I. Introduction

This document provides supplemental information to the Two Bit Vegetation Management Survey and Manage Compliance Document, dated March 22, 2010 (USDA Forest Service 2010a). Prior to the completion of the Two Bit Vegetation Management Final Environmental Impact Statement, changes occurred in the survey requirements for Survey and Manage category B fungi species. This document addresses those changes. The Category A & C vascular plant species Cypripedium montanum (CYMO2), Cypripedium fasciculatum (CYFA), and Eucephalis vialis (EUVI8) and the Category A bryophyte species, Ptilidium californicum (PTCA5) have been discussed in detail in the Two Bit Botany Biological Assessment/ Evaluation (USDA Forest Service 2010b) and will therefore not addressed in this document. This document focuses on the Survey and Manage Category B fungi. Botanical review for Survey and Manage (S&M) bryophyte, lichen, fungi, and vascular plant species has been completed for the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project, Happy Camp/ Oak Knoll Ranger District, Klamath National Forest.

A. Location Information

The Two Bit Vegetation Management Project encompasses all, or portions of the Louse, Two Bit, Bare, Snowbrush, Classic Hill, Kemper Gulch, Runaway, Doolittle, Bald Hornet, Grey Eagle, Kelly Lake and Twin Valley compartments on the Happy Camp Ranger District, Klamath National Forest. These compartments are located within the Indian Creek Watershed. The project area is north and west of the community of Happy Camp. Indian Creek is the primary drainage in the project area, and Mill Creek and Doolittle Creek are tributaries to Indian Creek.

The legal description is all or portions of: Humboldt Meridian: Township (T)16N Range (R) 6E Sections 1- 4, 11; T17N R6E Sections 1- 4, 9- 16, 21- 28, 33- 36; T17N R7E Sections 2- 35 ; T17N R6E Sections 1- 5, 8-17, 20-30, 32- 36 ; T18N R7E Sections 3-10, 15- 22, 26- 35; T19N R6E Sections 32- 36; T19N R7E Sections 31- 33 Willamette Meridian: T41S R6W Sections 7- 9, 15- 18; T41S R7W Sections 12-14

For a map of the proposed project area, see the Two Bit Vegetation Management Final Environment Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2012).

B. Species of Concern

Only those species of concern that have potentially suitable habitat or documented occurrences in the proposed project area are discussed in this document. In summary, Category A&C species, “surveys required”, and Category B, D, and E species, “manage known sites”, are listed in Attachment 1, List of Survey and Manage Species and Category Assignment (USDA 2011a).

Page 2 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

C. Preliminary Botanical Review Pre-field review procedures were followed in accordance with currently available survey protocols. An office pre-field review was conducted to determine if suitable habitat was present within the proposed project area (USDA Forest Service 2009a). All S&M species requiring pre- disturbance surveys were considered during this review (USDA Forest Service 2009a). All areas proposed for ground-disturbing activities were assessed for the presence of suitable habitat. The objective of this review was to determine if protocol surveys would be required. Pre-disturbance surveys were not required for any fungi species.

Botanical Pre-field Review: Appendices A-1, October 2, 2009; A-2, September 24, 2009; and A-3, September 30, 2009. Two Bit Vegetation Management Project file (USDA Forest Service 2009a).

In 2010, a Survey and Manage compliance report was completed that addressed all species and categories for both the 2001 ROD and 2003 ROD (USDA Forest Service 2010a). A revised Appendix A-1 and A-2 were completed in June 2012 to reflect the current Survey and Manage species list provided as part of the 2011 Settlement Agreement (USDA Forest Service 2012a). As of 2012, one Category D fungi species, Cantharellus subalbidus, is known to be present within the project area, but not in an area where ground disturbing activities would occur.

II. Current Management Direction (Regulatory Direction) In 1994, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management adopted standards and guidelines for the management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl, commonly known as the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) (USDA/USDI 1994). Mitigation measures were included for management of known sites, site-specific pre-habitat disturbing surveys, and/or landscape scale surveys for about 400 rare and/or isolated species, known as Survey and Manage, Protect from Grazing, and Protection Buffer species. In 2001, these agencies amended the Standards and Guidelines for these species to add clarity and provide more concrete direction for management of these species (USDA/USDI 2001). The document, referred to as the 2001 ROD, (Record of Decision and Standards & Guidelines) divided these species up into six categories (USDA 2001, Table 1-1) depending upon management objectives. The S&M species, their category assignments, and the management direction for each category can be found within the 2001 ROD Standards & Guidelines, pp. 6-14, and in Table 1-1. That information will only be summarized here.

Of the six categories of S&M plants, only category A and C require surveys prior to habitat- disturbing activities in addition to protecting known or high-priority sites. For these categories, the Management Direction (S&G p.8) states:

Surveys will be conducted at the project level prior to habitat-disturbing activities, and in accordance with Survey Protocols, to avoid loss of undiscovered sites by habitat- disturbing activities. Species sites found as a result of these surveys will be managed as known sites.

Page 3 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

Survey protocols currently exist for bryophytes, fungi, lichens, and vascular plants (USDA 1997a, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999, 1999a, 2002c, 2003, 2003e, 2008, USDA/USDI 2006e). Management Recommendations have been issued for bryophytes, fungi, vascular plants, and lichens (USDA 1997b, 1997c, 1998d, 1999b, 2000, USDA/USDI 2002d).

An annual species review requirement was a part of the 2001 ROD. As information is gathered about species associated with old growth and late-successional forests, modifications will be made to survey and manage requirements. The 2001 Annual Species Review (ASR) was the first review under this requirement (USDA/USDI 2002b). The ASR memorandum (June 14, 2002) changed the category placement for species displayed in Table 1-1 of the 2001 S&M ROD. The species review added four lichen species to the list requiring pre-project surveys (Category A & C). Survey protocols have been prepared for these species, effective date October 18, 2002. (USDA 2002c). Survey requirements for these species do not apply to activities for which NEPA decisions or decision documents are signed earlier than one year after the survey protocols’ official release (USDA 2002b, p. 2).

The 2002 ASR memorandum changed the category placement for species displayed in Table 1-1 of the 2001 S&M ROD, as amended June 14, 2002 (USDA/USDI 2003). Some species were removed from the list, and others changed category within the list, and additional information was presented about the species’ habitat and range. The 2003 ASR memorandum changed the category placement for species displayed in Table 1-1 of the 2001 S&M ROD, as amended December 19, 2003 (USDA/USDI 2003c). Some species were removed from the list, and others changed category within the list and additional information was presented about the species’ habitat and range.

In addition, three of the six categories of S&M plants, Categories B, D, and E, require that existing known sites be managed, or that high-priority sites be managed. The 2001, 2002, and 2003 ASR changed category placement of some of these species also, removing some from the list entirely and changing the category placement of others. Species in these categories are to be managed according to currently available Management Recommendations.

S&M exemption – On October 11, 2006, a US District Court decision (Case 2:04-cv-00844- MJP) held that all Forest Service and BLM authorized activities must comply with the 2001 ROD (USDA/USDI 2001) except for several specific activities. These exempted activities include (among others) 1) thinning projects in stands younger than 80 years old and 2) the portions of projects involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied, except for any portion of a hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging where treatment stands are older than 80 years old (USDA 2006f).

Category B species - For Category B species, the 2001 Survey and Manage ROD requires the Forest Service and BLM to conduct strategic surveys to find additional new sites and to characterize the habitat, improving the ability of the Agencies to know where to survey and how to manage and conserve the species (USDA/USDI 2001)). The Forest Service and BLM may not sign NEPA decision documents for habitat-disturbing activities in old-growth forest in FY 2006

Page 4 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

(FY 2011 for fungi) or later unless the agencies have completed strategic surveys in the province in which the project lies or equivalent-effort surveys have been conducted in the old-growth habitat to be disturbed. On April 3, 2006, the agencies released an instruction memorandum (USDA/USDI 2006e) disclosing that strategic surveys have not been completed for 9 Category B species (2 lichens, 4 bryophytes and 3 mollusks). Thus, equivalent effort surveys are required for these species if the agencies intend to authorize logging in old growth forest.

The six plant species are Bryoria subcana, Tholurna dissimilis, Kurzia makinoana, Marsupella emarginata v. aquatica, Orthodontium gracile, and Tritomaria exsectiformis. The Two Bit Vegetation Management Project is not within range and habitat of these species. These species are either strictly coastal or do not occur south of Central Oregon (USDA/USDI 2006e). The survey protocol requires that a project be within both range and habitat for a particular species in order to trigger pre-project surveys. No surveys are required on the Klamath National Forest for these species.

Strategic surveys for fungi have been completed for only a portion of the Category B fungi species (USDA 2012b, Appendix A-1). For the remainder of the species, equivalent-effort surveys are not required in Two Bit Vegetation Management Project because either 1) habitat disturbing activities will not occur in stands defined as old-growth, or 2) portions of the proposed project fall within two of the four project types exempt from the 2001 ROD requirements (thinning in stands less than 80 years old and prescribed fire units).

2011 Settlement Agreement – In response to a lawsuit by Conservation Northwest et al., a Settlement Agreement (USDA 2011b) was reached that stipulated that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior would follow the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and Other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (“2001 ROD”), as modified by the Settlement Agreement. This overturned the 2001, 2002, and 2003 ASR’s, and provided a modified S&M list (USDA 2011a) and provided an additional 7 exemptions to S&M Standards and Guidelines.

III. Description Of Proposed Action

A. Proposed Action

Alternative 2 was designed to meet the purpose and need for action. The Happy Camp Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest proposes thinning and fuels treatments on NFS lands encompassing approximately 9,530 acres. This includes 2,280 acres of silvicultural treatments in 142 units and 7,250 acres of underburning outside of treatment units. Proposed project activities are summarized below. For a complete description of the project activities, see the Two Bit Vegetation Management FEIS (USDA, 2012).

