TEAMS Specialist Report Template 2013

Ringo

Botany Biological Evaluation

Prepared by:

Christina Veverka Christina Veverka

Botanist

for: Crescent Ranger District

Deschutes National Forest

May 4, 2016

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

Botanical Resource Report Ringo

1

Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2

Resource Indicators and Measures ........................................................................................... 2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 2

Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 4 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................... 4 Management Direction ............................................................................................................. 8

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................... 9 Alternative 1 – No Action ........................................................................................................ 9 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action .............................................................................................. 9 Alternative 3 .......................................................................................................................... 11

Regulatory Framework .............................................................................................................. 13 Land and Resource Management Plan ................................................................................... 13 Federal Law ........................................................................................................................... 14 Executive Orders .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Other Guidance or Recommendations ................................................................................... 14

Summary of Environmental Effects .......................................................................................... 14 Determination ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. References Cited ........................................................................................................................ 18

Tables

Table 1: Known TES botanical sites within the Ringo planning area ............................................ 5 Table 2: Comparison of TES sites by Alternative ..................................................................... ... 11 Table 3: Past, present, and foreseeable future actions within the Ringo planning area ................. 12 Table 4: Summary of effects to Sensitive botanical species .......................................................... 14

Figures

Figure 1: Map of Ringo project area. ............................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Map of TES botanical sites on Odell Butte……………………………………………...5

Appendices

Appendix A: Deschutes National Forest Sensitive Botanical Species List . Error! Bookmark not defined.19


2

Introduction The following Biological Evaluation addresses potential effects on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) botanical species from proposed activities within the Ringo planning area. This document summarizes the existing information on TES occurrences, as well the results of extensive botanical surveys throughout the planning area. This evaluation also provides mitigations to ensure that TES botanical species are protected during project activities.

Sensitive plants are those species identified by a U.S. Forest Service Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by either a significant current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or density, or in a habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution (Forest Manual 2670.5). The sensitive species list for Region 6, Pacific Northwest, was last updated on July 7, 2015 and from this the Deschutes/Ochoco list of TES species was also revised. This list includes vascular plants and non-vascular species such as bryophytes (mosses and liverworts), fungi (e.g. mushrooms), and lichens (Appendix A). Threatened and endangered plants are those species whose viability is of concern and have been identified as such by either state and/or federal agencies. Within Oregon, the state and federal designations for rare plants are listed by the following agencies: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Ringo planning area encompasses 30,000 acres of mixed conifer forest in the central portion of the Crescent District (Figure 1). Within this area there is a need to reduce tree density and surface fuels in order to restore and maintain a resilient, fire-adapted ecosystem that will 1) Protect or enhance quality habitat for key wildlife species, 2) Allow for safe and effective wildfire response, 3) Maintain developed and dispersed recreational opportunities, and 4) Contribute to local and regional economies. While TES botanical species are not directly related to the purpose and need of the Ringo project, Forest Service policy does require that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions, and that viable populations of all native plant species be maintained (FSM 2670.22).

Resource Indicators and Measures The most direct means to analyze and measure project effects on TES plants is to 1) determine if TES sites are present within the planning area, 2) determine if those sites will be affected by project activities, and 3) analyze the effects of those activities on known locations and habitat.

Methodology Pre-field review - A pre-field review for botanical species was first conducted May 2012 to determine if there were any known sites of TES species located within the Ringo planning area. The review consisted of checking the following database records for documented occurrences:

Information Sources • Regional Forester’s (R-6) Sensitive Plant Species List (revised July 2015)

• Deschutes National Forest Sensitive Plant List (revised July 2015)

• Oregon Biodiversity Information Center: Known rare plant occurrences within the Crescent Ranger District (data request March 2014 and September 2015)


3

Figure 1. Location map of the Ringo planning area


4

• NRIS (Natural Resource Inventory System) database for the Deschutes National Forest: Element Occurrence records for TES plants

• Botany Survey Records, Crescent Ranger District

Habitat analysis – A habitat analysis was conducted comparing habitat requirements of the Deschutes TES species with the known plant communities within the planning area (Appendix A). From that analysis, a list was compiled of potential TES botanical species. This list was then used to guide field work during botanical surveys.

Botanical surveys – During the pre-field review it was determined that less than 5% of the Ringo planning area had ever been surveyed for botanical species. Without any surveys, there was no data to indicate if TES species were present, and where such sites may be located. Without such critical information, it would be impossible to ascertain what effect projects activities would have on TES botanicals. Therefore a key component for the TES analysis was initiating extensive botanical surveys throughout the planning area. These surveys began in the spring of 2014 and were completed in the fall of 2015. These surveys were conducted by the District Botanist and an experienced assistant botanist. A general survey method was used, where traverses were made through pre-determined project units. During these surveys every attempt was made to identify and document all vascular and non-vascular species seen within the unit.

At the summits of Odell, Ringo, Hamner, and Davis Buttes thorough surveys were conducted of the whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) populations at these locations. These surveys consisted of GPS recording and mapping of individual whitebark trees.

All survey data was entered into NRIS, the Forest Service’s national database for resource information.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Because TES botanical species are rare or uncommon, there is often scant scientific information on the ecology and distribution of little known species. This is especially true for the non-vascular species such as fungi and bryophytes, many of which are known from only a few occurrences. Every attempt has been made to include all pertinent information relating to the TES botanical species that were found within the planning area.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition Results of the pre-field review showed the only known TES sites within the Ringo planning area were five occurrences of western white bark pine (Pinus albicaulis), a R6 Sensitive species, at the summit of Odell Butte. From the botanical surveys four additional white bark pine sites were identified and mapped within the planning area (Table 2).

From the extensive botanical surveys three sites of Ramaria amyloidea, another R6 Sensitive species, was discovered on Odell Butte (Table 2). This is a rather attractive species of coral mushroom that is also on the Survey and Manage list for the Pacific Northwest. (Please refer to Survey and Manage Botanical Report for the Ringo project for additional information on this category.)

As no other TES sites were discovered during field surveys, the botanical analysis was focused on potential project impacts to whitebark pine and R. amyloidea.


