United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Zigzag Integrated Resources Project

Botany Specialist Report

Prepared by: David Lebo Westside Zone Botanist

for: Zigzag Ranger District Mt. Hood National Forest

06/17/2020

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, , D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] .

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

1.0 Introduction

The botanical resources report below was prepared to inform the effects analysis for the Zigzag Integrated Resources Project. The purpose and need of the proposed action is to sustainably produce forest products (wood and paper) through the harvest of trees in matrix forests (those designated for active forest management) and to meet assigned regional timber target goals; to produce healthier stands by reducing stand density and to hasten the development of young and mature stands to late-successional/old-growth forest (large trees, large snags, and large downed logs); and to accomplish other resource-related objectives.

Executive Summary

The following report discloses the results of surveys done for rare vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, and fungi in the proposed Zigzag Integrated Resources Project area: (a) sensitive species on the Region 6 Regional Forester Special Status Species List (February 25, 2019) and (b) species on the Survey and Manage list (December 2003). The report will display locations of sensitive and Survey and Manage species already documented in the project area (in the agency’s NRIS TESP-IS database) and new sites for species found during pre-disturbance project surveys. The report will recommend protection buffers (85 ft. radius in size)--so-called “skips” (i.e., no-entry/no-harvest areas)--be established around all sensitive and Survey and Manage species already documented or found during pre-disturbance surveys in the project area. An 85-ft radius buffer equals 0.5 acre. Sites for all Region 6 sensitive species and for all Survey and Manage Category A, B, and E species must be protected. For Survey and Manage Category C and D species, high-priority sites must be protected. High-priority sites are defined as “a site or group of sites deemed necessary for species persistence” (Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and Other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines, January 2001, p. 76) and are determined by the local agency botanist based on the relative rarity of a species (the number of sites documented on the national forest as well as region-wide). For Category C and D species with a low number of documented sites (throughout Region 6 or on the Mt. Hood National Forest), new sites found in the project area during pre-disturbance surveys will be considered high-priority.

The report also discloses the presence of any invasive non-native plants found during pre- disturbance surveys. These populations/infestations will be entered into the NRIS TESP-IS database and targeted for treatment before timber harvest activities to reduce the risk of their being spread.

1

2.0 – Analysis Framework

2.1 - Resource Indicators and Measures

Ground and habitat disturbance caused by timber harvest can affect the survival and persistence of rare botanical species (vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, and fungi). Logging disturbance can physically damage or kill a species (an individual or population) or negatively alter its habitat, environment, and/or microclimate. A measure of species diversity or richness in a forest stand is the presence or absence of rare or uncommon species. A query of the agency’s rare species database (NRIS TESP-IS) and pre-disturbance surveys reveals the presence of rare and little known species so that these sites can be protected during timber harvest and other vegetation management activities.

Table 1. Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects Resource Measure Used to Sources Element Resource Indicator address Rare Botanical Presence (number) of Number of sites Conservation of Forest Plan (Sensitive Species sites found during pre- rare species Plants, p. Four -23 & disturbance botany and biological 24); FW-174, 175, 176; surveys diversity FW-182, 183, 184, 185; FW-710, 711; B7- 018, 019; C1-009, 010; Region 6 Regional Forester Special Status Species List (Feb. 2019); and Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage List (Dec. 2003) Understory Species richness and Botany surveys Maintenance of Forest Plan: FW-148, Vegetation diversity native plant 149, 150, 156; FW- communities 567; A9-013 and biological diversity Invasive Non- Populations/Infestations Number of Maintenance of Forest Plan: FW-151; Native plants locations/populations native plant FW-299, 300, 301; found during botany communities FW-375, 376, 377, surveys and biological 378, 379, 380, 381, diversity 382, 383, 384, 385; FW-550, 551; B7-068, 069, 070; B10-046; B11-042; C1-045; Regional Invasive Plant FEIS (2005); Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatments for the Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area FEIS (2008)

2

2.2 - Methodology

A query of the agency’s NRIS TESP-IS database was conducted to determine the presence of any rare or uncommon botanical species documented in the project area: vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, and fungi on (a) the Region 6 Regional Forester Special Status Species List (February 25, 2019) and (b) the Northwest Forest Plan’s Survey and Manage list (December 2003). The Zigzag Integrated Resources Project consists of two geographical areas: Horseshoe and Mud Creek. Proposed harvest units in the Horseshoe area are scattered across forest extending from the north side of Zigzag Mountain northeast to Lolo Pass. Proposed harvest units in the Mud Creek area are scattered across forest south of Trillium Lake. The Horseshoe units comprise roughly 1,082 acres and the Mud Creek units roughly 1,162 acres, a total of about 2,244 acres. During the fall of 2019 (from mid-September through mid-November), pre- disturbance surveys were conducted for sensitive and Survey and Manage taxa in the Horseshoe units by the Mt. Hood National Forest’s westside zone botanist and in the Mud Creek units by a botany contractor (Pacific Crest Consulting, LLC). “Intuitive-controlled surveys” (Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants Survey – Protocol and Field Guide (2014); 2003 Survey Protocols for Category A & C Lichens) were employed: the surveyor meanders through units proposed for timber harvest looking for rare and uncommon species. If found, their locations (GPS coordinates using either UTMs or lat/longs) and information on habitat and population size are recorded, and the sites flagged with ribbon to aid relocation in the future. These new sites were entered into ArcMap so that their locations can be displayed in maps in this report. These new sites will be entered into the NRIS TESP-IS database in the near future. 3.0 – Resource Topics

3.1 – Existing Condition

Project Area

The project area is located on the west slope of the in northern on the Mt. Hood National Forest and consists of two areas, Horseshoe and Mud Creek, which are separated from one another geographically.

Horseshoe

The Horseshoe units (T. 2 S., R. 8 E.) are located north of Zigzag on the west side of Mt. Hood at elevations extending from 610 to 1,220 meters (2,000 to 4,000 ft.) in the (western hemlock) and (Pacific silver fir) zones (Franklin and Dyrness 1973). Slopes vary from very steep to moderate to mild, mostly facing either southeast or northwest. Soils are well drained and fairly shallow, consisting of loamy sands derived from residuum, colluvium, and andesite originating from pyroclastic flows (lahars) during past eruptions of Mt. Hood. Forests range from 60 to 150 years old and are dominated by Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir), western hemlock, Pacific silver fir, noble fir (), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), and (western red cedar).

3

Common understory trees, shrubs, and ferns include Acer circinatum (vine maple), Alnus rubra (red alder), Alnus sinuata (Sitka alder), macrophyllum (Pacific rhododendron), (salal), Gaultheria ovatifolia (Oregon wintergreen), Vaccinium alaskaense (Alaska huckleberry), (oval-leaf huckleberry), Vaccinium membranaceum (big huckleberry), Oplopanax horridus (devil’s-club), Mahonia nervosa (dwarf Oregon grape), Rubus ursinus (trailing blackberry), Polystichum munitum (sword fern), and Pteridium aquilinum (bracken fern),

Common forbs (herbaceous species) include Maianthemum stellatum (starry false lily of the valley), Oxalis oregana (redwood-sorrel), Linnaea borealis (twinflower), Cornus unalaschkensis (bunchberry dogwood), Vancouveria hexandra (inside-out flower), Clintonia uniflora (queen’s- cup), Achlys triphylla (vanilla-leaf), Chimaphila umbellata (pipsissewa), Goodyera oblongifolia (rattlesnake plantain), Pyrola picta (white-veined wintergreen), and Xerophyllum tenax (beargrass).

Common ground-layer bryophytes are Eurhynchium oreganum (Oregon beaked moss) and Rhytidiopsis robusta (pipe-cleaner moss) followed by Eurhynchium praelongum (slender eurhynchium moss), Trachybryum megaptilum (trachybryum moss), Plagiothecium undulatum (mousetail moss), Racomtrium elongatum (elongate racomitrium moss), and Polytrichum spp. (hairy cap mosses). Isothecium myosuroides (diaper moss) is common on trees (boles and branches), and Dicranum spp. (dicranum mosses) are common on downed logs.