Page 5 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

Silvicultural Treatments • Thinning is proposed for approximately 1,980 acres. Most commercial thinning is proposed for plantations; only 315 acres (16 percent of proposed thinning) is proposed for natural stands. Proposed treatments include thinning of plantations and natural stands with subsequent fuels treatment. Thinning would generally be from below where smaller trees with poor crowns would be removed to favor trees that are higher in the canopy with well-developed crowns. At times, smaller trees would be left rather than larger trees in order to maintain species diversity, to remove some damaged or diseased trees from the stand, to remove off-site planted Ponderosa pine, or where trees are too small to be thinned for timber products in this entry. • The majority of the commercial thinning and specialized treatment units are proposed to be harvested using ground-based operations (mechanized harvest or conventional tractor skidding using feller bunchers and rubber-tired skidders). A small percentage would be cable-logged (including skyline and mobile yarders). No helicopter logging is proposed. • Approximately 300 acres within Riparian Reserves are proposed for commercial thinning to achieve the objectives of late-successional stand structure and for fuels reduction. Riparian Reserve thinning would be conducted according to design criteria that ensure woody material is properly maintained, soil compaction and disturbance is minimized or eliminated, and important elements of the riparian environment are not degraded. • Pole harvest is proposed for 84 acres along roadsides that are heavily stocked with small diameter (less than 10 inch) trees. • Sanitation harvest is proposed for 36 acres along a roadside that has dwarf mistletoe infestation. • Meadow enhancement/restoration is proposed for 160 acres in order to maintain or enhance meadow conditions. Treatments would include chainsaw removal of small non- commercial encroaching conifers, handpiling and burning, and limited use of prescribed fire. • Thinning to restore hardwood stands is proposed for approximately 18 acres to reduce conifer competition with medium- to large-sized oak trees and other hardwoods.

Roads, Landings, and Skid Trails • Approximately 2.9 miles of temporary roads in 26 segments would be constructed to more efficiently remove thinned logs. • Existing roads, skid trails and landings would be used whenever possible and practical to avoid new disturbance. • Approximately 4.3 miles of pre-existing non-system roads would be re- opened/reconstructed. • Timber hauling would mainly occur on existing system roads or on re-opened non-system roads. Haul routes would receive maintenance such as dip, ditch and culvert cleaning, dust abatement and grading. • Approximately 4.3 miles of existing system roads are proposed for decommissioning. These roads were identified in 2004 through the roads analysis process as requiring

Page 6 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

excessive maintenance, having little value to future management projects, and contributing to unfavorable watershed conditions.

Fuels Treatments • Approximately 2,000 acres of underburning in combination with landing pile burning is proposed within thinning units and 120 acres is proposed for hand pile burning. Proposed prescribed burning activities include hand piling, burning small concentrations of debris and slash (jackpot), and low intensity burning under a forest canopy. These activities are designed to treat fuel accumulations created during proposed thinning treatments in thinned stands, and to reduce fuel loading and buildup of forest debris. • Outside of thinning units, approximately 7,250 acres of underburning is proposed over a ten year period. Non-commercial thinning of small trees and brush may occur within these large underburn areas as needed to promote effective fuel consumption. • Meadow enhancement units (160 acres) would also be hand piled and pile burned.

B. Resource Protection Measures

Known Sites: Mitigation for species of concern has been designed into the proposed action (Table 1). Based upon the recommendations of the botanist, site-specific habitat protection areas would be laid out on the ground around the Sensitive plant, bryophyte, lichen or fungi populations. The sites have been evaluated on the ground to determine the buffer widths. Factors considered include overstory trees available for shading, the need to thin dense stands to prevent deterioration of the stand within the buffer, protection from prescribed fire or the need to apply prescribed fire within the buffer to prevent catastrophic wildfire, and other habitat protection needs

Table 1. Botany Project Design Features

Commercial / Other Actions Non-commercial Prescribed Burn (landings, road Species/Management Action Thin Unit Unit Number maintenance, Number etc.) Follow species-specific mitigations for additional Sensitive/ Survey and All/complete All Units All Units Manage occurrences located during avoidance implementation.

• If any new threatened, endangered or sensitive species populations are discovered during project implementation, a botanist would be notified to determine if any additional protective measures are necessary.

Sensitive Fungi: An evaluation of effects to species listed for which surveys could not be conducted is being done as part of this document. Existing resource protection measures designed to protect fish, wildlife and water resources would also provide benefits to the fungal species of concern. Riparian

Page 7 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

Reserves have been established 170 ft. on either side of non-fish bearing streams. The Riparian Reserve adjacent to fish bearing streams is 340 ft. Project activities would be limited within these areas. The objectives of these protection buffers are to maintain adequate shade and moisture levels, litter, duff, and coarse woody debris components, and species composition. Retention of these components within the buffers would provide continued high quality habitat for the fungi species of concern. • Apply Aquatic Conservation Strategy/ Riparian Reserves Objectives for maintenance of riparian species diversity to maintain Sensitive fungi habitat components; apply silvicultural practices for riparian reserves to control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics including species diversity needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Objectives. In the proposed action yarding disturbance within Riparian Reserves would be minimized. The thinning prescriptions were developed to meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and Riparian Reserve S&Gs. Best management practices and other design features of the Proposed Action minimize the potential adverse impacts at all scales.

Outside of the Riparian Reserve, the following standards and guidelines would also benefit fungi. • Apply soil productivity standards for conservation of surface organic matter and large woody material (USDA 1995) to maintain Sensitive fungi habitat components • Apply Klamath LRMP standards and guides for woody material retention to maintain Sensitive fungi habitat components

IV. Existing Environment

A. Known Sites

The NRIS database, and the Klamath GIS S&M plant layer has been reviewed to search for known sites of Category A, B, C, D, and E species within Two Bit Vegetation Management Project area. There is currently one known site of these species within the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project area.

B. Field Survey

Within the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Area, the 1665 acres of thinning treatments within plantations are exempt from survey because these stands are not over 80 years of age and do not contain habitat for Survey and Manage species. In addition, areas planned for fuel treatments only, approximately 7,250 acres, are also exempt from pre-disturbance surveys (USDA Forest Service 2006f). Pre-disturbance surveys for Survey and Manage species were therefore focused on natural stands and specialized treatment units within the project area where commercial and non-commercial thinning is planned. These stands, approximately 615 acres, contain mid to late-seral conifer habitat with small pockets of older trees (USDA Forest Service 2010c). These proposed units within natural stands do not represent old-growth stands and are

Page 8 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

therefore exempt from equivalent effort surveys for Category B fungi (USDA Forest Service 1995).

In 2011, strategic surveys for Survey and Manage fungi were conducted across forests in the California Northern Province including a small portion of the Two-Bit Project area. One new fungi population of Cantharellus subalbidus was found within the project area (Table 2). Although no populations of the sensitive fungi species Boletus pulcherrimus, Cudonia monticola, Dendrocollybia racemosa, Phaeocollybia olivacea or Sowerbyella rhenana (also Category B fungi) were identified during strategic surveys, presence is assumed for the analysis because these species are also forest sensitive species and may be located in other areas of the project. No populations of Survey and Manage Category B fungi are known from the project area.

Table 2. Survey and Manage Fungi Species within the Two Bit Project Area SPECIES FOUND CODE COMMON NAME CAT NUMBER OF POPULATIONS

Boletus pulcherrimus BOPU4 Alice Eastwood’s bolete B None

Cantharellus subalbidus CASU63 White chanterelle D 1 population

Cudonia monticola CUMO2 N/A B None

Dendrocollybia racemosa DERA5 N/A B None

Phaeocollybia olivacea PHOL Olive Phaeocollybia B None

Sowerbyella rhenana SORH Stalked Orange Peel Fungus B None

Sensitive/S&M Plant Survey Reports, dated: June-Sept 2009 (USDA Forest Service 2009b)

Sensitive/S&M Plant Population Reports, dated: June - Aug 2001, July – Aug 2008; June-Sept 2009 (USDA Forest Service 2009c)

Strategic Survey Fungi survey and specimen voucher: November 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2011c)

Project design features are included in this project that would protect Sensitive fungi and if they do occur within a treatment unit. Specifically, the Klamath LRMP standards and guidelines for woody material retention would be implemented to maintain Sensitive fungi habitat components and implementation of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Standards and Guidelines would maintain riparian species diversity and maintain Sensitive fungi habitat components. In this

Page 9 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

botanical review, an evaluation of species-habitat associations, presence of suitable or potential habitat, and a review of the literature on the effects to the species group of concern is used to determine effects.

C. Species Accounts – Fungi There is very little specific information available about the Sensitive fungi species. The following species accounts are based on the best available information. The majority of the information has come from the Handbook to Additional Fungal Species of Special Concern in the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2003f), Handbook to Strategy 1 Fungal Species in the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1999c), and Management Recommendations for Survey and Manage Fungi (USDA Forest Service 1997). In addition, this analysis is based upon database query of the results of the pre-project surveys, strategic surveys, and purposive surveys that have been completed within Oregon, Washington, and California, and on the species range listed in the scientific literature.

Mycorrhizal fungi species: Many fungi taxa are ectomycorrhizae (ECM) formers. Mycorrhizae are the symbiotic, mutually beneficial association between a fungus and plant root. Nutrients are transported through an underground network called mycelia. Mycelia can extend over several acres. Some mycorrhizal associations are highly specific, and some fungi are dependent upon specific vascular plant species as hosts. Many plants depend upon mycorrhizal fungi for adequate uptake of nutrients and survival in nature. Likewise mycorrhizal fungi are dependent upon the habitat elements that support the species and their vascular plant hosts throughout their life cycles. Adequate overstory, understory and shrub layers of diverse species are required to maintain high moisture levels within the forest litter and large woody debris. These species are found associated with late seral habitat elements within the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Area.

• Alice Eastwood’s Bolete - Boletus pulcherrimus (BOPU4) This mycorrhizal species is endemic to the Pacific Northwest in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. BOPU4 is a large epigeous mushroom that is found in humus in association with the roots of Douglas-fir in older mixed conifer/ hardwood forests (primarily with Abies grandis, Pseudotsuga menziesii, and Lithocarpus densiflorus). It is unknown if Douglas-fir is the only tree species that this fungus forms an association with. There are no known sites on the Klamath N.F., and no sites were discovered during strategic surveys conducted on the Forest. Because the majority of the known sites of this species are located in more humid or coastal, the project area may be generally too dry (and too young in the plantations) to support the species, however, there is a potential that the species may be present within the project area.