5

Figure 2. Location of whitebark pine and R. amyloidea sites on Odell Butte


6

Table 1. Known TES botanical sites within the Ringo planning area

NRIS # Species Ringo unit

Location Comments

244 PIAL 286* Odell Butte, Crescent Creek

on outside edge of unit boundary

273 PIAL 353 Odell Butte, summit

273 PIAL 358 Odell Butte, summit

274 PIAL n/a Odell Butte, summit

WBP_008 PIAL 359 Odell Butte, summit




WBP_006 PIAL 360* Odell Butte, summit on outside edge of unit boundary

WBP_PLT414

PIAL n/a Hamner Butte, summit

220 PIAL n/a Ringo Butte, summit

250 PIAL n/a Davis Mountain, summit

247 RAAM4 274* Odell Butte on outside edge of boundary

252 RAAM4 n/a Odell Butte

272 RAAM4 n/a Odell Butte

Species Abbreviations: PIAL – Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine) RAAM4 – Ramaria amyloidea (no common name)

Below is a brief discussion on the current condition of these species, both within the planning area, and within the larger context of the known range of distribution.

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) R6 Sensitive species Candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act Whitebark pine tends to be a cold tolerant, subalpine species where it is found on the wind-swept ridges and peaks in western North America. This species ranges from the mountains of British Columbia Washington and Oregon, south to the Sierra Range of California and east to the Rocky Mountains (Tilley et al. 2011). Whitebark pine is considered a keystone species and plays a vital ecological role in its alpine habitat (Schwandt 2006). As a pioneer species it colonizes the poorly developed, glacial soils of high


7

elevation areas (Murray 2005). The trees catch snowdrifts and shade cover which helps reduce snowmelt in such areas, regulating runoff and reducing soil erosion (American Forests 2016). Most importantly, the seeds of whitebark pines serve as an energy-rich food source for a number of wildlife species, most notably Clark’s nutcracker and grizzly bears (Mattson et al. 1992, 2001).

Whitebark pine is in severe decline throughout the species range (Keane et al. 2010). The primary causes of this decline are white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola), an introduced fungal pathogen, and the native mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae). Climate change is also considered a threat to whitebark pine. Species not normally adapted to alpine areas at or near timberline are likely to spread to higher elevations with increases in temperatures (Tilley et al. 2011). Fire suppression has also been attributed to declines in whitebark, with shade-tolerant trees encroaching into areas dominated by whitebark (Kendall and Keane 2001). Due to dramatic decline of whitebark pine throughout its range, in 2011 it was listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act (USFS 2014).

Ramaria amyloidea R6 Sensitive, Survey and Manage species R. amyloidea is one of 82 coral mushroom species within the Pacific Northwest (Exeter et al. 2006). This species is distinguished by amyloid flesh (turns purple with application of iodine solution), a band of pale brown hyphae at the base of the stem, and short, cylindrical smooth spores (Exeter et al. 2006). R. amyloidea fruits in the fall, with sporocarps emerging above ground in September and October. R. amyloidea is found in humus or soil and is ectomycorrhizal, forming fungal relationships with host trees of fir, Douglas fir, and western hemlock (Castellano et al. 1999). R. amyloidea is a fungus that is strongly associated with old-growth forest habitats, where there is moderate to dense tree canopy, large diameter trees, and abundant ground litter.

R. amyloidea is a rare fungal species endemic to the Pacific Northwest, originally known from only three sites in Washington and California (Castellano and O’Dell 1997). There are now 58 documented sites of R. amyloidea in Oregon (no sites documented in Washington) most of which consist of a single sporocarp that was found during botanical surveys (NRIS 2016). The Deschutes Forest has 24 known sites of this rare mushroom, which is 43% of the known population in the Pacific Northwest. All of R. amyloidea documented on the Deschutes Forest have been found on the Crescent Ranger District, with the three sites on Odell Butte, 10 sites within the Big Marsh watershed, and the other sites found within the old-growth forests around Odell Lake.

Resource Indicator – TES Sites White bark pine The summit at Odell Butte is at 6,990 ft. and is comprised of mixed conifer stands of white bark pine, lodgepole (Pinus contorta), western white pine (Pinus monticola), mountain hemlock (Tsuga menziesii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). The population of whitebark pine at Odell encompasses 57 acres with approximately 225 trees, with an estimated density of 134 TPA (trees per acre). The Odell population of whitebark does contain some blister rust, with an estimated 10-20% of trees having signs of infection in either the trunk or branches (Jensen, per. comm. 2016). On the Odell summit there have been two individual trees have been identified and marked (with metal tags) for inclusion in the Genetic Select program. These trees have been identified as genetically resistant to white pine blister rust. The cones of these trees are being collected (when available) to propagate rust-resistant seedlings for use in restoration


8

plantings. Because of their local scarcity, the trees identified on Odell Butte as a Genetic Select are highly valuable to the ongoing efforts to propagate and out-plant blister rust resistant trees.

On the Deschutes National Forest white bark pine is generally found on high elevation ridges and peaks, with mapped populations on Broken Top, Mt. Bachelor, and the east flanks of the Three Sisters and Mt. Jefferson wilderness areas (NRIS 2016). The Whitebark Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest (Aubry et al. 2008) has grouped the Deschutes Forest whitebark populations into the East Cascades Conservation Area (#504). The strategy indicates that Deschutes surveys of whitebark from 1992-2004 showed approximately 30% mortality from white pine blister rust.

On the Crescent District small populations of whitebark pine had been mapped on Walker and Odell Buttes, and within the Diamond Peak Wilderness. From recent botanical surveys whitebark has been mapped along the FS 5840 road near the boundary with the Fremont-Winema Forest, and a small population was identified on a ridge within the Marsh watershed. Regional surveys from 1995 documented a small whitebark population on Hamner Butte, which is within the Ringo planning area. Survey notes from that time indicate there was heavy mortality of whitebark due to root disease, with numerous downed trees from wind action.

From the botanical surveys conducted throughout the planning area, two additional populations of white bark pine were mapped on Davis Mountain and Ringo Butte. These sites are approximately 20-24 acres in size with elevations ranging from 6,000 to 6,600 feet. As with the habitat on Odell Butte, these summit areas tend to be comprised of stands of mixed conifer species interspersed with individual whitebark pines.