Stands in many of the units, especially those facing northwest along the 1825-125 road (above and below the road), are broken up frequently with wide swales (100 ft. or more) dominated by red alder, devil’s club, and Rubus spectabilis (salmonberry) with surface as well as sub-surface flowing water. Mountain beaver holes are widespread throughout these forest stands.

Mud Creek

The Mud Creek units (T. 4 S., R. 8 E. & R. 9 E.) are located south of Mt. Hood in the vicinity of Trillium Lake at elevations extending from 900 to 1,300 meters (3,000 to 4,300 ft.) in the Abies amabilis (Pacific silver fir) zone (Franklin and Dyrness 1973). Slopes are much less steep than in the Horseshoe area, ranging from gentle to moderate. Forests are ca. 60 to 150 years old and dominated by Pacific silver fir, Douglas-fir, noble fir, mountain and western hemlock, and western red cedar.

Common understory trees, shrubs, and ferns include vine maple, Sitka and red alder, Pacific rhododendron, big huckleberry, Alaska huckleberry, Paxistima myrsinoides (Oregon boxwood), salal, Oregon wintergreen, dwarf Oregon grape, Sorbus sitchensis (mountain ash), Holodiscus discolor (oceanspray), sword fern, and bracken fern.

Common forbs include beargrass, twinflower, bunchberry dogwood, inside-out flower, queen’s- cup, vanilla-leaf, pipsissewa, rattlesnake plantain, white-veined wintergreen, starry false lily of the valley, redwood-sorrel, and trailing blackberry.

4

Common ground-layer bryophytes are Oregon beaked moss and pipe-cleaner moss followed by elongate racomtrium moss, trachybryum moss, mousetail moss, slender eurhynchium moss, and hairy cap moss. Diaper moss is common on trees (boles and branches), and dicranum mosses are common on downed logs.

3.1.1 - Resource Indicator and Measures

Resource indicators of botanical health are rare species, understory vegetation, and invasive plants.

Measures center on botany surveys (a) to locate rare species so that they can be mapped and protected; (b) to assess understory vegetation (native plant communities) to describe changes that will likely occur with forest management activities; and (c) to detect and map locations for invasive plants so that they can be treated and controlled.

3.2 - Environmental Consequences

3.2.1 – Effects of No Action

No action would positively affect rare botanical species documented in the proposed project area by not introducing ground or habitat disturbance. No action would have mixed effects (positive and negative) on native plant communities. With no action in stem-exclusion stands (stage 2), understory vegetation would develop slowly over time (decades) to understory reinitiation (stage 3) and eventually to old growth (stage 4). With no action in older stands (e.g., understory reinitiation or stands intermediate between stages 2 and 4), any changes in understory composition and diversity would evolve slowly over time instead of a management- induced rapid shift occurring with clonal sub-shrubs and ferns expanding and dominating. No action would result in a much lower risk of invasive plants being introduced or spread in the project area and vicinity.

3.2.2 - Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action

Direct and indirect effects of the proposed action will be mixed (positive and negative). The proposed action consists of various silvicultural prescriptions (timber harvest): variable-density thinning (thinning-from-below), group selection (patch cutting), and regeneration harvest (clearcutting). Effects are discussed below by components: LSOG characteristics, understory plant communities, bryophytes, lichens, fungi, and invasive plants.

Development of Late-Successional/Old-Growth (LSOG) Characteristics

The silvicultural practice of thinning-from-below will have positive and negative effects on forest structure and composition. The removal of intermediate and suppressed trees can hasten the development of late-successional/old-growth (LSOG) characteristics or attributes, producing larger and taller trees more quickly than waiting on natural processes (tree mortality and gap formation occurring gradually over time) to move forward at a slower pace (Franklin et al. 2002).

5

Larger, older trees (dominants and co-dominants) in the proposed Zigzag units will be excluded from harvest, and the removal of intermediate and suppressed trees will provide more resources (growing space, light, mineral nutrients, and water) for trees left in the stand (Peet & Christensen 1987). On the other hand, other biological legacies, large snags, which survived past wildfire and/or past harvest, may be lost because OHSA (Occupational Health and Safety Administration) requirements will stipulate their felling in order to protect loggers whose lives would be put at risk, working with tractor-based, skyline, and/or helicopter logging systems in the vicinity of snags, which could break or topple. Commercial thinning will simplify and homogenize forest structure (vertical and horizontal complexity) for a decade to several decades because of the loss of large snags and, if present, downed logs on the forest floor as the thinned stands develop from stem exclusion to understory reinitiation to old growth.

Understory Plant Communities

Stand density reduction will have positive and negative effects on understory plant communities. Stem-exclusion stands typically have depauperate (sparse) understories dominated by bare ground covered with litterfall (branches and needles) with few plants and/or only moss (typically, Oregon beaked moss, Eurhynchium oreganum) scattered here and there. Thinning of stem- exclusion stands will open the canopy, allowing more sunlight to reach the forest floor, and promote understory development. Understory vegetation will develop and diversify as seed stored in the soil or introduced by animals (e.g., birds, chipmunks, squirrels, mice, voles) germinates. In stem-exclusion stands in the project area, thinning will have a positive, beneficial effect on plant understories.

In older stands where understory reinitiation (the creation of canopy gaps resulting from tree mortality) has begun or is on-going, commercial thinning can simplify and homogenize plant understories by promoting the expansion and dominance of clonal sub-shrubs and ferns: e.g., salal, dwarf Oregon grape, trailing blackberry, sword fern, bracken fern. Clonal species respond well to thinned canopies and can exclude less dominant forbs: e.g., Achlys, Anemone, Asarum, Chimaphila, Clintonia, Coptis, Cornus, Disporum, Goodyera, Linnaea, Maianthemum, Orthilia, Pyrola, Streptopus, Tiarella, Trillium, Vancouveria, Viola), thereby reducing understory diversity. Understory simplification and homogenization, a by-product of human intervention, can persist for a decade to several decades as thinned stands gradually develop from understory reinitiation to old growth (older stands).

Bryophytes

Ground-dwelling bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) will decline in commercially thinned stands because of ground disturbance (caused by tree falling, log skidding, and yarding), microclimate alteration (increased light and decreased substrate moisture), loss of shrubs that provide niche diversity, and the accumulation of logging slash (Beese & Bryant 1999, Thomas et al. 2001, Beggs 2004, Nelson & Halpern 2005, Dovciak et al. 2006). Reduction of canopy cover typically results in higher air temperatures during the growing season and colder temperatures during the winter, lower humidity, and elevated evaporative moisture loss on the forest floor (Cheo 1946, Green et al. 1995, Hannerz & Hanell 1997). Ground-dwelling bryophytes are more sensitive to

6

surface-level drying factors than vascular plants (trees, shrubs, and forbs) because they lack roots and conductive tissue (phloem and xylem) (Thomas et al. 2001). Bryophytes obtain moisture directly from the atmosphere with water absorbed by surface cells and diffused from cell to cell. The leaves of many bryophytes are only one cell-layer thick.

In stem-exclusion stands, bryophyte cover (abundance and diversity) is already low with only a handful of species (in the following genera) present scattered here and there (e.g., Eurhynchium, Plagiothecium, Rhytidiadelphus, Rhytidiopsis, Trachybryum). Of these, Eurhynchium oreganum and Rhytidiopsis robusta are the most common species and, in some stem-exclusion stands, sometimes the only vegetation (vascular or non-vascular) present on the forest floor. Ground- dwelling bryophytes also respond less well to ground disturbance than do many vascular plants because of their lack of belowground perennating structures (rhizomes, tubers, bulbs) from which vascular plants can regenerate. Stand density reduction negatively affects epiphytic bryophytes (those growing on trees and shrubs) and corticolous bryophytes (those growing on wood: trees, shrubs, or downed logs) as well (Thomas et al. 2001). In contrast to light being the main factor limiting the growth of vascular plants in the understory in stem-exclusion stands, stand microclimate limits the abundance and diversity of epiphytic bryophytes in managed (thinned) stands (Thomas et al. 2001). Stand hydrology and microclimate are of primary importance in determining the distribution and abundance of bryophytes in managed forests (Thomas et al. 2001).

