United States Forest Bend/Ft. Rock 63095 Deschutes Market Road Department of Service Ranger District Bend, OR 97701 Agriculture File Code: 2670 Date: 06 October 2016 Subject: Biological Evaluation –Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants Lex project To: The Record This is a biological evaluation to document consideration of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) plants related to the Lex project. It is prepared in compliance with the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.4 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Subpart B; 402.12, section 7 consultation). Effects of this activity are evaluated for those TES plant species on the current Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (FSM 2670.44, July 2015) that are documented or suspected to occur on the Deschutes National Forest. Finding: The alternatives are not likely to impact any Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive species. ________________________________________________________________________________ Project Description Alternative 1 - “No Action” This alternative provides a basis for comparison to evaluate changes in the existing condition associated with the action alternatives. Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No commercial or non- commercial activities would be implemented to accomplish the project purposes. No surface or ladder fuels reduction activities would be implemented to accomplish project purposes. Alternative 2 - Proposed action Commercial harvest would include commercial and small-tree thinning of ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine and salvage of dead lodgepole pine. Management of White fir stocking levels would be limited to young stands, and in circumstances where it is removed to create openings to regenerate ponderosa pine that historically existed on the landscape. Commercial thinning could include products such as commercial firewood sales, post and Lex Biological Evaluation – Plants Page 1 of 24 pole sales, and traditional saw log material. Harvest would be conducted with mechanical surface logging methods to reduce tree stocking, control species composition and reduce the accumulation of dead, down woody material. Opportunities for small tree harvest could include biomass or personal use firewood, or both. Small tree treatments would be conducted by cutting with chainsaws, mechanical removal similar to logging, or mastication. This would be used to reduce tree stocking, control species composition and reduce ladder fuels. Slash would either be lopped and scattered, if the additional fuel loading didn’t exceed LRMP requirements, or piled and burned. Shrub mowing or mastication would be conducted using machinery with cutting or masticating heads to reduce brush height and density, and lower the height of surface fuels from other activities or which have naturally accumulated. Underburning would be conducted in stands in conjunction with other treatments to consume surface fuels, and reinitiate natural processes. Piling and burning of slash would occur in areas where underburning is not proposed and the amount of slash is determined to be a high risk to carry fire at high intensities. Tree planting would occur in areas that are below minimum stocking requirements. Gopher trapping and herbicide treatment will be used to ensure planting is successful. Alternatives 3-4 Both alternatives 3 and 4 include overstory and understory treatments using various methods to create healthy and resilient stands. Alternative 3 proposes more acres of overstory treatment while alternative 4 proposes less acres of overstory and understory treatments. Both alternatives include 866 acres of prescribed burning along with Herbicide use to reduce competing vegetation around trees that will be planted (about 100 acres). Further alternative analysis and comparisons are detailed in the EA Chapter 2. The following table is a breakdown of treatment acreas for each alternative. Lex Action Alternative Table- Proposed Activities and Acres Treatment Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Proposed Action HFR 2,071 2,071 1,779 Final Removal GFR 0 0 295 Girdle Overstory HSL 852 852 760 Uneven-aged management HSC 0 176 0 Lex Biological Evaluation – Plants Page 2 of 24 Treatment Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Proposed Action Selection Cut Uneven-aged HOR 1,369 1,369 1,328 Overstory Removal HIM & HSP 251 251 232 Improvement & special HCR 587 975 356 Seed Tree cut with reserves (includes Salvage) HTH 177 177 177 Commercial thin HSV 158 158 158 Salvage Total 5465 6011 5101 Treatment- Fuels Alternative 2 Proposed Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Action LFR 626 626 624 PCT 4492 4668 4132 Whip 293 293 293 Total 5558 5587 5049 Treatment-Burning Same for all Action Alternatives Jackpot Burning 