One other white bark site was discovered adjacent Crescent Creek, on the lower west flank of Odell Butte. This is a small group of less than a dozen trees within a ¼ acre area. These individual trees are growing within a dense mixed conifer stand of pine, fir, and hemlock species. Such a site is of only marginal habitat quality for white bark, as this species tends to dominate at higher elevation sites that are inhospitable to other pine species. It has been speculated that these more marginal habitat sites for white bark are the result of the Clark’s nutcracker cache white bark seeds at lower elevation sites in the forest, which then leads small stands of white bark within mixed conifer forests (Jensen per. comm. 2015)

Ramaria amyloidea Prior to field surveys, there were no known sites of R. amyloidea within the entire Ringo planning area. The three new sites of this species discovered on Odell Butte now represent the most eastern range of this species in Oregon. These sites where discovered within denser canopied forest stands dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzesii) and grand fir (Abies grandis), with canopy ranging from 60% to 95%. Typically of these type of forest stands, the understory plant community was sparse to non-existent, consisting mainly of pine and fir duff.


9

Management Direction

Desired Condition

Forest Service direction states that viable populations of all native and desired nonnative species are to be maintained throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands (FSM 2670.22). This direction also states that management objectives will be developed and implemented for populations and/or habitat of Sensitive species.

Whitebark pine

The Whitebark Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest (Aubry et al. 2008) groups populations of whitebark pine into conservation areas and provides recommendations for the management of this species. For whitebark populations on the Deschutes Forest, the strategy recommends thinning, surveys, cone collections, and restoration plantings of blister rust-resistant whitebark seedlings. Ramaria amyloidea

Forest Service guidelines require that known sites of Survey and Manage fungi be managed for conservation, and that known sites be protected by impact from Forest activities.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action alternative, the activities under the proposed action would not be implemented, so existing conditions would continue within the Ringo planning area. Densities would not be reduced and restoration would not occur. The current 13,436 acres above HRV grows to 20,902 acres by 2067. Bark beetle risk would continue to increase over time. The small amount of small diameter thinning scheduled would not appreciably affect landscape risk. The current 60% of the federal forested land within the Ringo planning area that is at risk of bark beetles would grow to 33,605 acres or 96% by 2067. This shows resiliency will continue to diminish over time.

For the populations of whitebark pine within the planning area, No Action would result in mixed conifer stands remaining at their current density. Over time these stands would increase in both canopy cover and density. Such increased competition from other conifers would tend to inhibit the growth of the whitebark pine, as they tend to be a shade-intolerant species (Arno and Hoff 1990). With increased stand density there is also an increased risk for both blister rust and mountain pine beetle infections to spread within the whitebark populations (Six and Adams 2007). Such encroachment from other pines has been implicated in increased risk factors for these two pests. Catastrophic wildfire is another risk to the Odell whitebark pine under the existing stand conditions. Fire suppression has been one the key factors implicated in the decline of whitebark, specifically because of the increased risk of catastrophic fire, pest infection, and conifer encroachment (Murray 2005).

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The proposed action consists of the following:

• Thinning (HTH 4482 acres/SDT 2365 acres) - Primarily thinning from below which removes the smallest trees first until the desired density is achieved. Thinning increases individual tree growth and reduces fire and insect risk by reducing ladder fuels and overall stand density. Less fire


10

resilient tree species such as lodgepole pine and white fir would be preferentially removed. Commercial thinning units (HTH) are expected to produce a merchantable timber product. Small diameter thinning units (SDT) which have smaller or fewer trees may be utilized as chip wood or biomass if market conditions are favorable.

• Improvement Cut (HIM 782 acres) – In lodgepole pine (558 acres), this treatment removes damaged diseased or otherwise unhealthy trees. Existing ground fuels and downed wood would also be reduced in these stands to allow for safe and effective fire response.

• Meadow Enhancement (MDW 64 acres) – This treatment would occur in wetter lodgepole pine areas that previously were more open. The majority of trees would be removed from these areas. This treatment would enhance understory vegetation which is important for big game and other animal species.

• Underburning (UB 5322 acres) – Underburning would occur in the majority of ponderosa pine dominated stands after mechanical treatment (4519 acres). Additional areas that were previously treated in other projects or whose current conditions facilitate safe and effective operations are also included (803 acres). Removal of additional ladder fuels by cutting, pruning, or mastication maybe required in portions of these stands in order to maintain control lines and limit large tree mortality during burning operations.

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Project design features will be incorporated into all action alternatives to minimize impacts to Sensitive plant population sites. These design features are consistent with direction from the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1991), the Management Recommendations for Fungi (Castellano and O’Dell 1997), and whitebark pine restoration strategy (Aubry et al. 2008, Keane et al. 2012). Project design features are specified as follows and are applicable to both Alternatives 2 and 3.

• No whitebark pine will be cut in units 353, 358, 359 and 360.

• If any whitebark trees are discovered in other treatment units during layout, these trees will be identified and marked for avoidance.

• Two whitebark pines that have been tagged as Genetic Select trees in units 359 and 360 will be

flagged for avoidance prior to work implementation in these units. No burn piles will be placed within 25 ft. of these Select trees.

• To protect whitebark pines adjacent unit 286, the unit boundary will be surveyed by the District

botanist prior to implementation to ensure that any whitebark trees that fall within the unit boundary are flagged for avoidance.

• In unit 274, a 100 ft. protection buffer around the R. amyloidea site will be flagged by the District Botanist prior to any work commencing within the unit. No ground or vegetation disturbance will be permitted within this flagged buffer zone.


11

Direct and Indirect Effects

Resource Indicator – TES Sites Whitebark pine sites

Under the Proposed Action it is expected that 56 acres of small diameter hand-thinning would be used to remove small diameter conifer species within whitebark units at the top of Odell Butte. With a project design feature requiring that no whitebark be cut in these units, individual trees of this species will be protected and not adversely impacted from thinning operations. The direct effect from this thinning would be to reduce competition from other conifers, thereby providing a benefit to whitebark pines by improving stand health and resiliency. It has been shown that whitebark pine in mixed conifer stands will show an increase in growth when released from competition (Keane et al. 2007). With reduced competition more sunlight and access to ground precipitation. Indirectly, and over time, such thinning would decrease risks to whitebark pines from catastrophic fire, blister rust infection, and mountain pine beetle attack. By improving stand health for whitebark pines, the Proposed Action would meet the recommendations the Whitebark Restoration Strategy. The Proposed Action would also comply with the Forest Service policy requiring that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions, and that viable populations of all native plant species be maintained (FSM 2670.22).

