrichum foliaceum foliaceum alpine leafybract aster Asteraceae F-H N 234 4 SYSPS Symphyotrichum spathulatum spathulatum western mountain aster Asteraceae F-H N 235 3 TALA2 Taraxacum laevigatum rock dandelion Asteraceae F-H I 236 5 TAOF Taraxacum officinale common dandelion Asteraceae F-H I 237 6 TABR2 Taxus brevifolia Pacific yew Taxaceae T N 238 4 THALI2 Thalictrum sp. meadow rue Ranunculaceae F-H N too late in season for accurate ID 239 3 THIN6 Thinopyrum intermedium intermediate wheatgrass Poaceae G I 240 4 TITRU Tiarella trifoliata unifoliata oneleaf foamflower Saxifragaceae F-H N 241 4 TRDU Tragopogon dubius yellow salsify Asteraceae F-H I 242 4 TRCY Trifolium cyathiferum cup clover Fabaceae F-H N 243 4 TRERA2 Trifolium eriocephalum arcuatum woollyhead clover Fabaceae F-H N 244 4 TRLO Trifolium longipes longstalk clover Fabaceae F-H N 245 4 TRRE3 Trifolium repens white clover Fabaceae F-H I 246 5 TRWO Trifolium wormskioldii streambank clover Fabaceae F-H N 247 5 TUGL Turritis glabra tower rockcress Fabaceae F-H N 248 4 URDIG Urtica dioica gracilis California nettle Urticaceae F-H N 249 3 VAME Vaccinium membranaceum thinleaf huckleberry Ericaceae S N 250 3 VASC Vaccinium scoparium grouse whortleberry Ericaceae S N 251 4 VASI Valeriana sitchensis Sitka valerian Valerianaceae F-H N 252 5 VEDU Ventenata dubia holocaust grass Poaceae G I infrequent on serpentine scabs 253 5 VEVI Veratrum viride green false hellebore Melanthiaceae F-H N 254 4 VEAM2 Veronica americana American speedwell Plantaginaceae F-H N
Appendix B
# Ab Symbol Accepted Scientific Name Common Name Family Habit Nativity Synonomy / Comments 255 5 VEPEX2 Veronica peregrina xalapensis hairy purslane speedwell Plantaginaceae F-H N 256 6 VESC2 Veronica scutellata skullcap speedwell Plantaginaceae F-H N 257 5 VESEH2 Veronica serpyllifolia humifusa brightblue speedwell Plantaginaceae F-H N 258 3 VIAD Viola adunca hookedspur violet Violaceae F-H N 259 3 VIOR Viola orbiculata darkwoods violet Violaceae F-H N 260 6 ZIELE Zigadenus elegans elegans mountain death camas Melanthiaceae F-H N
Appendix B