• Cantharellus subalbidus - White Chanterelle (CASU63) This species is a common species found distributed across northwestern North America associated with conifers but also found under tanoak, madrone and manzanita (Castellano et al. 2003, Arora 1986). It is mainly found in old growth habitat, but may also be found in with

Page 10 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

secondary growth forests. Fruiting bodies (mushrooms) are produced in the autumn through winter. Approx. 250 to 300 sites have been identified within the area covered by Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 2008). While this species is commonly found within the Klamath National Forest, few sites have been mapped during fungal surveys. Two populations were identified during permanent plot surveys in 2010. Eight additional populations were identified during the 2011 Strategic Surveys on the Klamath – one near Happy Camp, three on the Salmon River district, and four on the Oak Knoll district. CASU63 is a Category D fungi – protect high priority sites; strategic surveys.

Table 8. White Chanterelle (Cantharellus subalbidus) PROJECT AREA POPULATION NUMBER(S) LEGAL LOCATION ¼ mile outside UB-4 CASU63-5-10 T17N, R6E, Sec. 11

Saprophytic fungi species: Saprophytic species obtain nutrients by the decomposition of dead organic matter. These fungi species are dependent upon adequate amounts of leaves, needles, limbs, large woody debris, other decomposing forest litter, or even dead animal carcasses to provide a substrate and to supply a continuous source of nutrients. These species are not dependent upon specific vascular plant hosts, but may require adequate canopy coverage to retain the moisture levels sufficient to support them. Most of the known sites of these species are located on the west side of the Klamath N.F. where climatic conditions provide higher levels of rainfall. There is suitable habitat for these species within the project area boundary. The habitat is distributed along the main stem of the Klamath River and numerous tributaries or where the late-seral timber stands occur. Because these species require high moisture levels, the habitat is further restricted to north facing slopes or riparian areas adjacent to perennial creeks. These areas are within the Riparian Reserve buffers that have been established 170 ft. from perennial water courses. • Dendrocollybia racemosa (DERA5) This saprophytic species is widespread in the Northern Hemisphere and is found on rotting or mummified remnants of agarics, or occasionally in nutrient-rich leaf mulch in coast live oak, Douglas-fir and tanbark oak forests. Populations are known from the western portions of Washington, Oregon, and northern California. One population of this species is located on the Klamath NF, near the Duck Lake trailhead on Scott River district. • Cudonia monticola (CUMO2) This very rare saprophytic species is endemic to western North America found on coniferous needles and debris within older forests and has also been found with white fir, Douglas-fir and pine. Populations are known from the western portions of Washington and Oregon, and in Northern California. Two populations of this species are located on the Klamath, on the Ukonom District, in the vicinity of Haypress Meadows. • Stalked Orange Peel Fungus – Sowerbyella rhenana (SORH) This saprophytic species is known from Europe, Japan, and the western United States. Populations are known from the western portions of Washington, Oregon, and California as far south as Mendocino National Forest. Five populations of this species are known from the Klamath, on Salmon River District, at elevations of 2,500 to 3,500 ft. SORH fruits in scattered to

Page 11 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

gregarious or caespitose groups in duff of moist, relatively undisturbed older conifer forests. The specific habitat is unknown, but could include duff, litter, mineral soil, woody debris, or roots.

V. Effects Of The Alternatives

The significance of management activities upon Survey and Manage species depends upon many factors, including the current habitat conditions of the known populations, the habitat conditions necessary to support the species, and the degree of species sensitivity to short-term and long- term habitat modification. Each alternative is evaluated in terms of how the proposed activities would meet the requirements of the species specific Management Recommendations discussed above in Section V, if known sites are present, and how the project would comply with the 2001 ROD (USDA/USDI 2001).

The effects of the alternatives upon Cypripedium fasciculatum, Cypripedium montanum, Eucephalis vialis, Buxbaumia viridis and Ptilidium californicum as well as on the sensitive fungi Boletus pulcherrimus, Cudonia monticola, Dendrocollybia racemosa, Phaeocollybia olivacea and Sowerbyella rhenana have been discussed in detail in Two Bit Vegetation Management project Biological Assessment for TES Plant Species (USDA 2010). This general effects to fungi populations will be summarized here.

A. Interactions Important to Analysis - General

Ground disturbance and alterations of the light, moisture, and nutrient regimes within forest and associated plant environments can affect fungi and their habitats. These effects can take two forms; either the actual destruction of individuals in a population or the adverse modification of suitable habitat considered critical to maintenance of viable populations (direct effect), or the modification of habitat to the extent that it prevents future colonization of the site by a species (indirect effect).

Management activities and their effects on fungi can be both long-term and short-term. Activities that occur once on a specific population may not affect a population or its habitat if the species possesses the biological mechanisms to recover, while repeated activities may have the potential to significantly impact a population. Activities prescribed by a project may have cumulative effects on the species viability if individually insignificant effects occur over a wide geographic range or on large numbers of sensitive plant populations.

The significance of management activities upon fungi species viability depends upon many factors, including the size of known populations, the wider geographic range of known populations outside of the project area, and the degree of species sensitivity to short-term and long-term habitat modification. The alternatives are evaluated in terms of how they would affect fungi species viability in the context of the above factors. Unless otherwise indicated, the cumulative effects analysis area for fungi is the project area. Cumulative effects are evaluated over a time period of 30 years.

Page 12 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

B. Interactions Important to Analysis - Species Specific

1) Fungi General information is available for the 2 major groups of fungi (mycorrhizal and saprophytic). Fungi differ from vascular plants (flowering plants) in several important ways that affect their response to management activities. Fungi do not have roots, but rather depend upon an extensive network of fungal mycelium to support the plants. Mycelia are fine, net-like structures that penetrate the soil, rotting wood, duff, or other substrates. Mycelia that penetrate the roots of vascular plants form mycorrhizae. The fruiting structure of a fungus can form anywhere along the network of mycelia. When the substrate within which the mycelial network occurs is disturbed, the fungus is not necessarily killed. Rather, the network would be broken into many fragmented parts that would continue to live and fruit as long as a nutrient source – vascular plants for mycorrhizal species or rotten wood for saprophytic species – and a moisture source persists. Specifically, this means that ground disturbance from logging and fuel treatments, and changes in moisture levels from canopy removal (direct effect), would not necessarily kill fungi populations unless critical habitat elements are removed to an extent that the habitat can no longer support the fungi species (indirect effect).

Mycorrhizal fungi species Timber harvest effects: Studies that have collected data on the effects of logging on ECM fungi have determined that the effects are closely related to the number of trees that are removed, and the size of canopy gaps that are created. ECM fungi decreased exponentially as gap size increased (Hagerman, et al. 1999). In some studies, effects were seen in openings as small as 45 feet in diameter (Durall et al. 1999) and in other studies, significant effects were not seen until openings reached 30-tree cluster sizes (260 sqm) (Parsons et al. 1994). Thinning harvest prescriptions that retained living trees and shrubs and reduced the size of gap openings showed reduced effects by providing adequate underground linkages for ECM fungi (Amaranthus et al. 1994). In addition, effects to ECM fungi are also closely related to the diversity of species and age classes retained during thinning. Different fungi species rely on different vascular host species for their nutrients. Age class is also important with specific fungal communities associated with late mature trees. Thinning prescriptions that maintain the existing diversity of stand species in different age classes provide the optimal habitat for retaining a diverse fungal community (Dejardin 2011). Fuel treatment effects: Several studies that have examined the effects of natural and prescribed fire have found that the effects to fungal species are related to the intensity of the fire within the species’ habitat. Fires that do not fully consume the large woody debris, litter, and organic layer have reduced effects on fungi (Stendell, et al., 1999, Miller, et al., 1994, Miller, et al., 1998, Jonsson, et al., 1999). Fuel treatment prescriptions that retain adequate live overstory, understory, and shrub species would retain sufficient host species to form mycorrhizal connections, and would serve to retain moisture at the site. Saprophytic fungi species Timber harvest effects: Fungi species that are saprophytic do not depend upon mycorrhizal

Page 13 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

connections with live vascular plants, however, do require that habitat elements such as moisture and substrate be retained. Saprophytes can be affected by canopy removal, if it reduces the amount of cover needed to retain moisture within the litter layer. This effect is likely to be greatest in clear-cuts, less in small patch cuts, and the least in thinning prescriptions which retain a stand density and canopy cover that provides shading for moisture retention and that will foster the increased growth of the remaining trees. In addition, most saprophytes rely on specific substrates such as bark, needles, or cones, for their survival. Removal of all one substrate, for example removing all pine, may affect individual saprophytes that are dependent on a substrate from that species. Canopy removal can affect fungi species if there is not an adequate recruitment source for large woody material, needles, leaves, and other organic material.

Fuel treatment effects: Fire may be a threat to species that depend upon organic matter for survival if adequate down woody material is not retained. The effects are likely to be similar to that seen in mycorrhizal species – fuel treatments that do not fully consume the large woody debris, litter, and organic layer would have reduced effects on fungi.

Both species groups Fuel treatment effects: The Two Bit Vegetation Management Project is located within an area of historically low intensity and high frequency fire regimes (Taylor and Skinner, 1998). The conifer forests present within the Klamath region burned at a frequency that maintained more open forests than that which is currently present. These forests within the project area have developed for thousands of years in the presence of low intensity fire. The fungal species of concern that are present within the project area, have likely adapted to the presence of fire along with the forest within which they are found. High-intensity, stand replacing fires can extirpate potential fungi populations by killing all live canopy and consuming all woody debris. Commercial thinning of the overstocked younger stands followed by fuel treatment of excessive fuels can be beneficial to the fungi species of concern by reducing the risk of stand replacing wildfires.