Ramaria amyloidea A project design feature will be implemented requiring that the one R. amyloidea site within a Ringo treatment unit be protected with a 100 ft. buffer during project implementation. With such a buffer in place, there will be no direct impacts to the R. amyloidea site from any project activities, including thinning, temp roads, or pile burning. This buffer will also ensure there will be no indirect adverse effects to these such sites, such as edge effect from the canopy loss of trees adjacent the sites.

Cumulative Effects

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects to whitebark pine and Ramaria amyloidea are limited to the Ringo planning area, specifically to treatment units where these species have been found. Because TES species are site specific the analysis is focused on where there may be potential project effects to sites within treatment units.

The temporal boundaries for direct effects would be one to five years, as one would expect to see immediate effects on both whitebark and R. amyloidea from the proposed action.

A timeframe of 20-30 years is used for indirect effects, as that is the timespan expected for the effectiveness of proposed treatment activities.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis The projects listed in Table 2 are those which have the potential to impact TES botanical species within the Ringo planning area. Treatment work associated with the 5 Buttes, 7 Buttes, and 7 Buttes Return projects has been completed. At the time these planning documents were prepared, whitebark pine was not yet listed as a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act, nor was it listed on the Region 6 Forester’s Sensitive species list. As such, whitebark pine was not considered in the TES effects analysis for the 5 or 7 Buttes documents. Although R. amyloidea was on the 2001 Survey and Manage species, it also was not considered in the effects analysis in the 5 and 7 Buttes documents.


12

The implementation of Travel Management is considered to have a beneficial effect on TES botanical sites, since it restricts motorized travel to designated roads and trails. By keeping vehicles on roads and trails, detrimental ground disturbance to Sensitive sites can be avoided. Table 2. Past, present, and foreseeable future actions within the Ringo planning area

Project/Event Name General Description of Activities Status Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and Crooked River National Grassland Travel Management Project EIS (2011)

Motorized travel in central Oregon would be restricted to designated roads and trails only. Access to dispersed camping would have special provisions to limit access to sensitive areas.

Implementation

5 Buttes EIS (June 2007)

Vegetation management on approximately 4,235 acre of commercial thinning as well as associated fuels treatments, and 3,931 acres of fuel treatments not associated with commercial harvest.

Completed and included in the existing condition where it overlaps the Ringo Project area.

Seven Buttes Return EA (July 2001)

Commercial thinning, small tree thinning, fuels treatments


Davis Fire Restoration Project (2003)

Salvage of burned trees; tree planting; road closures


Seven Buttes EA (December 1996)

Commercial thinning, small tree thinning, fuels treatments


Cumulative Effects

For the TES botanical species within the Ringo project area there will be no cumulative effects from other thinning projects as those projects do not overlap spatially with the Ringo sites. It is expected that there may be a slight benefit to TES botanical species from Travel Management, since it restricts vehicles to designated routes.

Alternative 3 This alternative includes the following activities from Alternative B:

• Thinning - HTH 3754 acres/SDT 2523 acres • Improvement Cut – HIM 547 acres (lodgepole pine only) • Meadow Enhancement – 64 acres • Underburning – 5752 acres (in mechanical treatment units 4584 acres/ other 1168 acres)

In addition Alternative 3 includes: Multi-Aged Management (MLT 946 acres) – This treatment is mostly located in stands with a high percentage of white fir or lodgepole pine. Openings would also be created on 5 to 15% of the stand in order to facilitate regeneration of more fire tolerant species primarily ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Openings would range from .5 to 2 acres in size.


13

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures The same PDFs for the Proposed Action are recommended for Alternative 3.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Resource Indicator –TES sites

The same treatment activities are proposed in Alternative 3 within the TES sites as in the Proposed Action. As such, the same indirect and direct effects would be expected.

Cumulative Effects The same cumulative effects would be expected from Alternative C as in the Proposed Action (Table 3).

Table 3. Comparison of TES sites by Alternative

Species NRIS identificatio

n #

Ringo Planning Unit

Alt 2 Alt 3

Treatments Fire acres Treatments Fire acres

R.amyloidea* 247 274 HTH, GP, HP, UTIL

PB, UB

13.5 HTH, GP, HP, UTIL

PB, UB

13.5

whitebark* 244 286 SDT, GP, HP, UTIL

PB 24.3 SDT, GP, HP, UTIL

PB 24.3

whitebark* 273 353 SDT, HP PB 16.5 SDT, HP PB 16.5 whitebark 273 358 SDT, HP PB 14.4 SDT, HP PB 14.4 whitebark _008 359 SDT, HP PB 10.7 SDT, HP PB 10.7 whitebark _004 360 SDT, HP PB 15.3 SDT, HP PB 15.3 whitebark _005 360 SDT, HP PB ------ SDT, HP PB ----- whitebark _006 360 SDT, HP PB ------

- SDT, HP PB -----

_007 360 SDT, HP PB ------ SDT, HP PB -----

*indicates site is on edge of unit boundary

Regulatory Framework The following Forest Service and Federal policies guide the management of conservation of TES species on Forest Service lands.

I. Forest Service Manual

Forest Service Manual 2670.21 and 2670.32 (Sensitive Species) provides direction to manage National Forest System habitats and activities for threatened and endangered species to achieve recovery objectives so that special protection measures provided under the Endangered Species Act are no longer necessary.

Forest Service Manual 2670.22 (Threatened and Endangered) provides direction to 1) develop implement management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions; 2) Maintain viable populations of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant


14

species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands; and 3) Develop and implement management objectives for populations and/or habitat of sensitive species.