297 Underburning 510 Total 866 Lex Biological Evaluation – Plants Page 3 of 24 PREFIELD REVIEW/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The plant associations in the Lex project include primarily lodgepole pine wet plant associations, but also mixed conifer wet, with a small amount of mixed conifer dry and a smaller amount of lodgepole pine wet. The elevation varies between 5200-6000’. The average annual precipitation measures about 30”. The project boundary is entirely within the Northwest Forest Plan. Two documented Sensitive plant sites are located within the boundary, both are small Castilleja chlorotica populations, which were unable to be relocated when checked. Field Reconnaissance Field checks were conducted on 6/19/2014 by Charmane Powers, Bend/Ft. Rock District Botanist, for the two documented Castilleja chlorotica or green-tinged paintbrush sites. Site #0100230 in unit 041 originally only had three plants documented in 2007; none were found in 2014. Site #0100222, outside of any proposed units, had four plants in 1995 and none in 2014. Both sites were not found in what is considered typical Castilleja chlorotica habitat. The surrounding areas were checked but no further surveys were deemed necessary due to the lack of good quality habitat for green-tinged paintbrush. Surveys were conducted in 2013 and 2014 for Survey and Manage fungi species. The areas targeted for surveys were in mixed conifer old growth patches most likely to contain Survey and Manage species, and potentially listed TES fungi. Deschutes Botanist, Rick Dewey, conducted surveys in both spring and fall during the two years and found no species on either list. Other TES surveys were conducted within the project area in previous years. KIT, Wanago add-on, and the Kapka project surveys did not locate any TES. Castilleja chlorotica Lex Biological Evaluation – Plants Page 4 of 24 Lex Biological Evaluation – Plants Page 5 of 24 Project Effects and Finding Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects The only known TES plant species are the two documented Castilleja chlorotica populations that were no longer present in the current stand conditions. It is probable that they were affected by sucession and overstory competition. Through management of the overstory there is potential for the populations to reestablish in the more suitable habitat. If this is the case, then the no action alternative would provide no benefit to Castilleja chlorotica. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Direct Effects – Castilleja chlorotica habitat Although no C. chlorotica was located in recent surveys, it is possible that through stand and fuels management, habitat for C. chlorotica would be enhanced such that it would regenerate at the locations it was previously found, and potentially at other sites. The historic site located in unit 41will not be impacted by any planting or herbicide treatments as those activities are not proposed for the unit. However, seed tree final removal and precommercial thinning activities are proposed causing ground disturbance to the once active C. chlorotica site. Because no plants have been found, there is no direct effect to a population and the activities may only enhance its habitat as previously mentioned. Cumulative Effects – Both alternatives There are no anticipated cumulative effects to TES plants within the project because none were found. Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Consistency The Lex project as regards TES plant species is consistent with the Deschutes LRMP (1990). Records were checked for previously known TES plant populations (TE-1), and low quality habitat was located for the green-tinged paintbrush (TE-2). Targeted surveys were conducted at the locations of historic green-tinged paintbrush populations (TE-3). The remaining standards and guidelines for TES plant species do not apply to the Lex project. Lex Biological Evaluation – Plants Page 6 of 24 Finding: The alternatives would have no impact on Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. PREPARED BY /s/ Marlo Fisher Marlo Fisher, Acting District Botanist DATE 06 October 2016 REFERENCES AND COMMUNICATIONS GIS layerfiles, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District Larsen, 1976. Soil Resource Inventory, Deschutes National Forest. Powers, Charmane, Bend/Ft. Rock District Botanist/Ecologist. Communications. Lex Biological Evaluation – Plants Page 7 of 24 APPENDIX A Deschutes National Forest Sensitive Species List Sixty-nine plants are currently on the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List (FSM 2670.44, Dec. 2011) for the Deschutes National Forest, as follows (BFR = Bend/Fort Rock District, CRE = Crescent District, SIS = Sisters District). Listing status updated July 2015. Scientific Name Common Name Listing Status District BFR CRE SIS Agoseris elata