Associated activities effects: The restoration activities proposed that are associated with timber harvest and fuels treatments can have effects upon the fungi species of concern. Thinning of small diameter trees and shrubs is not likely to have an effect upon fungi populations where larger diameter mature trees are left present in the timber stand. Thinning of pre-commercial stands can benefit sensitive fungi species through the increased growth and development of young trees, which would speed the development of suitable habitat and could allow for increased plant diversity. In addition, thinning dense conifer stands with low diversity would allow for the development for greater understory species diversity and increase fungal diversity. Road and landing construction activities can have adverse effects upon fungi populations because the entire soil surface, vegetation, duff and woody material would be removed. Mastication of activity fuels and non-commercial trees and brush can reduce the amount of available live trees and coarse and fine woody debris needed for fungi substrates if adequate remaining live conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs are not retained. Conversely, reduction of the amount of fuels can benefit fungi by reducing the risk of stand replacing fires.

Page 14 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

C. Effects of the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) This is the continuation of the current level of management and use. It includes road maintenance, dispersed recreation (e.g., hunting, camping, fishing, and hiking), watershed restoration activities and a modeled wildfire with no acres treated by thinning or fuels reduction.

1) Fungi Survey and Manage fungi species, if present, are found associated with mature timber patches within the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Area. There is potential that a population could be affected if a portion is burned in a wildfire, but it is unlikely that a wildfire would burn at high intensity throughout the entire population. High to moderate intensity fire would remove overstory canopy and would temporarily remove litter and duff, components that are important to fungi. However, as long as the entire stand is not eliminated and a portion of the fungal population survives, mycorrhizal species would survive by associating with the trees and shrubs not killed by fired. Because many of these fungi are associated with moister areas, there is a lower risk that these areas would be impacted by a high intensity stand replacing wildfire. A low- intensity wildfire would retain adequate mature live overstory and understory trees, adequate substrate recruitment trees, and coarse and fine woody debris. The retention of these habitat elements would ensure that potential populations of these species would be maintained. There would be no indirect effects to these species from the elimination of suitable habitat. There is not likely to be a cumulative effect, and no change to the species’ viability within the project area, on the Klamath National Forest, or throughout the species’ ranges. High quality habitat for these species that will remain relatively fire-resistant will persist within the moister areas.

In the absence of high-intensity wildfire within the project area in the future, there would be no direct or indirect effects, therefore no cumulative effects, from the No Action Alternative.

D. Effects of the Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2)

In this alternative, silvicultural treatments, fuels reduction treatments and temporary road construction would be implemented to accomplish project objectives. Proposed project activities are summarized above. For a complete description of the project activities, see the Two Bit Vegetation Management Final Environment Impact Statement (USDA 2012a). Unit specific project design features are presented above (Table 2).

1) Fungi Timber harvest effects: Mitigation measures have been included that are designed to minimize the effects from timber thinning units. Portions of individual populations may be affected by timber falling or tractor skidding. Best management practices and other design feature would minimize potential adverse impacts and retain all habitat elements necessary to support mycorrhizal and saprophytic species. Maintaining a mosaic of conifer, hardwood and shrub species adjacent to fungi location would provide suitable hosts species for mycorrhizal fungi species. Adequate live trees would be retained and would provide shade to the site to retain moisture. Coarse woody debris and duff would be maintained which would provide substrate for

Page 15 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

saprophytic species. There would not be an indirect effect through the long-term loss of habitat. There would not be a cumulative effect from this action and others occurring within the project area because populations and their habitat would be maintained. Fuel treatment effects: There is also a low potential for an effect to individual fungi populations from fuel treatment effects. The fuel treatments would be designed to reduce smaller diameter ground fuels and a portion of the ladder fuels and would affect mainly the understory vegetation. Prescribed fires of this type would burn in a patchy mosaic that does not consume all of the understory trees and shrubs. A diverse mix of species in these layers would be maintained within the fungi habitat. This prescription would retain an adequate percentage of the live tree overstory that would ensure the preservation of shade and a diverse mix of tree species to support underground ECM linkages, and would maintain mycorrhizal species. Understory trees, shrubs, and coarse woody debris would be reduced, but maintained at adequate levels to support the fungi that depend upon these vascular plant species. Saprophytic fungi species would be maintained by underburn prescriptions that ensure a low-intensity burn that would retain adequate woody debris. Best Management Practices (BMP) would be applied to provide adequate soil cover to prevent erosion, which would retain additional coarse woody debris and duff as a substrate for saprophytic fungi. There may be a direct effect to a portion of individual fungi populations, but is not likely to affect a population in its entirety. Because mycorrhizal and saprophytic fungi have large underground systems, this is not likely to affect a population in its entirety. Fungi species readily regenerate after impacts from a portion of the population as long as adequate vegetative cover, species diversity, soil cover and coarse woody debris is maintained. There would be no indirect or cumulative effects to the species. The habitat would not be affected to the extent that it would no longer be suitable for the species of concern (indirect effect). Because potential populations would be maintained, there would not be a cumulative effect from this and other project activities occurring in the project area boundary. There may be a long-term beneficial effect to the fungi species habitat through the reduction of the risk of stand replacing wildfire due to fuel reduction activities. Associated activities effects: Small diameter thinning of trees, weeding and cleaning of understory trees, pre-commercial thinning, other fuel treatment activities, restoration support road actions and all other proposed actions in this alternative would have no effects on the fungi species of concern. These activities are proposed in areas that are not suitable habitat for the fungi species.

Summary – fungi species: In this alternative, there may be direct effects to individuals, but there would not be indirect or cumulative effects to populations or their habitat. There would be no change to the species’ viability within the project area, on the Klamath National Forest or throughout the species’ range.

E. Effects of Alternative 3 In this alternative, no new temporary roads would be constructed. Approximately 2,010 acres in 125 units will be treated using thinning, slashing and fuels treatments and an additional 7,320

Page 16 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

acres will be treated for fuels using underburning. Project design features would be identical to those in Alternative 2 (Table 2). In this alternative, effects to all species of concern would be the same as the effects in Alternative 2.

F. Effects of Alternative 4 In this alternative, 2,280 acres in 142 units would be treated using thinning, slashing and fuels treatments and an additional 570 acres would be treated for fuels using underburning. Project design features would be identical to those in Alternative 2. In this alternative, effects to all species of concern would be the same as the effects in Alternative 2.

VI. Compliance With Regulatory Direction The Two Bit Vegetation Management Project complies with the 2001 Record of Decision and Standard and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines.

Page 17 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

References Cited

Amaranthus, M. P. and Perry, D. A. 1994. The functioning of ectomycorrhizal fungi in the field: linkages in space and time. Plant and Soil, 159:133-140. 1994. Arora, D. 1986. Mushrooms Demystified. 2nd Edition. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley p. . Castellano, MichaelA.; Cazares, Efren; Fondrick, Bryan; Dreisbach, Tina. 2003. Handbook to additional fungal species of special concern in the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-572. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agricuture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 144p. Dejardin, D. 2010. Review of document entitled: fungi pdf table.doc. Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA: December 22, 2010. Unpublished report on file Durall, D. M., et al. 1999. Species richness of ectomycorrhizal fungi in cut blocks of different sizes in the Interior Cedar-Hemlock forests of northwestern British Columbia: sporocarps and ectomycorrhizae. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 29, no. 9. p. 1322-1332. 1999. Hagerman, S. M., et al. 1999. Effects of clear- cut logging on the diversity and persistence of ectomycorrhizae at a subalpine forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 29, no. 1: p. 124- 134. 1999. Jonsson, L., et al. 1999. Ectomycorrhizal fungal communities in late-successional Swedish boreal forests, and their composition following wildfire. Molecular Ecology , 8: 205-215. 1999. Miller, S. L., et al. 1998. Mycorrhization, physiognomy, and first-year survivability of conifer seedlings following natural fire in Grand Teton National Park. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 28, no. 1: p. 115-122. 1998. Miller, S. L., Torres, P. and McClean, T. M. 1994. Persistence of basidiospores and sclerotia of ectomycorrhizal fungi and Morchella in soil. Mycologia 86(1): 89-95. 1994. Parsons, W. F., Miller, S. L. and Knight, D. H. 1994. Root-gap dynamics in a lodgepole pine forest: ectomycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal fine root activity after experimental gap formation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 24: 1531-1538. 1994. Stendell, E. R., Horton, T. R. and Bruns, T. D. 1999. Early effects of prescribed fire on the structure of the ectomycorrhizal fungus community in a Sierra Nevada ponderosa pine forest. Mycological Research, 103(10) 1353-1359. 1999. Taylor, A. and Skinner, C. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late-successional reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology Management, 111: 285-301. 1998. USDA Forest Service, 1995. Klamath National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Pacific Southwest Region, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California USDA Forest Service 1997a. Survey protocols for Survey and Manage Component 2 Bryophytes. Version 2.0. December 11, 1997. USDA Forest Service 1997b. Management Recommendations, Bryophytes (19 species). Version 2.0. 1997. USDA Forest Service 1997c. Management Recommendations for Survey and Manage Fungi, Version 2.0. September 1997. USDA Forest Service 1998a. Survey Protocols for Bridgeoporus nobilissimus Fungi. Version 2.0. Hibler & O'Dell, September 17, 1998.