Forest Service Manual 2670.31 (Threatened and Endangered Species) provides direction to 1) Review, through the biological evaluation process, actions and programs authorized, funded, or carried out by the Forest Service to determine their potential for effect on threatened and endangered species and species proposed for listing; 2) Avoid all adverse impacts on threatened and endangered species and their habitats, Avoid adverse impacts on species proposed for listing during the conference period and while their federal status is being determined; and 3) Identify and prescribe measures to prevent adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat and other habitats essential for the conservation of endangered, threatened, and proposed species. Protect individual organisms or populations from harm or harassment as appropriate.

II. Land and Resource Management Plan The Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (DLRMP) under Chapter 4-60, 61 (Forest Management) provides standards and guidelines to protect and manage habitat for TES plant species. Additional guidance is provided in Appendix 13 of the DLRMP under the Sensitive Plants Program.

III. Federal Law Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat.

Other Guidance or Recommendations The Whitebark Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest (Aubry et al. 2008) provides recommendations for restoration activities (planting, thinning, surveying, etc.) for identified conservation areas of whitebark pine within the Pacific Northwest Region.

Management Recommendations for Survey and Manage Fungi (Castellano and O’Dell 1997) provides recommended mitigations to protect fungi sites from forest treatment activities such as thinning, prescribed fire, pile burning, and skid trail and road creation.

Summary of Environmental Effects Alternatives B and C

The small diameter thinning of competing conifers will benefit the whitebark pine population on Odell Butte by reducing competition and reducing the risk of pests, rust infection, and catastrophic fire. Such thinning will lead to a healthier and more resilient stand of whitebark trees on Odell.

The one R. amlyoidea site within a treatment unit will be buffered and protected from any treatment activities, therefore there will be no indirect or direct effects to this site from either Alternative.

http://epw.senate.gov/esa73.pdf

http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title16/chapter35_.html


15

DETERMINATION The Proposed Action and Alternative will have no impact to individuals of whitebark pine or Ramaria amyloidea and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species. It is expected that the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 will have a beneficial impact to whitebark pine.

Table 4: Summary of effects to Sensitive botanical species by alternative Species Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C

Vascular plants Agoseris elata N/A N/A N/A Arnica viscosa N/A N/A N/A Astragalus peckii N/A N/A N/A Botrychium ascendens N/A N/A N/A Botrychium crenulatum N/A N/A N/A Botrychium minganense N/A N/A N/A Botrychium montanum N/A N/A N/A Botrychium paradoxum N/A N/A N/A Botrychium pumicola N/A N/A N/A Calamagrostis breweri N/A N/A N/A Carex capitata N/A N/A N/A Carex diandra N/A N/A N/A Carex lasiocarpa var. americana N/A N/A N/A Carex livida N/A N/A N/A Carex retrorsa N/A N/A N/A Carex vernacula N/A N/A N/A Castilleja chlorotica N/A N/A N/A Cheilanthes feei N/A N/A N/A Collomia mazama N/A N/A N/A Cyperus acuminatus N/A N/A N/A Cyperus lupulinus ssp. lupulinus N/A N/A N/A Eucephalis gormanii N/A N/A N/A Gentiana newberryi var. newberryi N/A N/A N/A Lipocarpha aristulata N/A N/A N/A Lobelia dortmanna N/A N/A N/A Lycopodiella inundata N/A N/A N/A Lycopodium complanatum N/A N/A N/A Muhlenbergi minutissima N/A N/A N/A Ophioglossum pusillum N/A N/A N/A Penstemon peckii N/A N/A N/A Piluaria americana N/A N/A N/A


16

Species Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C

Pinus albicaulis MIIH BI BI Potamogeton diversifolius N/A N/A N/A Pyrola dentata N/A N/A N/A Rorippa columbiae N/A N/A N/A Scheuzeria palustris ssp. americana N/A N/A N/A Schoenoplectus subterminalis N/A N/A N/A Utricularia minor N/A N/A N/A Bryophytes Anastrophyllum minutum N/A N/A N/A Anthelia julacea N/A N/A N/A Blepharostoma arachnoideum N/A N/A N/A Brachydontinum olympicum N/A N/A N/A Cephaloziella spinigera N/A N/A N/A Conostomum tetragonum N/A N/A N/A Encalypta brevipes N/A N/A N/A Entosthodon fasicularis N/A N/A N/A Haplomitrium hookeri N/A N/A N/A Harpanthus flotovianus N/A N/A N/A Junermannii polaris N/A N/A N/A Lophozia gillmani N/A N/A N/A Marsupella sparsifolia N/A N/A N/A Nardia japonica N/A N/A N/A Polystrichastrum sexangulare N/A N/A N/A Preissia quadrata N/A N/A N/A Pseudocalliergon trifarium N/A N/A N/A Rivulariella gemmipara N/A N/A N/A Schistidium cinclidodonteum N/A N/A N/A Schofieldia monitcola N/A N/A N/A Tortula mucronifolia N/A N/A N/A Trematodon asanoi N/A N/A N/A Lichens Texosporium sancti-jacobi N/A N/A N/A Tholurna dissimilis N/A N/A N/A Fungi Gastroboletus vividus N/A N/A N/A Helvella crassitunicata N/A N/A N/A Pseudorhizina californica N/A N/A N/A Ramaria amyloidea NI NI NI Rhizopogon alexsmithii N/A N/A N/A

NI No impact


17

MIIH May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species.

WIFV* Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species

BI Beneficial impact N/A No Habitat or species present *Trigger for a significant action as defined in NEPA


18

References Cited American Forests. 2016. Fact sheet for whitebark pine. http://www.americanforests.org/whitebark-pine/ Accessed February 19, 2016. Arno, S.F.; Hoff, R.J. 1990. Pinus albicaulis engelm.:Whitebark pine. In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. coords.. Silvics of North America: 1. conifers; 2. hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. vol.2: 268–279. Aubry, C.; Gohren, D.; Shoal, R.; Ohlson, T.; Lorenz, T.; Bower, A.; Mehwel, C.; and R. Sniezko. 2008.

Whitebark pine Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region. 2008-2013. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region.

Kendall, K.C.; Keane, R.E.. 2001. Whitebark pine decline: infection, mortality, and population trends. In:

Tomback, D.F.; Arno, S.F.; Keane, R.E., eds. Whitebark pine communities: ecology and restoration. Washington D.C.: Island Press: 221–242.