How long does it take for forest bryophytes to recover from thinning disturbance? Populations of forest bryophytes may recover as early as 10 years after thinning in western Oregon (Ares et al. 2010) or may require long periods of time to recover depending on factors such as adequate moisture for spores to germinate, whether the propagule bank is poorly developed or not, limited dispersal ability, spore lifespan, inability of spores to survive desiccation, extreme temperatures, and/or exposure to ultraviolet radiation (Nelson & Halpern 2005). Recovery may not be possible until adequate microclimatic conditions and substrates develop within the post- thinning forest (Nelson & Halpern 2005). These often do not develop until the canopy once again closes to some extent to produce interior forest conditions (shade, understory diversity, and buffering of edge effects) that are conducive to the establishment of bryophytes.

Lichens

Lichen diversity and abundance vary with forest age (Neitlich & McCune 1997). Old forests have greater lichen biomass and diversity than young forests because of more open canopies and structural diversity (Li et al. 2011). Excessively closed or open canopies may restrict lichen growth in relatively species-poor, homogeneous areas (Li et al. 2011, Neitlich & McCune 1997).

Commercial thinning will have mixed effects on lichens in the project area. Stem-exclusion stands in the proposed project area, with their closed canopies, restrict lichen diversity to a small assemblage of species (in the following genera) that tolerate conditions of low light (Evernia, Hypogymnia, Parmelia, Parmeliopsis, Platismatia, Ramalina, Sphaerophorus). Of these, species in Plastismatia, Hypogymnia, and Sphaerophorus are the most common. Canopy reduction in stem-exclusion stands will promote understory development, with the growth of woody shrubs

7

and hardwoods (vine maple, bigleaf maple, red alder, willow) creating a diversity of niches (substrates) for lichens to occupy. Lichen diversity can be promoted through the creation of canopy gaps and the retention of hardwood trees and shrubs (Neitlich & McCune 1997). Hardwoods, in particular, are focal points (“hotspots”) for lichen diversity in conifer-dominated forests (Neitlich & McCune 1997).

At the same time, however, the biomass of epiphytic lichens (those growing on trees and shrubs) accumulates slowly in forest canopies (Sillett et al. 2000). Poor dispersal and establishment limit the development of cyanolichen populations (those containing cyanobacteria that fix atmospheric nitrogen) in Douglas-fir forests (Sillett et al. 2000). Retention of propagule sources for lichen reproduction in and near thinned forests promotes the accumulation of old-growth- associated epiphytic lichens (Sillett et al. 2000). Lichen diversity, which tends to be much lower in young coniferous forests, whether thinned or unthinned, in western Washington and Oregon, accumulates slowly over time, requiring decades to pass as stem-exclusion stands develop into understory-reinitiation stands and advance toward old growth. Some lichens, such as Survey and Manage species (e.g., Hypogymnia duplicata, Nephroma occultum, Pseudocypellaria rainierensis), require forest environments that provide interior forest habitat with stable microclimate that is buffered from temperature extremes, wind, and other edge effects) for decades.

Fungi

Thinning will have mixed (positive and negative) effects on fungi. The abundance and diversity of fungi are likely to decrease for a decade or two, following thinning. Some fungi will recover relatively quickly (within 10 years) while shifts in the relative abundance of some fungal communities can persist for much longer (> 20 years).

Many studies have focused on restoration of tree composition and structure following thinning, with the expectation that other components of biodiversity (e.g., shrubs and forbs, bryophytes, lichens, fungi) will follow (Lindh & Muir 2004). Thinning, however, alters the community structure, diversity, and composition of ectomycorrhizal fungi (the most common mycorrhizae) in forest stands (Waters et al.1994, Colgan et al. 1999, Kannabetter & Kroeger 2001, Smith et al. 2002, Luoma et al. 2004, Trappe et al. 2009).

Truffles (Hypogeous Fungi)

During the first years following treatment, for example, thinning can substantially reduce the total weight of truffles (belowground mycorrhizal fungi) in treated Douglas-fir stands compared to non-thinned stands (Colgan et al. 1999). Colgan et al. (1999) found a statistically significant difference in truffle production. Initial effects of thinning appear to be that truffles become less common and shifts in abundance among species occur (Colgan et al. 1999). Total truffle production may recover 10 to 17 years after thinning, but shifts in the relative abundance of species persist longer (Waters et al. 1994). Shifts in the composition of truffle species may affect mycophagous animals (e.g., chipmunks, squirrels, mice, voles, shrews, pikas, beaver, rabbits, deer) by altering the nutritional balance of their diets (Colgan et al. 1999; Fogel & Trappe 1978).

8

Thinning in even-aged 80-to-100-year-old forest was found to reduce the total number of species of ectomycorrhizal fungi (aboveground and belowground) compared to unmanaged stands (Kropp & Albee 1996).

Epigeous (Aboveground-Fruiting) Fungi

Some fungi (e.g., members of the Hygrophoraceae) can be adversely affected by thinning while, on the other hand, others (e.g., Suillus brevipes) can be positively affected (Kropp & Albee 1996). In a study done in old-growth forest in Switzerland, the production of ectomycorrhizal fruiting bodies appeared to be stimulated by the growth of their associated tree hosts (symbionts) following thinning (Egli et al. 2010). The researchers hypothesize that the release of leave trees probably generates a carbohydrate surplus that mycorrhizal fungi, which are obligate symbionts, can exploit (Egli et al. 2010). In other words, greater tree vigor and photosynthetic activity associated with increased growth of leave (residual) trees may enhance mushroom fruiting. In my experience, however, mushroom productivity is high in stem-exclusion stands with their sparsely vegetated understories, more so than in thinned stands, in part, I think, because fungi thrive in the cool moist soil environment that characterizes dimly lit stands.

Other findings regarding the effects of thinning on fungi are germane. Chanterelle productivity diminished for the first few years after thinning in 50-year-old Douglas-fir stands in the Cascade Range in Oregon, more so in heavily thinned stands than in lightly thinned stands, but then later recovered within six years (Pilz et al. 2006). As a mycorrhizal generalist (forming symbioses with many tree species), chanterelles (Cantharellus spp.) may be a good indicator of belowground mycorrhizal activity and health. Pilz et al. (2006) recommend frequent light thinning rather than infrequent heavy thinning in order to impact chanterelle productivity less over time in stands targeted for repeated thinning. However, soil compaction from frequent logging entries, unless mitigated, may impair the long-term health and fruiting of ectomycorrhizal fungi such as chanterelles (Amaranthus et al. 1996). Slash disposal techniques following thinning and the increased growth of herb and shrub communities under a sparser canopy alter microclimate conditions (light, temperature, and moisture) on the forest floor that affect the production of mushrooms (Pilz et al. 2006). The forest floor dries out more quickly when sunny weather returns following rain under a sparser canopy (Pilz et al. 2006).