Page 18 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

USDA Forest Service 1998b. Survey Protocols for Component 2 Lichens. Version 2.0. March 12, 1998. USDA Forest Service 1998c. Survey protocols for Survey & Manage Strategy 2 Vascular Plants. Version 2.0. Whiteaker et al., December 1998. USDA Forest Service 1998d. Management Recommendations for Vascular Plants. December 1998. USDA Forest Service 1999. Survey Protocols for Seven Survey and Manage and Protection Buffer Fungi. Version 1.3. December 9, 1999. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/Fungi/PBFungi/m2000-018.htm USDA Forest Service 1999a. Survey Protocols for Protection Buffer Bryophytes. Version 2.0. December 3, 1999. USDA Forest Service 1999b. Management Recommendations, Bryophytes (5 species). Version 2.0. March 1999. USDA Forest Service 1999c. Handbook to Strategy 1 Fungal Species in the Northwest Forest Plan. Pacific Northwest Research Station GTR-476. October 1999. USDA Forest Service 2000. Management Recommendations for Survey and Manage Lichens. Version 2.0. March 2000. USDA Forest Service 2002c. Survey Protocols for Category A&C Lichens. Version 2.0 September 2002. (October 18, 2002 transmittal date). USDA Forest Service 2003. Survey Protocols for Category A & C Lichens. Version 2.1. June 9, 2003. USDA Forest Service 2003e. 2003 Amendment to the Survey Protocol for Survey and Manage Category A&C Lichens. Version 2.1 September 2003. (September 22, 2003 transmittal date). USDA Forest Service 2003f. Handbook to Additional Fungal Species of Special Concern in the Northwest Forest Plan. Pacific Northwest Research Station GTR-572. January 2003. USDA Forest Service 2006f. Stipulation and (Proposed) Oreder RE: Injunction, Case No. C04- 844-P. Hon. Marsha J. Pechman. U.S. District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle, October 11, 2006. Unpublished document on file, Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Botanical Pre-field Review of Proposed Projects and Results of Preliminary Field Review, Two Bit Vegetation Management Project. Appendix A-1, A-2, A-3. Unpublished documents on file. Happy Camp District Office, Klamath National Forest, Happy Camp, CA. Klamath National Forest June – October 2009. USDA Forest Service 2010a. Botanical Survey and Manage Compliance Document for the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project. Klamath National Forest, Happy Camp Ranger District. USDA Forest Service 2010b. Biological Assessment/Evaluation for Sensitive, Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Plant Species for the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project. Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger Districts, Klamath National Forest. USDA Forest Service 2010c. Silviculture Report for the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project. Klamath National Forest, Happy Camp Ranger District. USDA Forest Service 2011a. List of Survey and Manage Species and Category Assignment. Attachment 1, Settlement Agreement, Conservation Northwest v. Sherman, No 08-1067-JCC. Hon. John C. Coughenour. U.S. District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle, July

Page 19 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

21, 2011. Unpublished document on file, Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. USDA Forest Service 2011c. Region 5 2011 Strategic Survey Forms and Specimen Vouchers. Unpublished documents on file. Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka CA. USDA Forest Service 2011b. Parties’ Notice re: Settlement, Case No. C08-1067-JCC. Hon. John C. Coughenour. U.S. District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle, July 21, 2011. Unpublished document on file, Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. USDA Forest Service 2012a. Two Bit Vegetation Management Project, Final Environment Impact Statement. Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. 2012. USDA Forest Service. 2012b. Botanical Pre-field Review of Proposed Projects and Results of Preliminary Field Review (UPDATE), Two Bit Vegetation Management Project. Appendix A-1, A-2. Unpublished documents on file. Happy Camp District Office, Klamath National Forest, Happy Camp, CA. Klamath National Forest. June 22,2012. USDA Forest Service. 2009b. 2670: Sensitive/S&M Plant Survey reports, Two Bit Vegetation Management project area. Unpublished notes on file, Happy Camp District Office, Klamath National Forest. Happy Camp, CA. USDA Forest Service 2009c. Botany program population site reports. Unpublished documents on file, Happy Camp District Office, Klamath National Forest, Happy Camp, CA. 1979-2009. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994. Record of Decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl; standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late- successional and old growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), U.S. Department of Interior (Bureau of Land Management). USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. January 2001. Record of Decision for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2002b. Implementation of 2001 Survey and Manage Annual Species Review. BLM-Instruction Memorandum No. OR- 2002-064. Results and Implementation summary table (Attachment 1) and revised Table 1-1 (Attachment 2). USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2002d. Amendments to Survey and Manage Management Recommendations designed to facilitate certain National Fire Plan activities – Vascular Plants, Lichens, Bryophytes, and Fungi. August 16, 2002. FS- Memorandum. BLM-Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2002-080. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2003. Implementation of 2002 Survey and Manage Annual Species Review. FS-Memorandum. BLM-Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2003-050. Results and Implementation Summary Table (Attachment 1) and revised Table 1-1 (Attachment 2). USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2003c. Implementation of 2003 Survey and Manage Annual Species Review. FS-Memorandum. BLM – Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2004-034. December 19, 2003.

Page 20 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2006e. Equivalent effort Surveys for Survey and Manage Category B Species; and Survey Methodology for One lichen Species with Category Change from 2003 Annual Species Review. BLM-Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2006-038. Survey Protocol Guidance (Attachment 1). USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2007. Appendix I. Fungi species currently included in BLM CA or OR/WA Special Status or Forest Service Regions 5 or 6 Sensitive Species Programs. 2007-06-28 USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2008. Appendix II. Additional Fungi Species. 2008-12-18 USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2008. Survey Protocol for Bridgeoporus nobilissimus. Version 3.0. Hibler & O'Dell, June 2008. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP-Forms/inv-sp-fu-brno-ver3-2008-06.pdf

Page 21 of 21 Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Supplemental Review of Survey and Manage Fungi Appendix A-1

Project Name: Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Date: June 22, 2012 Prepared by: Erin Rentz

Manage All Known Sites and Manage High Priority Sites *This Table includes all plant species included in Survey and Manage Category Assignment that are listed as Category B, D, or E. (USDA/USDI 2011). TAXA GROUP Note: Where taxon has more than one name indicated, Known site Equivalent- Species first name is current accepted name, second one (in Category present in Effort surveys parentheses) is name used in NWFP (Table C-3). project required**

FUNGI 8 Acanthophysium farlowii (Aleurodiscus farlowii) B No N Albatrellus avellaneus B No N5,9

Albatrellus caeruleoporus B No N4,5

4,5 Albatrellus ellisii B No N 4,5 Albatrellus flettii, In Washington and California B No N 8 Alpova alexsmithii B No N 4,5 Alpova olivaceotinctus B No N Arcangeliella camphorata (Arcangeliella sp. nov. #Trappe 12382; B No N8 Arcangeliella sp. nov. #Trappe 12359) 9 Arcangeliella crassa B No N 8 Arcangeliella lactarioides B No N 9 Asterophora lycoperdoides B No N 9 Asterophora parasitica B No N 5,9 Baeospora myriadophylla B No N 4,5 Balsamia nigrens (Balsamia nigra) B No N 5,9 Boletus haematinus B No N N9 Boletus pulcherrimus B No N9 Bondarzewia mesenterica (Bondarzewia montana), In WA and CA B No 6 Cantharellus subalbidus, In Washington and California D YES N 9 Catathelasma ventricosa B No N 6 NChalciporus piperatus (Boletus piperatus) D No N 4,5 Chamonixia caespitosa (Chamonixia pacifica sp. nov. #Trappe #12768) B No N 9 Choiromyces alveolatus B No N 4,5 Choiromyces venosus B No N 8 Chroogomphus loculatus B No N 4,5 Chrysomphalina grossula B No N 4,5 Clavariadelphus ligula B No N 9 Clavariadelphus occidentalis (Clavariadelphus pistillaris) B No N 5,9 Clavariadelphus sachalinensis B No N Clavariadelphus subfastigiatus B No N4,5 Clavariadelphus truncatus (syn. Clavariadelphus borealis) In Jackson D No N6 County, Oregon Clavariadelphus truncatus (syn. Clavariadelphus borealis) Outside Jackson B No N4,5 County, Oregon 5,9 Clavulina castanopes v. lignicola (Clavulina ornatipes) B No N Clitocybe senilis B No N9

Modified Attachment 2; March, 2011, jk. Page 1 Appendix A-1

Manage All Known Sites and Manage High Priority Sites *This Table includes all plant species included in Survey and Manage Category Assignment that are listed as Category B, D, or E. (USDA/USDI 2011). TAXA GROUP Note: Where taxon has more than one name indicated, Known site Equivalent- Species first name is current accepted name, second one (in Category present in Effort surveys parentheses) is name used in NWFP (Table C-3). project required** Clitocybe subditopoda B No N9 6 Collybia bakerensis F No N Collybia racemosa B No N9 9 Cordyceps ophioglossoides B No N 5,9 Cortinarius barlowensis (syn. Cortinarius azureus) B No N 4,5 Cortinarius boulderensis B No N 4,5 Cortinarius cyanites B No N 5,9 Cortinarius depauperatus (Cortinarius spilomeus) B No N Cortinarius magnivelatus B No N9 9 Cortinarius olympianus B No N 8 Cortinarius speciosissimus (Cortinarius rainierensis) B No N 8 Cortinarius tabularis B No N 8 Cortinarius umidicola (Cortinarius canabarba) B No N 9 Cortinarius valgus B No N 8 Cortinarius variipes B No N 9 Cortinarius verrucisporus B No N 8 Cortinarius wiebeae B No N 6 Craterellus tubaeformis In Washington and California D No N 4,5 Cudonia monticola B No N 8 Cyphellostereum laeve B No N 5,9 Dermocybe humboldtensis B No N 4,5 Destuntzia fusca B No N 4,5 Destuntzia rubra B No N 8 Dichostereum boreale (Dichostereum granulosum) B No N 8 Elaphomyces anthracinus B No N 8 Elaphomyces subviscidus B No N 8 Endogone acrogena B No N 8 Endogone oregonensis B No N 4,5 Entoloma nitidum (Rhodocybe nitida) B No N 9 Fayodia bisphaerigera (Fayodia gracilipes) B No N Fevansia aurantiaca (Alpova sp. nov. # Trappe 1966) (Alpova aurantiaca) B No N8 6 Galerina atkinsonia D No N 9 Galerina cerina B No N No N6 Galerina heterocystis E Galerina sphagnicola No N6 E 8 Gastroboletus imbellus B No N 4,5 Gastroboletus ruber B No N 9 Gastroboletus subalpinus B No N 9 Gastroboletus turbinatus B No N Gastroboletus vividus (Gastroboletus sp. nov. #Trappe 2897; Gastroboletus B No N4,5