Keane, R.E.; Gray, K.L.; Dickinson; L.J. 2007. Whitebark pine diameter growth response to removal of

competition. Research Note RMRS-RN-32. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Keane, Robert E.; Tomback, D.F.; Aubry, C.A.; Bower, A.D.; Campbell, E.M.; Cripps, C.L.; Jenkins,

M.B.; Mahalovich, M.F.; Manning, M.; McKinney, S.T.; Murray, M.P.; Perkins, D.L.; Reinhart, D.P.; Ryan, C.; Schoettle, A.W.; Smith, C.M. 2012. A range-wide restoration strategy for whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-279. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 108 p.

Mattson, D.J.; Blanchard, B.M.; Knight R.R. 1992. Yellowstone grizzly bear mortality, human

habituation, and whitebark pine seed crops. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(3): 432–442. Mattson, D.J.; Kendall, K.C.; Reinhart, D.P. 2001. Whitebark pine, grizzly bears, and red squirrels. Whitebark pine communities. In: Tomback, D.F.; Arno, S.F.; Keane, R.E., eds. Whitebark pine

communities: ecology and restoration. Washington DC: Island Press: 3–25.McCaughey, W.W.; Schmidt, W.C. 1990.

Murray, M. P. 2005. Our threatened timberlines: the plight of whitebark pine ecosystems. Kalmiopsis

12:25-29. Schwandt, J. 2006. Whitebark pine in peril: a case for restoration. R1-06-28. Missoula, MT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region (Region 1), Forest Health Protection. 20 p.

Six, D. L.; Adams, J. 2007. White pine blister rust severity and selection of individual whitebark pine by

the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae). Journal of Entomological Science 42:345-353.

Tilley, D., L. St. John, and D. Ogle. 2011. Plant guide for whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Aberdeen, ID.

http://www.americanforests.org/whitebark-pine/


19

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Species fact sheet for whitebark pine. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/plants/whitebarkpine/. Accessed February18, 2016.

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/plants/whitebarkpine/


20

Appendix A. Deschutes Forest list of Sensitive botanical species (Revised July 2015)


21

Scientific Name

Common Name

Code Habitat

Vascular Plants

Agoseris elata tall agoseris

AGEL Forest openings and forest edges adjacent to wet/moist meadows, lakes, rivers, streams. Ponderosa pine/bitterbrush/Idaho fescue plant associations; also with lodgepole pine, mixed conifer forests, and Englemann spruce.

Arnica viscosa Mt. Shasta arnica

ARVI6 Sparsely vegetated openings at high elevations. Scree, talus gullies and slopes w/ seasonal water runoff. Lava flows. May be w/in moraine lake basins or crater lake basins.

Astragalus peckii

Peck’s milk-vetch

ASPE4 Basins, benches, gentle slopes, pumice flats. Generally a non-forest species but can occur in lodgepole pine openings. Mostly in sagebrush/grassland habitats.

Botrychium ascendens

Upward-lobed moonwort

BOAS2 Partially shaded or open settings, primarily in sedge/forb communities associated with seeps, drainages and edges of wet meadows. Engelmann spruce and stands of grand fir, Douglas fir and lodgepole pine.

Botrychium crenulatum

Crenulate moonwort

BOCR Partially shaded or open settings, primarily in sedge/forb communities associated with seeps, drainages and edges of wet meadows. Engelmann spruce and stands of grand fir, Douglas fir and lodgepole pine.

Botrychium montanum

Mountain moonwort

BOMO Partially shaded or open settings, primarily in sedge/forb communities associated with seeps, drainages and edges of wet meadows. Engelmann spruce and stands of grand fir, Douglas fir and lodgepole pine.

Botrychium paradoxum

Twin-spiked moonwort

BOPA9 Partially shaded or open settings, primarily in sedge/forb communities associated with seeps, drainages and edges of wet meadows. Engelmann spruce and stands of grand fir, Douglas fir and lodgepole pine.

Botrychium pumicola

pumice moonwort

BOPU2 Alpine and subalpine ridges, slopes and meadows. Montane LP forest openings, open forest in basins containing frost pockets or pumice flats.

Calamagrostis breweri

Brewer’s reedgrass

CABR Alpine to subalpine habitats in meadows, open slopes, streambanks, and lake margins.

Carex capitata capitate sedge

CACA13 Usually in open, wet places, but sometimes in drier sites at high elevations. Known from five sites on the Sisters, Bend, and Crescent districts of the Deschutes National Forest.

Carex diandra lesser panicled sedge

CADI4 Lesser panicled sedge. Swamps, sphagnum bogs, lake margins, and wet, often calcareous meadows at moderate elevations.

Carex lasiocarpa var. americana

slender sedge

CALAA Swamps and wet meadows at mid elevations. Found on the Deschutes National Forest along the Deschutes River, south of Bend.

Carex livida livid sedge CALI Occurs in all forest types in peatlands including fens and bogs; wet meadows with still or channelled water.

Carex retrorsa retrorse sedge

CARE4 Wet meadows, bogs, swamps, and edges of streams, lakes, and rivers. Foothills and lowlands. ORNHIC data elevations range from 10’ – 3,000’.

Carex vernacula

native sedge

CAVE5 Moist or wet places at high elevations, especially at the edges of melting snowfields and in meltwater streams. ORNHIC data elevations range from 7760’ – 9110’.

Castilleja chlorotica

green-tinged paintbrush

CACH15 Ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and mixed conifer forest openings.

Cheilanthes feei Fee’s lip-fern

CHFE Located in crevices on cliffs. Known from NE Oregon.


22

Collomia mazama

Mt. Mazama collomia

COMA Meadows (dry to wet, level to sloping); stream banks and bars; lakeshores and vernal pool margins; forest edges and openings; alpine slopes.

Cyperus acuminatus

short-pointed cyperus

CYAC2 On the Deschutes NF, located on damp mineral soil of a broad, low-gradient shore of reservoir, in a community just below the Spiraea community. Sites on Crane Prairie Reservoir, Davis Lake.