Field observations corroborate that sparser canopies appear to have a negative effect on mycorrhizal fungi because of the change in stand microclimate and because the development of dense understories following thinning can reduce the abundance and diversity of mycorrhizal fungi. Following thinning, dense occupancy of the available growing space on the forest floor by clonal sub-shrubs and ferns may reduce space for mycorrhizal mushrooms to fruit. Such understories are typically not a good place to find mushrooms. (It is possible, I concede, that it may be more of a problem of detecting mushrooms beneath dense stands of sub-shrubs than an inability of fungi to fruit.) Conversely, thinning can stimulate an increase in the fruiting of decomposer (saprobic) fungi because of the increase in dead wood (slash, branches, stumps, downed small boles): e.g., Hygrophoropsis, Hypholoma (Naematoloma), Pholiota, Pleurocybella, Pleurotus, Xeromphalina. Stand thinning stimulates an increase in saprobic fungi; mycorrhizal

9

fungi (hypogeous and epigeous), on the other hand, can decline for a decade or two following thinning.

Invasive Plants

Timber harvest activities will introduce and spread invasive non-native plants in the project area. Commercial thinning and regeneration harvest facilitate the introduction of invasive species (Bailey et al. 1998; PNW Region Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants FEIS 2005; FEIS Site- Specific Invasive Plant Treatments 2008; personal observation). Soil disturbance, an initial reduction in understory cover, and canopy reduction (opening the stand to greater sunlight) will aid the invasion of species such as herb Robert (Geranium robertianum), shining geranium (Geranium lucidum), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum), tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), invasive hawkweeds (Hieracium spp.), invasive knapweeds (Centaurea spp.), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), hairy cat’s-ear (Hypochaeris radicata), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), and others (personal observation). Of greatest concern is the potential for introducing “ecosystem-altering” non-native species, those capable of invading forest understories and crowding out native plants, radically altering the composition and structure of understory communities. Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), false brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum), herb Robert, and shining geranium qualify as “ecosystem-altering” species. False brome, for example, has increased from, initially, only one known population on the Mt. Hood National Forest eight to nine years ago (along FS road 70 along the Hot Springs Fork of the Collawash River) to over 10 documented locations at the present (e.g., Hot Springs Fork, Three Lynx, Lolo Pass Road). Two false brome sites have been detected and treated along Lolo Pass Road in the last two years, one of those within the Zigzag project area along Lolo Pass Road. Previously scattered here and there, herb Robert and shining geranium, in the last 10-15 years, have greatly increased on the west side of the national forest, along roadsides, in campgrounds (e.g., Tollgate, Lazy Bend, Indian Henry), and in skid roads and landings. Populations of herb Robert are scattered along the 1828 road in the project area. Non- native plants like these two invasive geraniums are highly invasive, capable of overrunning forested plant communities in the understory, altering plant communities, and negatively affecting wildlife, beneficial insects (such as pollinators), fungal diversity (including mycorrhizal fungi that form beneficial associations with PNW conifers), and hydrologic regimes (e.g., snow interception; water absorption, retention, and release).

The proximity of Lolo Pass Road and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) powerline corridor to the project area increases the potential of introducing invasive plants in forest understories in the project area following thinning. Lolo Pass Road and the BPA corridor are “hotspots” for orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum) and meadow hawkweed (Hieracium caespitosum). Crews with the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) have been treating hawkweed populations along the road and in the corridor since the mid-1990s. Originally, only about an acre in size (T. Forney, ODA, personal communication), hawkweeds have expanded in the area to occupy hundreds of acres that are spot-sprayed with herbicide annually by ODA. Populations of common hawkweed (Hieracium lachenalii) are scattered along the 1828 road in the project area. Common hawkweed seems to tolerate shade more than orange or meadow

10

hawkweed, which explains its presence along the 1828 road and the presence of the other two hawkweed species in the Lolo Pass Road/BPA corridor.

Cumulative Effects

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

Scope of Analysis: The analysis area for assessing cumulative effects on botanical species includes (a) the proposed Zigzag Integrated Resources Project units, (b) areas directly adjacent to them, including riparian reserves, and (c) areas affected by the associated actions. Cumulative effects include the impacts of past, present, and future actions. Future actions that can be discussed in a cumulative-effects analysis are confined to “reasonably foreseeable future actions,” defined as habitat-disturbing actions currently being planned and proposed in the area in addition to the Zigzag project. Any discussion of future actions not being planned or proposed by the agency at the time of this analysis is considered speculative and outside the scope of this analysis. The cumulative effects discussion here is limited to past stand management actions that have shaped forest composition, structure, and understory vegetation in the analysis area and to the present proposed management actions.

Background Discussion

Unlike in the disciplines of hydrology, fisheries biology, and wildlife biology, there are few quantitative or modeling tools to quantify the risk (threat) of a downward trend in rare botanical species resulting from the cumulative effects of additional projects within the Zigzag project area. For example, a hydrologist can used computer modeling to predict with some degree of confidence the cumulative effects of ground- and habitat-disturbing projects on the area’s hydrology (e.g., the amount of increase in sediment delivery based on road surface and maintenance level; changes in stream temperature) for every additional acre of ground disturbance. And he can quantitatively estimate sediment delivery in a given watershed as a result of the effects of timber harvest and road construction (both increases) compared to the countervailing effects of culvert replacement, road closures, and road decommissioning (all decreases). Similarly, a fisheries biologist can do fish counts and, in turn, use the same hydrologic data (e.g., projected sediment yield generated by the hydrology model, data collected on changes in stream temperature) to assess potential impacts to fish and fish habitat downstream. Similar quantitative and modeling tools are available to wildlife biologists (e.g., DecAID predicts changes in coarse woody debris dynamics). Additionally, predictions about population sizes for certain species, habitat attributes (e.g., number of snags/acre for cavity nesters, tons of coarse woody debris/acre for animals), and number of acres of habitat types (e.g., forage habitat, hiding cover, nesting habitat, roosting habitat) can be made. Telemetry data can be used to track the movement of northern spotted owls and other wildlife species.

Botany, however, unlike hydrology and wildlife, is far less mathematical or computational. A botanist has few analytical or quantitative modeling tools at his/her disposal to predict the degree of threat to many rare species (individuals or populations) or their habitat. The risk could be zero at one end of the spectrum or 100 percent at the other end. For most rare species, the

11

risk factor lies somewhere between 0 and 100 percent. Risk assessment depends on the presence or absence of suitable habitat for a rare species: is there suitable habitat for species x, y, or z in the planning area and, if so, how much? As simple as it might seem to determine the acres of suitable habitat, the problem is that the habitat requirements of many rare species are only generally or broadly known. The habitat for many species, particularly fungi, is described very broadly (e.g., mature to older Douglas-fir forest under 4,000 ft. elevation; or older forests west of the Cascade Range). A botanist has access to various plant databases (e.g., NRIS TESP-IS, GeoBOB, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center) that contain valuable information on the numbers and locations of documented known sites for rare species, but a botanist cannot quantify (i.e., make quantitative predictions about) the potential increase in risk resulting from additional projects in a planning area. A botanist’s evaluations, unlike those of a hydrologist, fisheries biologist, or wildlife biologist, are necessarily more qualitative, generalized, and speculative.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects resulting from an additional number of acres of disturbed ground or habitat (e.g., 50, 100, 500, or 1,000 acres) on rare or invasive species in the proposed Zigzag Integrated Resources Project area can only be broadly addressed by a botanist.

1. Rare Species: Ground- or habitat-disturbing activities impact individuals or populations of rare botanical species, whether sensitive species on the Region 6 Regional Forester Special Status Species List (February 25, 2019) or Survey and Manage species (December 2003 list) as well as their habitat, if present, in the project area. Rare botanical species are challenging to find because their numbers are so few, and their distribution is scattered and, to some extent, random across vast landscapes. With additional acres of ground or habitat disturbed in a planning area such as the Zigzag project, all a botanist can say with certainty is that, with each additional acre of disturbance, the likelihood of impacting individuals/populations or the habitat of a rare species rises, if habitat for that species is present. What is the likelihood (probability) of an adverse effect? To quantify the increase in risk to a rare species requires knowing the number of acres of a species’ potential suitable habitat in the cumulative effects analysis area or, better, being able to predict with some certainty where unknown occurrences may be in the planning area. Habitat modeling has been attempted for Bridgeoporus nobilissimus, a Survey and Manage Category A , and for Hypogymnia duplicata, a Survey and Manage Category C lichen, but with limited success, revealing the challenge of predicting where new occurrences might occur across the landscape. These models delineate high-, moderate-, and low-likelihood habitat across a landscape. The high- likelihood areas can then be visited to see if the species is present. These habitat models have had limited success. New sites have been found using these two models, but the number has been low. These models have demonstrated how challenging it is to predict with some level of certainty where new sites are likely to occur.