Modified Attachment 2; March, 2011, jk. Page 2 Appendix A-1

Manage All Known Sites and Manage High Priority Sites *This Table includes all plant species included in Survey and Manage Category Assignment that are listed as Category B, D, or E. (USDA/USDI 2011). TAXA GROUP Note: Where taxon has more than one name indicated, Known site Equivalent- Species first name is current accepted name, second one (in Category present in Effort surveys parentheses) is name used in NWFP (Table C-3). project required** sp. nov. #Trappe 7515) 6 Gastrosuillus amaranthii (Gastrosuillus sp. nov. #Trappe 9608) E No N 4,5 Gastrosuillus umbrinus (Gastroboletus sp. nov. #Trappe 7516) B No N 4,5 Gautieria magnicellaris B No N 9 Gautieria otthii B No N 8 Gelatinodiscus flavidus B No N 9 Glomus radiatum B No N 4,5 Gomphus bonarii B No N 6 Gomphus clavatus F No N 6 Gomphus kauffmanii E No N Gymnomyces abietis (Gymnomyces sp. nov. #Trappe 1690, 1706, 1710; Gymnomyces sp. nov. #Trappe 4703, 5576; Gymnomyces sp. nov. #Trappe B No N9 5052; Gymnomyces sp. nov. #Trappe 7545; Martellia sp. nov. #Trappe 1700; Martellia sp. nov. #Trappe 311; Martellia sp. nov. #Trappe 5903) 8 Gymnomyces nondistincta (Martellia sp. nov. #Trappe 649) B No N 4,5 Gymnopilus punctifolius, In California B No N 4,5 Gyromitra californica B No N 8 Hebeloma olympianum (Hebeloma olympiana) B No N 8 Helvella crassitunicata B No N 4,5 Helvella elastica B No N 4,5 Hydnotrya inordinata (Hydnotrya sp. nov. #Trappe 787, 792) B No N 8 Hydnotrya subnix (Hydnotrya subnix sp. nov. #Trappe 1861) B No N 4,5 Hydropus marginellus (Mycena marginella) B No N 8 Hygrophorus caeruleus B No N 4,5 Hygrophorus karstenii B No N 9 Hygrophorus vernalis B No N 4,5 Hypomyces luteovirens B No N 9 Leucogaster citrinus B No N 4,5 Leucogaster microsporus B No N 5,9 Macowanites chlorinosmus B No N 8 Macowanites lymanensis B No N 8 Macowanites mollis B No N 4,5 Marasmius applanatipes B No N 4,5 Martellia fragrans B No N 4,5 Martellia idahoensis B No N 8 Mycena hudsoniana B No N 6 Mycena overholtsii D No N 5,9 Mycena quinaultensis B No N 9 Mycena tenax B No N Mythicomyces corneipes B No N8

Modified Attachment 2; March, 2011, jk. Page 3 Appendix A-1

Manage All Known Sites and Manage High Priority Sites *This Table includes all plant species included in Survey and Manage Category Assignment that are listed as Category B, D, or E. (USDA/USDI 2011). TAXA GROUP Note: Where taxon has more than one name indicated, Known site Equivalent- Species first name is current accepted name, second one (in Category present in Effort surveys parentheses) is name used in NWFP (Table C-3). project required** Neolentinus adhaerens B No N8 9 Neolentinus kauffmanii B No N Nivatogastrium nubigenum, In entire range except OR Eastern Cascades and N9 B No CA Cascades Physiographic Provinces 4,5 Octavianina cyanescens (Octavianina sp. nov. #Trappe 7502) B No N 8 Octavianina macrospora B No N 5,9 Octavianina papyracea B No N 6 Otidea leporina D No N 4,5 Otidea smithii B No N 6 Phaeocollybia attenuata D No N 4,5 Phaeocollybia californica B No N 8 Phaeocollybia dissiliens B No N 6 Phaeocollybia fallax D No N 8 Phaeocollybia gregaria B No N 6 Phaeocollybia kauffmanii D No N 9 Phaeocollybia olivacea In Washington and California B No N 8 Phaeocollybia oregonensis (syn. Phaeocollybia carmanahensis) B No N 4,5 Phaeocollybia piceae B No N 9 Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva B No N 4,5 Phaeocollybia scatesiae B No N 4,5 Phaeocollybia sipei B No N Phaeocollybia spadicea B No N9 9 Phellodon atratus (Phellodon atratum) B No N 5,9 Pholiota albivelata B No N 4,5 Podostroma alutaceum B No N 4,5 Polyozellus multiplex B No N Pseudaleuria quinaultiana B No N8 9 Ramaria abietina B No N Ramaria amyloidea B No N9 9 Ramaria araiospora B No N Ramaria aurantiisiccescens B No N4,5 9 Ramaria botryis var. aurantiiramosa B No N Ramaria celerivirescens B No N9 9 Ramaria claviramulata B No N Ramaria concolor f. marrii B No N9 9 Ramaria concolor f. tsugina B No N Ramaria conjunctipes var. sparsiramosa (Ramaria fasciculata var. N9 B No sparsiramosa) Ramaria coulterae B No N4,5

Modified Attachment 2; March, 2011, jk. Page 4 Appendix A-1

Manage All Known Sites and Manage High Priority Sites *This Table includes all plant species included in Survey and Manage Category Assignment that are listed as Category B, D, or E. (USDA/USDI 2011). TAXA GROUP Note: Where taxon has more than one name indicated, Known site Equivalent- Species first name is current accepted name, second one (in Category present in Effort surveys parentheses) is name used in NWFP (Table C-3). project required** 4,5 Ramaria cyaneigranosa B No N Ramaria gelatiniaurantia B No N9 9 Ramaria gracilis B No N 8 Ramaria hilaris var. olympiana B No N 9 Ramaria largentii B No N 8 Ramaria lorithamnus B No N 4,5 Ramaria maculatipes B No N 4,5 Ramaria rainierensis B No N 9 Ramaria rubella var. blanda B No N 4,5 Ramaria rubribrunnescens B No N 9 Ramaria rubrievanescens B No N Ramaria rubripermanens In Washington and California B No N9 9 Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva (Ramaria spinulosa) B No N 4,5 Ramaria stuntzii B No N 8 Ramaria suecica B No N 9 Ramaria thiersii B No N 4,5 Ramaria verlotensis B No N 4,5 Rhizopogon abietis B No N 8 Rhizopogon atroviolaceus B No N 4,5 Rhizopogon brunneiniger B No N 4,5 Rhizopogon chamaleontinus (Rhizopogon sp. nov. #Trappe 9432) B No N 4,5 Rhizopogon ellipsosporus (Alpova sp. nov. # Trappe 9730) B No N 4,5 Rhizopogon evadens var. subalpinus B No N 4,5 Rhizopogon exiguus B No N 4,5 Rhizopogon flavofibrillosus B No N 8 Rhizopogon inquinatus B No N 6 Rhizopogon truncatus D No N 4,5 Rhodocybe speciosa B No N 4,5 Rickenella swartzii (Rickenella setipes) B No N 9 Russula mustelina B No N 4,5 Sarcodon fuscoindicus B No N 4,5 Sedecula pulvinata B No N 9 Sowerbyella rhenana (Aleuria rhenana) B No N 6 Sparassis crispa D No N 9 Spathularia flavida B No N 8 Stagnicola perplexa B No N Thaxterogaster pavelekii (Thaxterogaster sp. nov. #Trappe 4867, 6242, B No N8 7427, 7962, 8520) 6 Tremiscus helvelloides D No N Tricholoma venenatum B No N9

Modified Attachment 2; March, 2011, jk. Page 5 Appendix A-1

Manage All Known Sites and Manage High Priority Sites *This Table includes all plant species included in Survey and Manage Category Assignment that are listed as Category B, D, or E. (USDA/USDI 2011). TAXA GROUP Note: Where taxon has more than one name indicated, Known site Equivalent- Species first name is current accepted name, second one (in Category present in Effort surveys parentheses) is name used in NWFP (Table C-3). project required** 4,5 Tricholomopsis fulvescens B No N Tuber asa (Tuber sp. nov. #Trappe 2302) B No N4,5 6 Turbinellis floccosus In California F No N 8 Tuber pacificum (Tuber sp. nov. #Trappe 12493) B No N 6 Tylopilus porphyrosporus (Tylopilus pseudoscaber) D No N No LICHENS 2 Bryoria subcana (syn. Alectoria subcana) B No N 6 Buellia oidalea E No N 1 Calicium abietinum B No N 6 Calicium adspersum E No N 6 Cetrelia cetrarioides E No N 1 Chaenotheca chrysocephala B No N 1 Chaenotheca ferruginea B No N 6 Chaenotheca furfuracea F No N 6 Chaenotheca subroscida E No N Chaenothecopsis pusilla (syn. Chaenothecopsis subpusilla, Calcium E No N6 asikkalense, Calcium floerkei, Calcium pusillum, Calcium subpusillum) 6 Dendriscocaulon intricatulum In CA E No N 6 Dermatocarpon luridum E No N 6 Fuscopannaria saubinetii (Pannaria saubinetii) E No N 6 Heterodermia sitchensis) E No N 6 Hypogymnia vittata (Hygomnia vittiata) E No N 6 Hypotrachyna revoluta (syn. Parmelia revoluta) E No N 6 Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum E No N 6 Leptogium teretiusculum E No N 1 Microcalicium arenarium B No N 6 Nephroma isidiosum E No N 6 Pannaria rubiginosa E No N 6 Peltigera pacifica E No N 6 Platismatia 6acunose, all except OR CR E No N 6 Stenocybe clavata E No N 2 Tholurna dissimilis, south of Columbia River B No N 6 Usnea hesperina No E No N

BRYOPHYTES 6 Brotherella roellii E No N 6 Buxbaumia viridis, In California E No N 1 Diplophyllum plicatum B No N 6 Herbertus aduncus E No N 1 Iwatsukiella leucotricha B No N Kurzia makinoana B No N2

Modified Attachment 2; March, 2011, jk. Page 6 Appendix A-1

Manage All Known Sites and Manage High Priority Sites *This Table includes all plant species included in Survey and Manage Category Assignment that are listed as Category B, D, or E. (USDA/USDI 2011). TAXA GROUP Note: Where taxon has more than one name indicated, Known site Equivalent- Species first name is current accepted name, second one (in Category present in Effort surveys parentheses) is name used in NWFP (Table C-3). project required** 2 Marsupella emarginata v. aquatica B No N 2 Orthodontium gracile B No N 6 Racomitrium aquaticum E No N 2 Tritomaria exsectiformis B No N Tritomaria quinquedentata B No N1

Notes:

* Adapted from Species List in: USDA/USDI 2011. This list contains those species that are not also listed as Category A&C, which require pre-disturbance surveys. This list is known as the “manage known sites” table. **Agencies will not sign NEPA decisions or decision documents for habitat disturbing activities in old-growth forests in fiscal year 2006 (fiscal year 2011 for fungi) and beyond, unless either: strategic surveys have been completed for the province that encompasses the project area, or equivalent-effort surveys have been conducted in the old-growth habitat to be disturbed (USDA/USDI 2001, p.9, Standards and Guidelines, Category B species). *** Category F species require only strategic surveys, and are included in this list only for reference. 1 Strategic survey requirements have been met (USDA/USDI 2006). 2 Species is not known or suspected to occur on Klamath National Forest (USDA 2008). 3 Ground disturbing activities will not occur in stands defined as old-growth (USDA/USDI 2001, Standards and Guidelines p.79). 4 Proposed project falls within four project types exempt from 2001 ROD requirements (USDA 2006). 5 There is no habitat for these species on KNF lands. They are found in hypercoastal areas in redwood, Sitka spruce, western hemlock, or other forest types not present on the Klamath N.F. (USDA 2010, Attachment C). 6 Equivalent Effort surveys apply only to Category B species. 7 Strategic Surveys are considered complete for approximately 56 of these S&M Category B fungi which are found in California. For the approximately 67 remaining fungi species, strategic surveys are not considered complete. In lieu of equivalent effort (project level) surveys in old-growth, the project will provide for multi-species persistence at a site by maintenance of habitat components upon which fungi species depend (e.g. canopy cover, host tree diversity, forest floor organics, and large coarse woody debris) across the unit or area. This approach would reduce habitat- disturbance and thus reduce concern for inadvertent loss of undiscovered sites. This mitigation would be accomplished through development and application of project design features in combination with other guiding measures such as Best Management Practices for soils and guidelines for snag and log retention germane to wildlife. (USDA 2010, 2011a, 2011b). 8. Species not documented in CA. (USDA 2010, 2011a, 2011b) 9. Strategic survey requirements have been met in CA. (2011a, 2011b). 10. Proposed project falls within seven project types exempt from pre-disturbance survey requirements (USDA USDA/USDI 2011). Description of Categories: A: Manage All Known Sites; Pre-disturbance surveys required; Strategic Surveys. B: Manage All Known Sites; Strategic Surveys. C: Manage High Priority Sites; Pre-disturbance surveys required; Strategic Surveys. D: Manage High Priority Sites; Strategic Surveys.

Modified Attachment 2; March, 2011, jk. Page 7 Appendix A-1

E: Manage All Known Sites; Strategic Surveys. F: Strategic Surveys.

References: USDA Forest Service 2006. Stipulation and (Proposed) Order RE: Injunction. Hon. Marsha J. Pechman, U.S. District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle, October 11, 2006. Case 2:04-cv-00844-MJP. Unpublished document on file, Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. USDA Forest Service 2008. Category B species Known or Suspected to occur on KNF. Karen West, January 29, 2008. Unpublished document on file, Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. USDA Forest Service 2010. Summary of findings pertaining to the Status of Strategic Surveys for Fungi in the Northern Province: Briefing for the Province Resources Board, and Attachment A-C. Lisa Hoover & Julie Nelson, June 25, 2010. Unpublished documents on file, Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. USDA Forest Service 2011a. Survey and manage Category B Fungi Species: Completion of Strategic Surveys. Lisa Hoover, February 7, 2011. Unpublished documents on file, Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. USDA Forest Service 2011b. Status of Strategic Surveys for Fungi in the Northern Province: Briefing for the Province Resources Board. Lisa Hoover, February 7, 2011. Unpublished documents on file, Supervisor’s Office, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. January 2001. Record of Decision for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/RODjan01.pdf USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2006. Category B Species where Strategic Surveys are Considered Complete. FS-Memorandum. BLM – Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2006. March 24, 2006. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/IM-IB/Cat_B_SS_complete-2006_03_24.pdf USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2011. Settlement Agreement in Litigation over the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure in Conservation Northest et al. v. Sherman et al., Case No. 08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash.), July 4, 2011. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/IM-IB/im-or-2011-063.pdf

Modified Attachment 2; March, 2011, jk. Page 8 Botanical Pre-field Review Analysis Flowchart Appendix A-2

Project: Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Name: Erin Rentz Date: June 22, 2012

This form serves to track special management plants listed by the Klamath National Forest through the pre-field analysis process. Species considered in this document are those species included in Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines that require special management on the Klamath (USDA/USDI 2011), and those species listed as Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Sensitive on the Klamath (USDA 2006).

Completion of this form certifies that pre-field evaluation procedures are in compliance with species survey protocols.

Survey and Manage: survey protocol will be triggered if column 1 is "yes" and if any of columns 2,3,4, or 5 (both parts) is "yes". Sensitive Plants: Regional botanical survey protocol is triggered if column 1 is "yes" and if either column 2 or 5 (both parts) is "yes".

Vascular Plants: 1 2 3 4 5 If the species is assumed to be present, do the types of Project w/in known or R5 actions proposed in this Known suspected range and Known site Species Sensitive, Survey project have the potential to site exists Known site there is probability of exists in Survey Taxa Scientific name Federal & and directly or indirectly in exists in suitable habitat w/in adjacent protocol Group Common name State Rare, Manage impact this species or alter proposed 5th field project area 5th field triggered** Threatened, Category its habitat conditions (TES) project watershed watershed Known or Endangered or significantly negatively area Suitable Suspected affect species/habitat Habitat (S&M)? Range State, Vascular Arabis macdonaldiana Federal McDonald's rock cress YES NO N/A N/A YES NO NO Plants Endangered Astragalus applegatei Federal Applegate’s milk-vetch Endangered YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO R5 Sensitive Bensoniella oregana (not on KNF A YES NO NO NO YES YES YES bensoniella list) (in CA) CA Rare Botrychium crenulatum Sensitive scalloped moonwort YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Botrychium lunaria Sensitive common mooonwort YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO

Page 1 of 9 Form revised March 2011 Botanical Pre-field Review Analysis Flowchart Appendix A-2

Vascular Plants: 1 2 3 4 5 If the species is assumed to be present, do the types of Project w/in known or R5 actions proposed in this Known suspected range and Known site Species Sensitive, Survey project have the potential to site exists Known site there is probability of exists in Survey Taxa Scientific name Federal & and directly or indirectly in exists in suitable habitat w/in adjacent protocol Group Common name State Rare, Manage impact this species or alter proposed 5th field project area 5th field triggered** Threatened, Category its habitat conditions (TES) project watershed watershed Known or Endangered or significantly negatively area Suitable Suspected affect species/habitat Habitat (S&M)? Range A Botrychium minganense Sensitive Mingan moonwort (in OR YES NO NO NO NO NO NO & CA) Botrychium montanum Sensitive mountain grape-fern A YES NO NO NO YES NO NO Botrychium pinnatum Sensitive northwest moonwort YES NO N/A N/A YES NO NO Botrychium virginianum Sensitive rattlesnake fern YES NO N/A N/A YES NO NO Calochortus greenei Sensitive Green's mariposa-lily YES NO N/A N/A NO YES NO Sensitive, Calochortus persistens CA Rare, Siskiyou mariposa-lily Federal YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Candidate Campanula wilkinsiana Sensitive Wilkin's harebell YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Chaenactis suffrutescens Sensitive Shasta chaenactis YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Collomia larsenii Sensitive collomia YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Coptis asplenifolia spleenwort-leaved A YES NO NO NO NO NO NO goldthread Coptis trifolia

threeleaflet goldthread A YES NO NO NO NO NO NO Corydalis aquae-gelidae

cold-water corydalis A YES NO NO NO NO NO NO Cypripedium fasciculatum Sensitive clustered lady's slipper C YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Cypripedium montanum Sensitive C montain lady slipper YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Draba carnosula Sensitive N/A Mt. Shasta draba YES NO N/A YES NO NO

Page 2 of 9 Form revised March 2011 Botanical Pre-field Review Analysis Flowchart Appendix A-2

Vascular Plants: 1 2 3 4 5 If the species is assumed to be present, do the types of Project w/in known or R5 actions proposed in this Known suspected range and Known site Species Sensitive, Survey project have the potential to site exists Known site there is probability of exists in Survey Taxa Scientific name Federal & and directly or indirectly in exists in suitable habitat w/in adjacent protocol Group Common name State Rare, Manage impact this species or alter proposed 5th field project area 5th field triggered** Threatened, Category its habitat conditions (TES) project watershed watershed Known or Endangered or significantly negatively area Suitable Suspected affect species/habitat Habitat (S&M)? Range Epilobium oreganum Sensitive Oregon fireweed YES NO N/A N/A YES YES YES Eriogonum alpinum Sensitive Trinity buckwheat YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Eriogonum hirtellum Sensitive Klamath Mtn. buckwheat YES NO N/A N/A YES YES YES Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens Sensitive YES NO N/A N/A NO YES NO blushing wild buckwheat Erythronium citrinum var. roderickii Sensitive YES NO N/A N/A NO YES NO Roderick’s fawnlily Eucephalus vialis (Aster) Sensitive wayside aster A YES NO NO YES YES YES YES Frasera umpquaensis Sensitive clustered green-gentian YES NO N/A N/A YES NO NO State, Fritillaria gentneri Federal Gentner mission-bells YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Endangered Horkelia hendersonii Sensitive Henderson's horkelia YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Ivesia pickeringii Sensitive Pickering's ivesia YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Lupinus lepidus var. ashlandensis Sensitive YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Mt. Ashland lupine Mimulus evanescens Sensitive ephemeral monkey flower YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Minuartia stolonifera Sensitive Scott Mtn. sandwort YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Parnassia cirrata var. intermedia Sensitive YES NO N/A N/A NO YES NO fringed grass-of-parnassus Pedicularis howelli Sensitive Howell's lousewort YES YES N/A N/A YES YES YES

Page 3 of 9 Form revised March 2011 Botanical Pre-field Review Analysis Flowchart Appendix A-2