Cyperus lupulinus ssp. lupulinus

Great Plains flatsedge

CYLUL Upper shorelines. Known from NE Oregon.

Eucephalus gormanii (formerly Aster gormanii)

Gorman’s aster

EUGO5 Alpine or subalpine mixed conifer, open to partially closed canopy. Rocky ridges, outcrops, or rocky slopes.

Gentiana newberryi var. newberryi

alpine gentian

GENEN Alpine-subalpine mixed conifer openings. Deschampsia cespitosa meadows. Montane wet to dry meadows, sometimes adjacent to springs, streams, or lakes.

Lipocarpha aristulata

aristulate lipocarpha

LIAR6 Documented in Washington with Rorippa columbiae and Rotala ramosior. Wallowa and Malheur Cos.

Lobelia dortmanna

Dortmann’s cardinalflower

LODO In water of lake, pond, slow river or stream, or wet meadow. Only one known location in Oregon on Deschutes National Forest.

Lycopodiella inundata

inundated clubmoss

LYIN2 Deflation areas in coastal back-dunes; montane bogs, including Sphagnum bogs; less often, wet meadows.

Lycopodium complanatum

ground cedar

LYCO3 Edges of wet meadows; dry, forested midslope with 25% canopy cover.

Muhlenbergia minutissima

annual dropseed

MUMI2 Weathered lava soils in riparian; only ORNHIC site in Oregon is Jordan Crater, Malheur Co.

Ophioglossum pusillum

northern adderstongue

OPPU3 Dune deflation plains; marsh edges; vernal ponds and stream terraces in moist meadows.

Penstemon peckii

Peck’s penstemon

PEPE10 Ponderosa pine forest openings, pine/mixed conifer openings; recovering fluvial surfaces (streambnaks, overflow channels, inactive floodplains); seeps, rills, springs, vernal pools; draws, ditches, skid roads; dry or intermittant stream channels; moist-wet meadows.

Pilularia americana

American pillwort

PIAM Alkali and other shallow vernal pools; not recently used stock ponds; reservoir shores.

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark pine

PIAL Often on rocky, exposed sites with shallow, well-drained soils. In upper portions of mountain hemlock vegetation series or above, in subalpine parkland. Associated tree speices may inlcude lodgepole pine, western white pine, subalpine fir and Pacific silver fir.

Potamogeton diversifolius

Rafinesque’s pondweed

PODI Lakes, ponds, including created habitat. Klamath, Harney and Lake Cos.

Pyrola dentata Toothleaf pyrola

PYDE Found in mixed conifer forests, forested serpentine and volcanic areas, hillsides of decomposed granite or loose, coarse sand or gravel near rocky outcrops.


23

Rorippa columbiae

Columbia yellowcress

ROCO3 Wet to vernally moist sites; meadows, fields, playas, lakeshores, intermittent stream beds, banks of perennial streams, along irrigation ditches, river bars and deltas.

Scheuchzeria palustris ssp. americana

rannoch-rush

SCPAA3 Open canopied bogs, fens, and other wetlands where often in shallow water.

Schoenoplectus subterminalis (formerly Scirpus subterminalis)

swaying bulrush

SCSU10 Generally submerged to emergent in quiet water 2-8 decimeters deep, in peatlands, sedge fens, creeks, ditches, ponds and lakes.

Utricularia minor

lesser bladderwort

UTMI Occurs underwater in lowland and montane fens, sedge meadows, low-nutrient lakes and peatbog pools. Deschutes, Clackamas, Lane, Klamath, Jackson, Coos, Douglas, Harney, Marion and Linn Cos. There are documented populations on the Bend and Sisters districts of the Deschutes National Forest.

Bryophytes Anastrophyllum minutum

liverwort ANMI8 Typically associated with other bryophytes in tight mats on ledges or at the base of cliffs in the mountain hemlock zone.

Anthelia julacea liverwort ANJU Found on peaty soil in subalpine/alpine habitats above 5,000 ft. Grows on wet crags, streamsides and areas where snow lies late in the year. In Oregon often associated with low ericaceous shrubs.

Blepharostoma arachnoideum

liverwort BLAR On rotten logs in old growth forests in mesic habitats from British Columbia to California.

Brachydontium olympicum

moss BROL2 Forming loose mats on exposed acidic boulders or soil in rock crevices. In boulder fields, moraines, and ledges of cliffs, often in areas of late snowmelt. Subalpine to alpine elevations between 5,000 and 6,000 feet. On Oregon's Mt. Hood Brachydontium occurs above timberline at about 6,000 ft where the plant association is probably Phyllodoce empetriformis and Cassiope mertensiana heath. Elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest, Brachydontium probably also occurs in Pinus albicaulis, Tsuga mertensiana, Abies lasiocarpa, and Abies amabilis associations.

Cephaloziella spinigera

liverwort CESP6 Bogs and fens; boreal and montane. Known from Fremont/Winema National Forest. In OR, associated with moss genera Warnstorfia, Drepanocladus, Tomentypnum and Meesia in moss-dominated communities.

Conostomum tetragonum

moss COTE70 Occurring as small sods or inconspicuous individual shoots intermixed with other bryophytes, on soil in rock crevices in boulder fields, moraines, and ledges of cliffs. Subalpine to alpine elevations, often in areas of late snowmelt. On Oregon's Mt. Hood, Conostomum occurs above timberline at about 6,500 ft, where the plant association is probably Phyllodoce empetriformis and Cassiope mertensiana heath. Elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest, Conostomum probably also occurs in Pinus albicaulis, Tsuga mertensiana, Abies lasiocarpa, and Abies amabilis associations.

Encalypta brevipes

moss ENBR2 Occurs in soil on ledges and in crevices on cliffs on both igneous and siliceous substrates; sites may be subject to frequent fog penetration; apparently restricted to unglaciated regions; +/- circumboreal, British Columbia to


24

Oregon. Known from Rogue River/Siskiyou National Forest. Associated with Pacific silver fir, subalpine fir, and mountain hemlock communities.

Entosthodon fascicularis

moss ENFA2 Grassland, oak savanna, grassy balds and rock outcrops. Individual plants or small patches on seasonally wet, exposed soil in seeps or along intermittent streams. Occurs on Eugene BLM but not documented on Oregon National Forests. Including but not necessarily limited to mountain hemlock, Douglas fir and white oak communities.