The consensus is that these habitat models need more fine-tuning to be more successful at predicting suitable habitat. Fine-tuning a habitat model requires having more data on the

12

specific habitat requirements of a given species. The habitat requirements for some rare species can be defined somewhat narrowly (e.g., pale blue-eyed grass occurs in wet to dry meadows; cold water corydalis occurs in cold water streams in undisturbed older forest; B. nobilissimus conks fruit on noble fir snags, stumps, and occasionally trees), but the habitat requirements for many rare species are only broadly known (e.g., older forest; Douglas- fir/western hemlock forest; conifer forest above 3,500 ft. elevation; melting snowbanks), making predictions about the potential effects of forest management activities on rare species speculative and qualitative rather than quantitative.

One prediction can be made with some certainty. Over time, with cumulative disturbance resulting from multiple thinning entries, a decline in rare species (the number of sites or sizes of populations) may occur as the odds of a rare species surviving repeated disturbance and microclimate alteration (changes in temperature, moisture, and light levels) become lower. Establishment and long-term persistence of protection buffers (“skips”) are critical for sustaining rare species through repeated timber harvest entry in matrix stands.

2. Invasive Species: Introduced non-native plants can invade native plant communities and displace common and rare botanical species. Ground- or habitat-disturbing activities, whether small (e.g., 1/4 acre) or large (e.g., 3,000 acres) in extent, increase the risk of introducing and spreading invasive non-native plants. It is difficult, however, to draw any precise correlations between the number of acres disturbed and the rate of spread of invasive plant species except that the fewer acres of disturbed ground or habitat, the less risk of introducing and spreading them. The risk of introducing and spreading an invasive plant varies from one species to another and depends on the proximity of infestations to project areas, a species’ regeneration/reproduction ability, seed longevity in the soil seed bank, and the ease of seed dispersal or transport of vegetative propagules (e.g., stem or root fragments, rhizomes, stolons) by wind, water, wildlife, people, and/or vehicles.

The above discussion about the cumulative effects on rare botanical species might be summarized as follows:

1. Additional ground or habitat disturbance in the planning area would increase the risk of impacting individuals, populations, or the habitat of a rare botanical species, but the potential increase in risk is unknown for many species because their habitat requirements are poorly understood (only broadly known).

2. Additional ground or habitat disturbance in the planning area would increase the risk of introducing and spreading invasive non-native plants. Invasive plants are adept at colonizing disturbed ground.

3.3 - Consistency with Management Direction

No Action Alternative

The no-action alternative would comply with all forest plan standards and guidelines (Land and

13

Resource Management Plan – Mt. Hood National Forest, 1990) related to forest diversity and threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plants because no action translates into zero ground or habitat disturbance except that effected by natural processes (e.g., windthrow, wildfire, forest diseases, insects, climate change). No action would benefit rare species (sensitive species on the Region 6 Regional Forester Special Status Species List and Survey and Manage species identified in the Northwest Forest Plan’s December 2003 Survey and Manage list) by not disturbing ground and habitat.

Action Alternative(s)

The action alternative(s) would comply with forest plan standards and guidelines related to forest diversity (FW-148 through FW-169; chapter 4, pp. 67-68) if the diversity of plant communities is not compromised through the introduction and spread of invasive non-native plants, remnant biological legacies (i.e., large-diameter trees, large snags, and downed logs) are retained, and TES plant species, if found, are protected. The retention of biological legacies (forest structural diversity) promotes biological (plant and animal) diversity.

The action alternative would comply with forest plan standards and guidelines related to TES plant species (FW-170 through FW-186; chapter 4, pp. 69-70) if any TES species found are protected.

The action alternative would comply with forest plan standards and guidelines related to special forest products (FW-709 through FW-713; chapter 4, p. 131) if ground or habitat is not excessively disturbed (i.e., the disturbance footprint is kept to a minimum) and products such as boughs, beargrass, mushrooms, forest greens (e.g., huckleberry, salal, Oregon grape), mosses and ferns, and medicinal forest products (derived from vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, and fungi) are not overharvested.

3.4 – Summary of Effects

No sensitive species on the Region 6 Regional Forester Special Status Species List (February 25, 2019) are documented in the project area (NRIS TESP-IS database) and none were found during pre-disturbance surveys.

A number of Survey and Manage sites are documented in the project area (NRIS TESP-IS database), and a number of Survey and Manage sites were found during pre-disturbance surveys for the project (fall 2019). Table 4 below lists rare botanical species documented and found in the proposed units. Figures 1 and 2 display the locations of units and rare botanical species.

Specific location information (GPS coordinates) for rare species sites either documented or found in the project area is considered confidential (restricted information), not to be shared publicly in accordance with FW-181 in the Forest Plan for the Mt. Hood National Forest. There has been a long-standing concern among botanists (former and current) on the Mt. Hood National Forest with rare species sites being disturbed, damaged, or even vandalized by curious

14

visitors, and, therefore, the precise locations of known sites is not shared with the public. Specific location information is not included in the table below.

Table 2. Summary: Rare Species (Documented in NRIS TESP-IS Database or Found During Pre-Disturbance Surveys) Species Taxa Survey & Manage Previously Project Unit Group Category Documented or Found Sub-Area During Pre- Disturbance Surveys Hypogymia duplicate Lichen C Previously documented Horseshoe 13 Hypogymnia duplicata Lichen C Previously documented Horseshoe 13 Clavariadelphus Fungi B Pre-disturbance surveys Horseshoe 61 sachalinensis Gomphus clavatus Fungi F Pre-disturbance surveys Horseshoe 4 Cantharellus subalbidus Fungi WA and CA Only Pre-disturbance surveys Horseshoe 4 Sparassis crispa Fungi D Pre-disturbance surveys Horseshoe 18 Sparassis crispa Fungi D Pre-disturbance surveys Horseshoe 43 Rhizomnium nudum Bryophyte B Previously documented Mud Creek 96 Cetraria subalpina Lichen Not S&M, but Pre-disturbance surveys Mud Creek 112 ORBIC State Rank = S2 Clavariadelphus Fungi B Pre-disturbance surveys Mud Creek 102 sachalinensis Clavariadelphus Fungi B Pre-disturbance surveys Mud Creek 130 sachalinensis Clavariadelphus Fungi B Pre-disturbance surveys Mud Creek 117 sachalinensis Clavariadelphus Fungi B Pre-disturbance surveys Mud Creek 119 sachalinensis Clavariadelphus Fungi B Pre-disturbance surveys Mud Creek 128 sachalinensis Clavariadelphus Fungi B Pre-disturbance surveys Mud Creek 165 sachalinensis Polyozellus multiplex Fungi B Pre-disturbance surveys Mud Creek 130

15

Figure 1. Horseshoe Unit Map

16

Figure 2. Mud Creek Unit Map

17

Table 3. Survey and Manage Categories1 (Based on Species Characteristics)

Relative Rarity Pre-Disturbance Surveys Pre-Disturbance Surveys Status Undetermined Practical Not Practical Rare Category A – 57 species Category B – 222 species Category E – 22 species • Manage All Known • Manage All Known • Manage All Known Sites Sites Sites • Pre-Disturbance • N/A • N/A Surveys • Strategic Surveys • Strategic Surveys • Strategic Surveys Uncommon Category C – 10 species Category D - 14 species Category F – 21 • Manage High-Priority • Manage High-Priority species Sites Sites • N/A • Pre-Disturbance • N/A • N/A Surveys • Strategic Surveys • Strategic Surveys • Strategic Surveys 1 Table copied from Record of Decision (ROD) and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and Other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. 2001. Standards and Guidelines – 7.