Vascular Plants: 1 2 3 4 5 If the species is assumed to be present, do the types of Project w/in known or R5 actions proposed in this Known suspected range and Known site Species Sensitive, Survey project have the potential to site exists Known site there is probability of exists in Survey Taxa Scientific name Federal & and directly or indirectly in exists in suitable habitat w/in adjacent protocol Group Common name State Rare, Manage impact this species or alter proposed 5th field project area 5th field triggered** Threatened, Category its habitat conditions (TES) project watershed watershed Known or Endangered or significantly negatively area Suitable Suspected affect species/habitat Habitat (S&M)? Range Phacelia cookei Sensitive Cooke's phacelia YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Phacelia greenei Sensitive Scott Valley phacelia YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Phacelia inundata Sensitive playa phacelia YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO State, Phlox hirsuta Federal Yreka phlox YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Endangered Platanthera orbiculata var. orbiculata (Habenaria) C YES NO NO NO NO NO NO large round-leaved orchid Polemonium chartaceum Sensitive Mason’s sky pilot YES NO N/A N/A NO YES NO Raillardella pringlei Sensitive showy raillardella YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Rorippa columbiae Sensitive Columbia yellow cress YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Smilax jamesii Sensitive English Peak greenbriar YES NO N/A N/A YES NO NO Tauschia howellii Sensitive Howell's tauschia YES NO N/A N/A NO NO NO Thermopsis robusta Sensitive robust false lupine YES NO N/A N/A YES YES YES

Page 4 of 9 Form revised March 2011 Botanical Pre-field Review Analysis Flowchart Appendix A-2

Bryophytes: 1 2 3 4 5 If the species is assumed to Project w/in known or be present, do the types of suspected range and R5 actions proposed in this Known site Known site there is probability of Species Sensitive, Survey project have the potential Known site exists in exists in suitable habitat w/in Survey Taxa Scientific name Federal & and to directly or indirectly exists in proposed adjacent project area protocol Group Common name State Rare, Manage impact this species or alter 5th field project 5th field triggered** Threatened, Category its habitat conditions watershed Known or area watershed Suitable Endangered (TES) or significantly Suspected Habitat negatively affect Range species/habitat (S&M)? E (pre- Buxbaumia viridis Bryophytes Sensitive disturbance YES NO N/A N/A YES YES YES green bug moss surveys not required) Fissidens aphelotaxifolius Sensitive brook pocket moss YES NO N/A N/A YES NO NO Helodium blandowii Sensitive Blandow’s bog moss YES NO N/A N/A YES NO NO Meesia triquetra Sensitive three-ranked hump-moss YES NO N/A N/A YES NO NO Meesia uliginosa Sensitive broad-nerved hump-moss YES NO N/A N/A YES NO NO Mielichhoferia elongata Sensitive elongate copper moss YES NO N/A N/A YES NO NO A Ptilidium californicum Sensitive Pacific fuzzwort (in CA YES YES YES YES YES YES YES only) Schistostega pennata cat's eyes moss A YES NO NO NO NO NO NO Tetraphis geniculata bent-kneed four-tooth A YES NO NO NO YES NO NO moss

Page 5 of 9 Form revised March 2011 Botanical Pre-field Review Analysis Flowchart Appendix A-2

Fungi: 1 2 3 4 5 If the species is assumed to Project w/in known or be present, do the types of suspected range and R5 actions proposed in this there is probability of Known site Known site Species Sensitive, project have the potential Known site suitable habitat w/in Survey& exists in exists in Survey Taxa Scientific name Federal & to directly or indirectly exists in project area Manage proposed adjacent protocol Group Common name State Rare, impact this species or alter 5th field Category project 5th field triggered** Threatened, its habitat conditions watershed Known or area watershed Suitable Endangered (TES) or significantly Suspected Habitat negatively affect Range species/habitat (S&M)? Fungi Boletus pulcherrimus Sensitive B YES NO N/A N/A YES YES YES Bridgeoporus nobilissimus R5 Sensitive (not

noble polypore KNF listed) A YES NO NO NO NO NO NO Cudonia monticola Sensitive B YES NO N/A N/A YES YES YES Dendrocollybia racemosa Sensitive (Collybia racemosa) B YES NO N/A N/A YES YES YES B (in Phaeocollybia olivacea Sensitive CA), D YES YES N/A N/A YES YES YES (in OR) Sowerbyella rhenana Sensitive B YES NO N/A N/A YES YES YES Tricholomopsis fulvescens Sensitive B YES NO N/A N/A YES NO NO

Page 6 of 9 Form revised March 2011 Botanical Pre-field Review Analysis Flowchart Appendix A-2

Lichens: 1 2 3 4 5 If the species is assumed to Project w/in known or be present, do the types of suspected range and R5 actions proposed in this Known site Known site there is probability of Species Sensitive, Survey project have the potential Known site exists in exists in suitable habitat w/in Survey Taxa Scientific name Federal & and to directly or indirectly exists in proposed adjacent project area protocol Group Common name State Rare, Manage impact this species or alter 5th field project 5th field triggered** Threatened, Category its habitat conditions watershed Known or area watershed Suitable Endangered (TES) or significantly Suspected Habitat negatively affect Range species/habitat (S&M)? Lichens Bryoria pseudocapillaris A YES NO NO NO NO NO NO Bryoria spiralifera A YES NO NO NO NO NO NO No protocol Cladonia norvegica C YES NO NO NO NO NO developed Hydrothyria venosa Sensitive veined water lichen YES NO N/A N/A YES YES YES Hypogymnia duplicata duplicate pore lichen C YES NO NO NO NO NO NO Leptogium cyanescens A YES NO NO NO YES YES YES A Lobaria linita var. tenuoir YES NO NO NO NO YES NO lung lichen (in OR) Lobaria oregana A YES NO NO NO YES YES YES Oregon lung lichen (in CA) Nephroma occultum A YES NO NO NO NO NO NO Niebla cephalota niebla lichen A YES NO NO NO NO NO NO No protocol Pseudocyphellaria A YES NO NO NO NO NO perpetua developed Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis A YES NO NO NO NO NO NO Teloschistes flavicans teloschistes lichen A YES NO NO NO NO NO NO Sensitive Usnea longissima (but not on beard lichen A YES NO NO NO YES NO NO KNF list)

Page 7 of 9 Form revised March 2011 Botanical Pre-field Review Analysis Flowchart Appendix A-2

** Determination of need for a survey for Sensitive and Survey and Manage species is made by the line officer, incorporating recommendations made by the botanist, and considers the probability of the species being present on the project site, and the probability that the project would cause a significant negative effect on the species habitat or the persistence of the species at the site.

References: USDA Forest Service 1997. Survey Protocols for Survey and Manage Component 2 Bryophytes. Version 2.0. December 11, 1997. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/Bryophytes/memo.html USDA Forest Service 1998. Survey Protocols for Component 2 Lichens. Version 2.0. March 12, 1998. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/Lichens/intro.html USDA Forest Service 1998. Survey Protocols for Bridgeoporus nobilissimus Fungi. Version 2.0. Hibler & O'Dell, September 17, 1998. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/Fungi/m98103.htm USDA Forest Service 1998. Survey Protocols for Survey & Mangage Strategy 2 Vascular Plants. Version 2.0. Whiteaker et al. (January 20, 1999 transmittal). http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/VascularPlants/imor99-26.htm USDA Forest Service 1999. Survey Protocols for Protection Buffer Bryophytes. Version 2.0. December 3, 1999. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/Bryophytes/PBBryophytes/m2000-017.htm. USDA Forest Service 1999. Survey Protocols for Seven Survey and Manage and Protection Buffer Fungi. Version 1.3. December 9, 1999. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/Fungi/PBFungi/m2000-018.htm USDA Forest Service 2002. Survey Protocols for Category A&C Lichens. Version 2.0 September 2002. (October 18, 2002 transmittal date). http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/Lichens/20021018/IM_OR_2003_004.htm USDA Forest Service 2003. Survey Protocols for Category A & C Lichens. Version 2.1. June 9, 2003. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/Lichens/20030609/IM-OR-2003-078.htm USDA Forest Service 2003b. 2003 Amendment to the Survey Protocol for Category A & C Lichens. Version 2.1 Amendment. September, 2003. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/Lichens/20030922/IM-OR-2003-078_Change-1_Lichens_Survey_Protocol_%20V2.1Addendum.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service Manual: Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Management (section 2670). O:\NFS\Klamath\Program\2600SensitivePlantsMgmt\SO\2620PlantsPlng\PlanningDirection\Draft_Manual\Dec 2009 Draft USDA Forest Service 2006. 2670: Sensitive Plant Species. Klamath National Forest. October 2006. O:\NFS\Klamath\Program\2600SensitivePlantsMgmt\SO\2670PlantsTES\Lists\CurrentOfficialKNFlists USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. January 2001. Record of Decision for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Standards and Guidelines, Table 1-1, pp. 41-51. http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/RODjan01.pdf USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2002. Implementation of 2001 Survey and Manage Annual Species Review. BLM – Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2002-064. June 14, 2002. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/Annual_Species_Review/2002/IM-OR-2002-064.htm USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2003. Implementation of 2002 Survey and Manage Annual Species Review. FS-Memorandum. BLM – Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2003-050. March 14, 2003. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/Annual_Species_Review/2003/IM-OR-2003-050.htm

Page 8 of 9 Form revised March 2011 Botanical Pre-field Review Analysis Flowchart Appendix A-2

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2003c. Implementation of 2003 Survey and Manage Annual Species Review. FS-Memorandum. BLM – Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2004-034. December 19, 2003. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/Annual_Species_Review/2004/IM_OR-2004-034.pdf USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2006. Equivalent effort Surveys for Survey and Manage Category B Species; and Survey Methodology for one Lichen Species with Category Change from 2003 Annual Species Review. FS-Memorandum. BLM – Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2006-038. April 3, 2006. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/IM-IB/im-or-2006-038.pdf USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2008. Survey Protocol for Bridgeoporus nobilissimus. Version 3.0. Hibler & O'Dell, June 2008. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP-Forms/inv-sp-fu-brno-ver3-2008-06.pdf USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2011. Settlement Agreement in Litigation over the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure in Conservation Northest et al. v. Sherman et al., Case No. 08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash.), July 4, 2011. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/IM-IB/im-or-2011- 063.pdf

Page 9 of 9 Form revised March 2011