UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION – BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF BOTANICAL SPECIES Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project April 27, 2018 Prepared by: _________________________________ Date: ________________ Tammie Beyerl, Botanist, Ascent Environmental Reviewed by: _________________________________ Date: ________________ Susan Urie, Tahoe National Forest Zone Botanist SUMMARY OF EFFECTS Botanists conducted literature review, database searches, and review of Forest Service species lists to identify potentially occurring species, conducted protocol-level botanical surveys and habitat assessment, and evaluated the potential for the project alternatives to affect threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant. A No Impacts determination was made for seven species because they were determined to be absent from the study area. Eight other species were also not found in the study area; however, these species are difficult to find because they seldom produce sporophytes, the above-ground parts that allow these species to be identified, and they are all very small and easy to miss even when they do produce above-ground parts. Because absence of Bolander’s candle moss, upswept moonwort, scalloped moonwort, common moonwort, Mingan moonwort, western goblin, Bandow’s bog moss, and Santa Lucia dwarf-rush could not be confirmed, the project could affect a minimal amount of potential habitat for these Forest Service sensitive plant species. Table i summarizes effect determinations for the Squaw-Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project alternatives on Candidate and Sensitive Species for the Tahoe National Forest that were determined to have potential to occur in the study area as presented in Section 5, Effects of the Proposed Project. No Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed species have potential to occur in the study area because the study area is outside of the known range of these species; therefore, these species were not included in the effects analysis. Table i. Determination of Project Effects on Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur in the Study Area. Known to Suitable *Determination Special Occur in Habitat in Determination for the Three Species Status the Study the Project for No Action Action Area Area Alternatives Plants Boechera rigidissima FSS No Yes No Impacts No Impacts Galena Creek rockcress May impact individuals, but Botrychium ascendens not likely to FSS No Yes No Impacts upswept moonwort cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. May impact individuals, but Botrychium crenulatum not likely to FSS No Yes No Impacts scalloped moonwort cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. i Table i. Determination of Project Effects on Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur in the Study Area. Known to Suitable *Determination Special Occur in Habitat in Determination for the Three Species Status the Study the Project for No Action Action Area Area Alternatives May impact individuals, but Botrychium lunaria not likely to FSS No Yes No Impacts common moonwort cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. May impact individuals, but Botrychium minganense not likely to FSS No Yes No Impacts Mingan moonwort cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. May impact individuals, but Botrychium montanum not likely to FSS No Yes No Impacts western goblin cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. May impact individuals, but Bruchia bolanderi not likely to FSS No Yes No Impacts Bolander’s candle moss cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. Erigeron miser FSS No Yes No Impacts No Impacts starved daisy Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum FSS No Yes No Impacts No Impacts Donner Pass buckwheat May impact individuals, but Helodium blandowii not likely to FSS No Yes No Impacts Bandow’s bog moss cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. May impact Juncus luciensis individuals, but FSS No Yes No Impacts Santa Lucia dwarf-rush not likely to cause a trend to ii Table i. Determination of Project Effects on Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur in the Study Area. Known to Suitable *Determination Special Occur in Habitat in Determination for the Three Species Status the Study the Project for No Action Action Area Area Alternatives federal listing or loss of viability. Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii FSS No Yes No Impacts No Impacts Hutchison’s lewisia Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii FSS No Yes No Impacts No Impacts Kellogg’s lewisia Pinus albicaulis FSS No Yes No Impacts No Impacts whitebark Pine C Tauschia howellii FSS No Yes No Impacts No Impacts Howell’s tauschia *The effects determination is the same for the all three action alternatives because the species are not present in the study area or because only a minimal amount of potential habitat is present for the species and therefore the risk to them or their habitat is low under each alternative. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Current Management Direction ................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Summary of Current Management Direction ............................................................................... 3 3 Description of the Proposed Project ............................................................................................ 4 3.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 Location and Extent ...................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Base to Base Gondola ................................................................................................................... 7 3.5 Gazex Avalanche Mitigation System............................................................................................. 7 4 Effects Analysis Methodology....................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Geographic Area Evaluated .......................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Species To Be Analyzed ................................................................................................................ 9 4.3 Analysis Methodology and Assumptions .................................................................................... 10 4.4 Data Sources ............................................................................................................................... 18 4.5 Type and Duration of Effects ...................................................................................................... 19 5 Effects of the Proposed Project .................................................................................................. 22 5.1 Galena Creek Rockcress .............................................................................................................. 23 5.2 Upswept, Scalloped, Common, and Mingan Moonworts, and Western Goblin ........................ 25 5.3 Bolander’s Candle Moss ............................................................................................................. 29 5.4 Starved Daisy .............................................................................................................................. 32 5.5 Donner Pass Buckwheat ............................................................................................................. 33 5.6 Santa Lucia Dwarf-Rush .............................................................................................................. 34 5.7 Hutchison’s Lewisia and Kellogg’s Lewisia .................................................................................. 36 5.8 Whitebark Pine ........................................................................................................................... 37 5.9 Howell’s Tauschia ....................................................................................................................... 39 5.10 Other Botanical Resources ......................................................................................................... 41 6 Compliance with Current Management Direction ..................................................................... 41 7 Summary of Determinations ...................................................................................................... 41 8 Summary of Resource Protection Measures .............................................................................. 42 9 References .................................................................................................................................. 43 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 6 Table 2. List of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate and Forest Service Sensitive Botanical Species Known to Occur or with Suitable Habitat on Tahoe National Forest as of August 29, 2017 .........................................................................................................................