Haplomitrium hookeri

liverwort HAHO4 On soil in open areas, intermixed with other liverworts and hornworts.

Harpanthus flotovianus

liverwort HAFL9 Associated with bogs and fens. Associated bryophyte genera include Warnstorfia, Drepanocladus, Tomentypnum and Meesia. On Deschutes, collected by Rick Dewey at about 5600’ in a smallish, low gradient, persistently groundwater-fed community in the Three Sisters Wilderness Area. Associated with 8 fen reference species: Dodecatheon jeffreyi, Triantha (Tofieldia) glutinosa, Eleocharis quinqueflora, Pedicularis groenlandica, Hypericum anagalloides, Vaccinium uliginosum, Kalmia microphylla and Platanthera (Habenaria) sp

Jungermannii polaris

liverwort JUPO3 Subalpine to alpine habitats above 5,000 ft. Forms small to sometimes extensive mats over peaty soil on damp ledges and crevices of rocks, sometimes along streams and rivulets, sometimes aquatic. Associated with Tsuga mertensiana and Abies lasiocarpa forests.

Lophozia gillmanii

liverwort LOGI3 Cliffs and ledges; boreal and montane. One Oregon site in wet meadow at 6500’.

Marsupella sparsifolia

liverwort MASP10 In pure patches or intermixed with other bryophytes on sandy stream terraces or on acidic soil in late snow areas.

Nardia japonica liverwort NAJA4 Open sites on rocky ledges or in rocky meadows. Mountain hemlock zone.

Polytrichastrum sexangulare var. vulcanicum (was Polytrichium sphaerothecium)

moss POSEV2 Forming green to brown sods on igneous rocks in exposed or sheltered sites, subalpine parkland to alpine krummholz. On Oregon's Mt. Hood, occurs at or above timberline at about 6,500 ft elevation, where the plant association is probably Phyllodoce empetriformis or Cassiope mertensiana heath. Elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest it probably also occurs in Pinus albicaulis, Tsuga mertensiana, Abies lasiocarpa, and possibly Abies amabilis associations. Associated bryophytes may include Conostomum tetragonum and Gymnomitrion.

Preissia quadrata

liverwort PRQU2 On soil with little organic material, often on cliff ledges or in crevices in rocky areas.

Pseudocalliergon trifarium

moss PSTR5 Forming lawns or inconspicuously intermixed with other bryophytes in medium to rich montane fens where it grows submerged to emergent in pools or on saturated ground, usually in full sunlight. Fen pools may dry up in late summer. Elevations range from 5000-6000 feet. Forest types include Abies amabilis, Abies concolor, Abies x shastensis, and Pinus contorta ssp. latifolia associations. Calliergon trifarium is one of several species of so-called "brown mosses" that occur in mineral-rich fens. Associated vascular plants in Oregon


25

and Washington include Eleocharis quinqueflora, Carex limosa, Scheuchzeria palustris, and Triglochin maritimum. Associated bryophyte species include Hamatocaulis vernicosus, Tomentypnum nitens, Meesia triquetra and Helodium blandowii.

Rivulariella gemmipara

liverwort RIGE2 Tiny, aquatic liverwort found in high elevation springs and creeks with flowing, cold water (Formerly Chiloscyphus gemmipara)

Schistidium cinclidodonteum

moss SCCI5 In large loose mats on wet or dry rocks or on soil in rock crevices, often along intermittent streams. Shrub associates include Phyllodoce empetriformis and Cassiope mertensiana. Ponderosa pine, grand fir, Pacific silver fir, subalpine fir, mountain hemlock and possibly whitebark pine communities.

Schofieldia monticola

liverwort SCMO11 Under heather or beside small streams. Long considered endemic to Pacific Northwest but recently reported from Russia. With Cassiope, Phyllodoce and liverworts such as Moerckia.

Tortula mucronifolia

moss TOMU70

Riparian Populus and montaine Abies. Higher elev (5000-7000 ft).

Trematodon asanoi (= T. boasii)

moss TRAS3 Forming loose mats on moist bare soil along the edges of trails, streams and ponds in the subalpine zone. Soils usually have some organic content and are irrigated by meltwater from late-season snowbeds. Little is known about associated species. Habitats probably include Phyllodoce empetriformis and Cassiope mertensiana heath and Tsuga mertensiana, Abies lasiocarpa, and Abies amabilis forest associations.

Lichens Texosporium sancti-jacobi

Woven spore lichen

TESA Whitish soil crust lichen often found on old root clumps of P. secunda or scat. Documented on The Island and Canadian Bench, CRNG. Undocumented occurrences by R. Demmer on BLM along breaks of lower John Day R.

Tholurna dissimilis

Urn lichen THDI5 Occurs on Sisters District, Black Butte - Open Pinus albicaulis stand on moderate slope, with dense understory of shrubs; also open Abies lasiocarpa forest with low stunted trees.

Fungi Gastroboletus vividus

fungus GAVI7 Found in association with the roots of Abies magnifica and Tsuga mertensiana above 5,000’. Fruits July-September. A known site at Crater Lake National Park.

Helvella crassitunicata

fungus HECR13 Occurs in montane forests containing Abies spp., from old growth and younger age groups, from low to high elevation in the fall and winter, occasionally on trails, or other moderately disturbed areas. Documented on Sisters district, Deschutes National Forest.

Pseudorhizina californica

Fungus PSCA17 Found fruiting in June on or adjacent well-rotted stumps or logs of coniferous trees, or on soil in rich brown rotted wood (Syn. Gyromitra californica)

Ramaria amyloidea

fungus RAAM4 Humus or soil. Fruits in September and October. Found in Douglas fir, grand/white fir, and hemlock forests.


26

Rhizopogon alexsmithii

Fungus RHAL13 Fruiting bodies found below soil surface with various pine species, especially Tsuga heterophylla and Tsuga mertensiana. (Syn. Alpova alexsmithii)

TEAMS Specialist Report Template 2013

Documents

Transcript of TEAMS Specialist Report Template 2013