Table 3 (above) displays the different Survey and Manage categories and helps clarify the discussion below.

Hypogymnia duplicata is a Survey and Manage Category C lichen. Management of “high- priority sites” is required for Survey and Manage Category C taxa (ROD 2001; December 2003 Survey and Manage list). The intent of the word “management” may be understood as protection/conservation. “Species sites found as a result of these surveys [pre-disturbance or strategic surveys] will be managed as known sites” (ROD 2001, Standards and Guidelines – 8, 9, 13). “High-priority” sites are determined by the local agency botanist based on the relative rarity of a Category C species region-wide and forest-wide.

The following guidance is provided for what constitutes a “high-priority” site (ROD 2001, Standards and Guidelines – 10):

“Professional judgment, Appendix J2 in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS, and appropriate literature will be used to guide individual site management for those species that do not have Management Recommendations. Until a Management Recommendation is written addressing high-priority sites, either assume all sites are high priority, or local determination (and project NEPA documentation) of non-high priority sites may be made on a case-by-case basis with: (1) guidance from the Interagency Survey and Manage Program Manager; (2) local interagency concurrence (BLM, FS, USFWS); (3) documented consideration of the condition of the species on other administrative units as identified by the Program Manager - typically adjacent units as well as others in the species range within the province; and, (4) identification in ISMS. The Survey and Manage Program Manager will involve appropriate taxa specialists. Professional judgment, coupled with locally specific information and advice from taxa specialists about the

18

species, may be used to identify occasional high-priority sites not needed for persistence. These exceptions will be reviewed by the REO.”

Clavariadelphus sachalinensis (fungus), Rhizomnium nudum (bryophyte), and Polyozellus multiplex (fungus) are Survey and Manage Category B taxa. Management of “all known sites” is required for Survey and Manage Category B taxa (ROD 2001; December 2003 Survey and Manage list).

Gomphus clavatus is a Survey and Manage Category F fungus. No management is required for Survey and Manage Category F taxa (ROD 2001; December 2003 Survey and Manage list).

Cantharellus subalbidus is a Survey and Manage Category D fungus but only in Washington and California (ROD 2001; December 2003 Survey and Manage list). No management is required for this taxon in Oregon.

Sparassis crispa is a Survey and Manage Category D fungus. Management of “high-priority sites” is required for Survey and Manage Category D taxa (ROD 2001; December 2003 Survey and Manage list).

Cetraria subalpina is neither a Region 6 sensitive taxon nor a Survey and Manage taxon, but is listed by the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC), which is associated with Oregon State University, as State Rank 2 species. Rank 2 means: “Imperiled because of rarity or because other factors demonstrably make it very vulnerable to extinction (extirpation), typically with 6-20 occurrences.” (State ranks begin with the letter “S” and use a 1 to 5 ranking system: 1 = critically imperiled; 2 = imperiled; 3 = rare, uncommon, or threatened; 4 = not rare and apparently secure; and 5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure.)

Recommendations

Rare Species Protection

For Survey and Manage Category B, C, and D species that are present in the project area, I recommend a no-harvest/no-entry protection buffer of 85 ft. radius to protect the fungi and lichens documented in the Zigzag Integrated Resources Project area. An 85-ft. radius buffer translates into 0.5 acre.

Through experience, I have found smaller buffers (50 ft. in radius) to be inadequate protection for known sites because of edge effects (loss of interior forest habitat) induced by commercial thinning: (1) microclimate (temperature and moisture) alteration; (2) greater penetration of light and wind that dries out the forest floor; and (3) a shift in understory vegetation (composition and structure) that results in homogenization/simplification of plant communities (e.g., dominance by clonal sub-shrubs and ferns such as salal, dwarf Oregon grape, sword fern, and bracken fern). For past projects, I recommended protection buffer radii of 50 ft. for species such as the Survey and Manage lichen Peltigera pacifica and found it to be grossly inadequate and up to 100 ft. for other species (e.g., the Survey and Manage fungus Bridgeoporus

19

nobilissimus). 85 ft. radius (0.5 acre) is a good compromise. (50 ft. radius = 0.2 acre; 100 ft. radius = 0.7 acre)

I also recommend a no-harvest/no-entry protection buffer of 85 ft. radius to protect the rare lichen Cetraria subalpina. Although neither a Region 6 sensitive species nor a Survey and Manage species, C. subalpina is listed by ORBIC (Oregon Biodiversity Information Center) as a State Rank 2 species: “Imperiled because of rarity or because other factors demonstrably make it very vulnerable to extinction (extirpation), typically with 6-20 occurrences.” (State ranks begin with the letter “S” and use a 1 to 5 ranking system: 1 = critically imperiled; 2 = imperiled; 3 = rare, uncommon, or threatened; 4 = not rare and apparently secure; and 5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure.) An additional reason for my recommendation to protect this site is that it is the first documented site of this lichen on the Mt. Hood National Forest. There are no records of any documented sites for this lichen species in the NRIS TESP-IS database.

The number of rare species sites in Horseshoe and Mud Creek to be protected totals 14, which translates into 7 acres of no-harvest/no-entry “skips.”

Specific location information (GPS coordinates) for the rare species sites documented in the project area is considered restricted/confidential, not to be shared publicly in accordance with FW-181 in the Forest Plan for the Mt. Hood National Forest. Specific location information (GPS coordinates) is not included in the table.

Specific location information for the rare botanical sites will be given to the westside forest planner and westside silviculturist to be shared with the sale layout crew prior to sale layout so that “skips” (no-harvest/no-entry areas) can be flagged and mapped to protect these rare species.

Sensitive Habitat Protection

Stands in many of the Horseshoe units facing northwest along the 1825-125 road (above and below the road), are broken up frequently with wide swales (100 ft. or more) dominated by red alder, devil’s club, and salmonberry) with surface as well as sub-surface flowing water. Mountain beaver holes are widespread throughout these upland and riparian stands. Evidence of their foraging (cut vegetation stacked at the entrance of burrowing holes) was widespread in October during field surveys. Protect these swales. They qualify as riparian areas, are highly susceptible to soil erosion, and should be excluded from timber harvest (variable-density thinning, group selection, or regeneration harvest).

20

Biological Legacy Protection

Biological legacies (large trees and large snags) play a significant role in the recovery, resilience, and diversity of forest stands following stand density reduction and in the advancement of stands toward the development of late-successional/old-growth attributes. A number of proposed units contain a substantial number of biological legacies that call out for protection/conservation. For example:

• many large-diameter trees in the SW corner of unit 4 in Horseshoe • many large snags scattered in units 63, 64, 64, 65, and 68 in Horseshoe

The silvicultural prescription for these units is group selection (patch cutting). I have been advised by the forest planner that group selection will not occur where biological legacies are located in order to ensure that they are excluded from harvest. As previously noted, however, OHSA requirements may affect the level of retention in Horseshoe and Mud Creek units, depending on the harvest method employed (whether done by machine or sawyer). If harvested by machine, workers can work safely without threat of harm from falling trees and limbs. If harvested by chain saw, workers may need to remove some snags for safety reasons.

