USDA Forest Service Tahoe National Forest, Yuba River Ranger District BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT / BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF BOTANICAL SPECIES Yuba Project 08/01/2017 Prepared by: _________________________________ Date: ________________ Courtney Rowe, District Botanist Summary of Determinations For federally threatened and endangered and Forest Service (TES) botanical species with known occurrences or suitable habitat in analysis area Species Common name Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Rationale Determination Determination Determination Lewisia kelloggii ssp. Hutchinson’s MANL WN MANL There are no known occurrence that intersects proposed activities, hutchinsonii lewisia but unsurveyed habitat in underburn units; there is low potential for short-term & long-term negative impacts to suitable habitat; the included management requirements are sufficient to protect occurrences and maintain suitable habitat. Lewisia kelloggii ssp. Kellogg’s MANL WN MANL Same as above kelloggii lewisia Botrychium ascendens upswept WN WN WN My determination is based on the lack of occurrences and the moonwort negligible impacts to suitable habitat within the project area. Botrychium crenulatum scalloped WN WN WN Same as above moonwort Botrychium lunaria common WN WN WN Same as above moonwort Botrychium montanum western goblin WN WN WN Same as above Bruchia bolanderi Bolander’s WN WN WN Same as above bruchia Eriogonum umbellatum Donner Pass WN WN WN Same as above var. torreyanum buckwheat Meesia uliginosa broad-nerved WN WN WN Same as above hump-moss Peltigera gowardii Goward’s WN WN WN Same as above waterfan Penstemon personatus closed-throated WN WN WN Same as above beardtongue Pinus albicaulis whitebark pine WN WN WN Same as above Poa sierrae Sierra WN WN WN Same as above bluegrass Tauschia howellii Howell’s WN WN WN Same as above tauschia Cudonia monticola Large cudonia MANL WN MANL Lack of known occurrences in the project area; there is the potential for short-term negative impacts to suitable habitat; the included management requirements are sufficient to maintain or improve suitable habitat Dendrocollybia branched MANL WN MANL Same as above racemosa collybia Phaeocollybia olivacea olive MANL WN MANL Same as above phaeocollybia Sowerbyella rhenana stalked orange MANL WN MANL Same as above peel-fungus MANL— may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing; WN—will not affect TES species outside of the analysis area are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed project either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Current Management Direction .......................................................................................................... 1 3 Description of the Project ................................................................................................................... 1 4 Effects Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................. 3 4.1 Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................................. 3 4.2 Geographic Area ......................................................................................................................... 5 4.3 Data Sources ............................................................................................................................... 5 4.4 Type and Duration Of Effects ...................................................................................................... 5 4.5 Species Considered ..................................................................................................................... 6 5 Effects of the Project........................................................................................................................... 9 5.1 General effects to TES botanical species ..................................................................................... 9 5.2 Lewisia kelloggii spp. hutchinsonii & spp. kelloggii (Hutchinson & Kellogg’s lewisias) .............. 14 5.3 Species with suitable habitat, but no occurrences in project area ............................................ 15 5.4 Other Botanical Resources ........................................................................................................ 18 6 Compliance with Current Management Direction ............................................................................ 18 7 References ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Appendix A. Maps ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Appendix B. Botanical Resource Protection Plan ........................................................................................ 1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Proposed treatments (differences between alternative in bold) ................................................................... 2 Table 2. Units where prescriptions differ between Alternative A and Alternative C ................................................... 2 Table 3. Proposed road and trail treatments ............................................................................................................. 2 Table 4. Current surveys in the project area .............................................................................................................. 4 Table 5. List of TES botanical species considered for Yuba Project ............................................................................. 7 Table 6. Summary of habitat types in the project area ............................................................................................ 10 Table 7. Species with suitable habitat, but no known occurrences in the project area ............................................. 16 Botanical Species BA/BE—Yuba Project 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to analyze the activities proposed under the Yuba Project and to determine whether they have the potential to affect any federally threatened and endangered and Forest Service Sensitive plant, lichen, and fungi species and their habitats (referred to collectively as TES botanical species). The Yuba Project is proposed by the Yuba River Ranger District to enhance watershed health through improving forest health and resilience to changing climatic conditions, reducing surface and ladder fuels to a level that would allow safe fire suppression, and improving wildlife habitat. The approximately 14,500 acre project area encompasses National Forest system (NFS) lands, located east and northeast of the community of Sierra City, north and northeast of Bassets, and west of Yuba Pass (T20N, R12E Sections 1,2,3,10,11,12; T21N R12E Sections 13,14,15,22 thru 28,34,35,36; T20N R13E Sections 2 thru 6,8,9,10; and T21N R13E Sections 19,20,21,27 thru 35), all within Sierra County. The project involves three alternatives and is described in detail in the Yuba Project Environmental Assessment. 2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Current management direction regarding TES (federal threatened and endangered, Forest Service Sensitive) species management on the TNF can be found in the following documents, filed at the District Office: Endangered Species Act (ESA); National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); National Forest Management Act (NFMA); Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1988) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004); Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670); - Pacific Southwest Region (R5) policy and management direction; species management plans, guides or conservation strategies In general, federal law and Forest Service policy and direction directs the TNF to ensure that Forest Service actions do not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of Federally listed species; do not result in a trend toward federal listing of any FSS species; do not contribute to loss of viability of any native plant species; and provides a process and standard through which rare plant species receive full consideration throughout the planning process, reducing negative impacts on species and enhancing opportunities for mitigation. 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The project is described in detail in the Yuba Project Environmental Assessment. There are two action and one no-action alternatives: Alternative A—proposed action; alternative B—no action; and Alternative C—wildlife focus. The proposed action includes the following activities: mechanical thinning; planting native conifers in a portion of the gaps; aspen restoration (conifer removal both by hand and/or mechanical equipment); pre-commercial thinning; manual, mechanical and smothering treatments of non-native invasive plants; roadside and power distribution line hazard tree removal; borate compound application to freshly cut stumps; hand cutting, hand piling, and pile burning; under burning; helitorch prescribed fire for wildlife habitat (shrubfield) enhancement; road decommissioning; road recondition/reconstruction and maintenance; replace/restore a non-functioning waterhole with a functioning one; meadow habitat enhancement (conifer removal both by hand and/or mechanical equipment); installation of nest boxes and creation of wildlife cover piles;