Invasive Plants – Risk Assessment

Risk of Introduction and/or Spread of Invasive Non-Native Plants = High

The risk of invasive plant spread in the project area is high because of (a) the presence of highly invasive species (e.g., false brome; herb Robert; and orange, meadow, and common hawkweed) within the project area or in close proximity of the project area; (b) the extent of ground disturbance and opening of the forest canopy that will occur during timber harvest, creating growing space opportunities for these and other invasive plants; and (c) the number and frequency of vehicles, which are vectors for the spread of invasive plants, along the 18 road, which brushes up against the western edge of the project area. Many people enjoy driving along the 18 road (taking the back way) from the Hood River area to Zigzag and vice versa. Like Highway 26 and Highway 35, the 18 road is a major vector for the spread of invasive plants from one side of the national forest to the other. For example, spotted and diffuse knapweed are being spread from the Hood River RD, which is infested with invasive knapweeds, to the Zigzag RD by vehicles traveling along Highway 35 to Highway 26 and along the 18 road. The highly invasive species listed above can be considered “ecosystem-altering” species, capable of spreading rapidly and overrunning forest openings and understories as well as montane and subalpine meadows in the area. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) powerline corridor marks the forest edge for a number of proposed units in the Horseshoe area. Infested with orange and meadow hawkweed since the mid-1990s, the corridor is treated every year with herbicide by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA)—and now along with Clackamas Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and Portland Water Bureau—but control of these two species in the corridor and along the 18 road has been and is an on-going challenge.

21

Invasive plant locations found during pre-disturbance surveys are listed below by sub-project area:

Horseshoe

• herb Robert (Geranium robertianum) a. 1828 road (unit 30) b. 1828 road (between units 30 and 32) c. unit 32 (target shooting area along spur road at bottom of unit) d. 1828 road (unit 20) e. 1828 road (unit 6)

Note: Herb Robert is probably scattered along the entire length of the 1828 road. • common hawkweed (Hieracium lachenalii) a. along 1828 road (589370 5027133 NAD83), 100 ca. meters north of the bridge over the Clear Fork of the Sandy River (T. 2 S., R. 8 E., Sec. 17, SW ¼)

Note: Common hawkweed is probably scattered along the entire length of the 1828 road.

• false brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum) a. north side of 18 road (unit 4), opposite parking lot for Frenches Dome, by powerline tower

• orange and meadow hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum and H. caespitosum) a. scattered along 18 road and in Bonneville Power Administration powerline (utility) corridor

• reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) a. along road (45.4114, -121.7923) by unit 61; also possibly Himalayan blackberry

• St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum) a. along 1828 road (589370 5027133 NAD83), 100 m north of the bridge over the Clear Fork of the Sandy River (T. 2 S., R. 8 E., Sec. 17, SW ¼) b. along 1828-118 road by unit 61

• Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), and St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum) a. first mile or two of the 18 road north of (above) the 18 road/1825 road junction (T. 2 S., R. 8 E., Sections PB 44, PB 45, and 17)

22

Recommendations

Treat the invasive plant populations along the 1828 road with herbicide before project (timber harvest) activities begin. More than likely, Clackamas SWCD will treat populations along the 1828 road and monitor the road on an annual basis. Clackamas SWCD and ODA work closely on controlling invasive hawkweeds in the area (18 road, BPA corridor, and 1828 road). Populations along the nearby 18 road are treated annually by ODA, Clackamas SWCD, Portland Water Bureau, and the U.S. Forest Service, working and coordinating with one another.

Mud Creek

The botany contractor did not report finding any invasive plants during field surveys in the Mud Creek area; however, he and his crew surveyed the units in October 2020, by which time most invasive plants that might be in the area (e.g., spotted and diffuse knapweed, St. John’s-wort, tansy ragwort, Canada thistle, bull thistle) would have withered and not have been detectable— or not easily detected. Spotted knapweed, in particular, is a problem along Highway 26 (from Rhododendron to the Highway 26/Highway 35 interchange) and along Highway 35 (north to Hood River). The Hood River Ranger District is a “hotspot”/”epicenter” for invasive knapweeds.

It is likely that there are far fewer invasive plant populations in the Mud Creek area, compared to the Horseshoe area, because of its high elevation. Temperatures are colder year-round and the growing season is short with winter snowpack not melting until June and snow falling as early as mid-October. Colder temperatures, a persistent snowpack (November through May), and short growing season may limit the establishment of invasive plants in the area. For example, herb Robert, a particular problem at lower elevations (e.g., Tollgate Campground, Still Creek, and Zigzag), has not seemed to establish at higher elevations in the Government Camp and Trillium Lake areas. On the other hand, invasive knapweeds (spotted, diffuse, and meadow) and invasive hawkweeds (orange, meadow, and common) are less deterred by colder temperatures, a persistent snowpack, and a short growing season. These species could establish in the Mud Creek area, particularly during and following timber harvest activities.

Invasive Plant Prevention and Control

Measures to prevent and control the spread of the invasive plants discussed above and others are spelled out in the botany project design criteria (PDC). The botany PDC, along with those for silviculture, wildlife, fish, hydrology, and archeology, will be incorporated into the environmental assessment (EA) and, for that reason, will not be repeated here.

Revegetation/Restoration

Revegetation/restoration standards and guidelines following ground-disturbing activities are also specified in the botany project PDC.

23

FINAL NOTE

For a complete list of rare species—Region 6 sensitive or Survey and Manage—that a botanist looks for when conducting field surveys, refer to the Region 6 Regional Forester Special Status Species List (February 25, 2019) and the Survey and Manage list (December 2003 version). The special status species list is a large spreadsheet and the Survey and Manage list is a long table. Neither is included here in order to streamline the report. Both are available online. Or electronic copies can be provided by the westside zone botanist for the Mt. Hood National Forest by contacting him at [email protected].

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/plants-animals/plants/?cid=stelprdb5282984

https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/

24

5.0 - References Cited

Amaranthus, M. P., D. Page-Dumroese, A. Harvey, E. Cazares, and L. F. Bednar. 1996. Soil compaction and organic matter affect conifer seedling nonmycorrhizal and ectomycorrhizal root tip abundance and diversity. Research Paper PNW-RP-494. USDA Forest Service, Research Station, Portland, OR. 12 p. Ares, A., S. D. Berryman, and K. J. Puettmann. 2009. Understory vegetation response to thinning disturbance of varying complexity in coniferous stands. Appl. Veg. Sci. 12:472-487.

Ares, A., A. R. Neill, and K. J. Puettmann. 2010. Understory abundance, species diversity, and functional attribute response to thinning in coniferous stands. For. Ecol. Manage. 260 (2010): 1104-1113.

Bailey, J. D., C. Mayrsohn, P. S. Doescher, E. St Pierre, and J. C. Tappeiner. 1998. Understory vegetation in old and young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon. For. Ecol. Manage. 112:289- 302.

Bailey, J. D. and J. C. Tappeiner. 1998. Effects of thinning on structural development in 40-100- year-old Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon. For. Ecol. Manage. 108:99-113.

Barbier, S., F. Gosselin, and P. Balandier. 2008. Influence of tree species on understory vegetation diversity and mechanisms involved—A critical review for temperate and boreal forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 254(1):1-15.

Beggs, L. R. 2004. Vegetation response following thinning in young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon: can thinning accelerate development of late-successional structure and composition? M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Cheo, K. H. 1946. Ecological changes due to thinning red pine. J. 44:369-371.

Colgan, W., A. B. Carey, J. M. Trappe, R. Molina, and D. Thysell. 1999. Diversity and productivity of hypogeous fungal sporocarps in a variably thinned Douglas-fir forest. Can. J. For. Res. 29:1259-1268.

Davis, M. A., K. J. Wrage, P. B. Reich, M. G. Tjoelker, T. Schaeffer, & C. Muermann. 1999. Survival, growth, and photosynthesis of tree seedlings competing with herbaceous vegetation along a water–light–nitrogen gradient. Plant Ecology 145: 341–350.

Davis, L. R. and K. J. Puettmann. 2009. Initial response of understory vegetation to three alternative thinning treatments. J. Sust. For. 28:904-934.

Derr, C., R. Heliwell, A. Ruchty, L. Hoover, L. Geiser, D. Lebo, and J. Davis. 2003. 2003 Survey Protocols for Category A & C Lichens in the Northwest Forest Plan Area. Version 2.1. USDA- Forest Service and OR/WA Bureau of Land Management.

25

Dovciak, M., C. B. Halpern, J. F. Saracco, S. A. Evans, and D. A. Liguori. 2006. Persistence of ground-layer bryophytes in a structural retention experiment: initial effects of level and pattern of overstory removal. Can. J. For. Res. 36:3039-3052.

Egli, S., F. Ayer, M. Peter, B. Eilmann, and A. Rigling. 2010. Is forest mushroom productivity driven by tree growth? Results from a thinning experiment. Ann. For. Sci. 67(59):1-9.

Fahey, R. T. and K. J. Puettman. 2007. Ground-layer disturbance and initial conditions influence gap partitioning of understory vegetation. J. Ecol. 95:1098-1109.

Final Environmental Impact Statement - Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatments for Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon including Forest Plan Amendment #16. 2008 (March). USDA-Forest Service, Region 6 (Pacific Northwest). 468 p.

Fogel, R. and J. M. Trappe. 1978. Fungus consumption (mycophagy) by small animals. Northwest Science 52(1):1-31.

Forest Plan (a.k.a. Land and Resource Management Plan) - Mt. Hood National Forest. 1990. USDA-Forest Service, Region 6 (Pacific Northwest). 628 p.

Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. 452 p.

Franklin, J. F., T. A. Spies, R. Van Pelt, A. B. Carey, D. A. Thornburgh, D. R. Berg, D. B. Lendenmayer, M. E. Harmon, W. S. Keeton, D. C. Shaw, K. Bible, and J. Chen. 2002. Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. For. Ecol. Manage. 155:399–423.

Green, S. R., J. Grace, and N. J. Hutchings. 1995. Observations of turbulent air flow in three stands of widely spaced Sitka spruce. Agriculture Forestry Meteorology 74:205-225.

Grime, J. P. 2001. Plant Strategies, Vegetation Processes, and Ecosystem Properties. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK.

Halpern, C. B. 1989. Early successional patterns of forest species: interactions of life history traits and disturbance. Ecology 70:704-720.

Halpern, C. H. and T. B. Spies. 1995. Plant species diversity in natural and managed forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ecol. Applic. 5 (4): 913-934.

Hannerz, M. and B. Hanell. 1997. Effects on the flora in Norway spruce forests following clearcutting and shelterwood cutting. For. Ecol. Manage. 90:29-49.

He, F. and H. J. Barclay. 2000. Long-term response of understory plant species to thinning and fertilization in a Douglas-fir plantation on southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 30:566-572.

26

Huffman, D. W., and J. C. Tappeiner. 1997. Clonal expansion and seedling recruitment of Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa) in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests: comparisons with salal (Gaultheria shallon). Can. J. For. Res. 27:1788-1793.

Kannabetter, J. M. and P. Kroeger. 2001. Ectomycorrhizal mushroom response to partial cutting in a western hemlock-western redcedar forest. Can. J. For. Res. 31:978-987.

Kropp, B. R. and S. Albee. 1996. The effects of silvicultural treatments on occurrence of mycorrhizal sporocarps in a Pinus contorta forest: a preliminary study. Biol. Cons. 78:313-318.

Li, S., W. Y. Liu, and L. Wang. 2011. Biomass, diversity, and composition of epiphytic macrolichens in primary and secondary forests in the subtropical Ailao Mountains, SW China. For. Ecol. Manage. 261:760–1770.

Lindh, B. C. an d P. S. Muir. 2004. Understory vegetation in young Douglas-fir forests: does thinning help restore old-growth composition? For. Ecol. Manage. 192:285-296.

Luoma, D. L., J. L. Eberhart, R. Molina, and M. P. Amaranthus. 2004. Response of ectomycorrhizal fungus production to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention. For. Ecol. Manage. 202:337-354.

Neitlich, P. N. and B. McCune. 1997. Hotspots of epiphytic lichen diversity in two young managed forests. Cons. Biol. 11:172–182.

Nelson, C. R. and C. B. Halpern. 2005. Short-term effects of timber harvest and forest edges on ground-layer mosses and liverworts. Can. J. Bot. 83:610-620.

Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program – Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement. 2005 (October). USDA-Forest Service, Region 6 (Pacific Northwest), Regional Office, Portland, OR. 359 p.

Peet, R. K. and N. L. Christensen. 1987. Competition and tree death. Bioscience 37(8):586-595.

Pilz, D., R. Molina, and J. Mayo. 2006. Effect of thinning young forests on chanterelle mushroom production. J. For. Ecol. 104:9-14.

Poage, N. J. and J. C. Tappeinier. 2002. Long-term patterns of diameter and basal area growth of old-growth Douglas-fir trees in western Oregon. Can. J. For. Res. 32:1232-1243.

Puettmann, K. J. and C. A. Berger. 2006. Development of tree and understory vegetation in young Douglas-fir plantations in western Oregon. W. J. Appl. For. 21:94–101.

Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and Other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. 2001 (January). USDA-Forest Service & OR/WA Bureau of Land Management. 160 p.

Region 6 Regional Forester Special Status Species List (February 25, 2019). USDA-Forest Service, Regional Office (Region 6), Portland, OR.

27

Roberts, M. R. 2004. Response of the herbaceous layer to natural disturbance in North American forests. Can. J. Bot. 82: 1273–1283.

Roberts, M. R. 2007. A conceptual model to characterize disturbance severity in forest harvests. For. Ecol. Manage. 242: 58–64.

Sillett, S. C., B. McCune, J. E. Peck, T. R. Rambo, and A. Ruchty. 2000. Dispersal limitations of epiphytic lichens result in species dependent on old-growth forests. Ecol. App. 10(3):789-799.

Smith, J. E., R. Molina, M. M. P. Hu so, D. L. Luoma, D. McKay, M. A. Castellano, T. Lebel, and Y. Valachovic. 2002. Species richness, abundance, and composition of hypogeous and epigeous ectomycorrhizal fungal sporocarps in young, rotation-age, and old-growth stands of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) in the Cascade Range of Oregon, U.S.A. Can. J. Bot. 80:186-204.

Survey and Manage List (December 2003). Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and Other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. USDA-Forest Service & OR/WA Bureau of Land Management (January 2001).

Tappeiner, J. C., and J. C. Zasada. 1993. Establishment of salmonberry, salal, vinemaple, and bigleaf maple seedlings in the coastal forests of Oregon. Can. J. For. Res. 23:1775-1780.

Thomas, S. C., D. A. Liguori, and C. B. Halpern. 2001. Corticolous bryophytes in managed Douglas-fir forests: habitat differentiation and responses to thinning and fertilization. Can. J. Bot. 79:886-896.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants Survey – Protocol and Field Guide. 2014. USDA- Forest Service. Rangeland Management Staff. Washington, D.C.

Trappe, J. M., R. Molina, D. L. Luoma, E. Cázares, D. Pilz, J. E. Smith, M. A. Castellano, S. L. Miller, and M. Trappe. 2009. Diversity, ecology, and conservation of truffle fungi in forests of the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-772. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 194 p.

Waters, J. R., K. S. McKelvey, C. J. Zabel, and W. W. Oliver. 1994. The effect of thinning and broadcast burning on sporocarp production of hypogeous fungi. Can. J. For. Res. 24:1516-1522.

Wilson, D. S. and K. J. Puettmann. 2007. Density management and biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forests: challenges of managing across scales. For. Ecol. Manage. 246:123–134.

Winter, L. E., L. B. Brubaker, J. F. Franklin, E. A. Miller, and D. Q. DeWitt. 2002. Initiation of an old-growth Douglas-fir stand in the Pacific Northwest: a reconstruction from tree-ring records. Can. J. For. Res. 32:1039-1056.

28