DRAFT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
FOR
PROPOSED LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS
DAKOTA PRAIRIE GRASSLANDS
NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS
THUNDER BASIN NATIONAL GRASSLAND
Prepared By:
Kurt Hansen, Range Management Specialist
Geri Morris, Botanist
Susan Rinehart, Botanist
Kathy Rodriguez, Wildlife Biologist
Greg Schenbeck, Wildlife Biologist
Preliminary Determinations Made By:
Kurt Hansen (Plants)
Susan Rinehart (Plants)
Greg Schenbeck (Animals)
Table of Contents
Section 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Area Affected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Biological Assessment and Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pre-field Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Field Reconnaissance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis of Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preliminary Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H-1
H-2
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-4
H-5
Section 2. Biological Assessment for Species Protected Under the Endangered
Species Act and at Risk of Rangewide Imperilment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-7
Species Eliminated From Further Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-7
Species Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-8
Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-8
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-11
Ute ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-16
American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-18
Whooping Crane (Grus americana) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-22
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-25
American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinis anatum) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-27
Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-30
Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-43
Section 3 - Biological Evaluation for Species that May be at Risk of Rangewide
Imperilment but are Not Protected Under the Endangered Species Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Species Eliminated From Further Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Species Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dakota Buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Smooth Goosefoot (Chenopodium subglabrum) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Barr Orphaca (Astragulus barii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dakota Skipper (Hesperia dacotae) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Eastern Skipperling (Oarisma powesheik) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Regal Fritillary (Spyeria idalia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sturgeon Chub (Macrohybopsis gelida) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H-48
H-48
H-48
H-48
H-51
H-57
H-60
H-64
H-68
H-71
H-74
Section 4. Biological Evaluation for Species that may be at Risk of Regional
or More Local Imperilment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-78
Species Eliminated from Further Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-78
Species Descriptions for Fine Filter Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-85
Sand Lily (Leucocrinum montanum) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-85
Upright Pinweed (Lechea stricta) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-89
Handsome Sedge (Carex formosa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-93
Tawny Crescent Butterfly (Phyciodes batesii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-97
Prairie Skipper (Hesperia ottoe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-100
Flathead Chub (Platygobio gracilis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-102
Longnose Sucker (Catastomus catastomus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-105
Plains Topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-108
Table of Contents, cont.
Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
California Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Merlin (Falco columbarius) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Greater Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H-110
H-113
H-118
H-122
H-125
H-128
H-131
H-135
H-144
H-146
Coarse Filter Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Riparian Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H-149
H-149
H-149
H-152
H-154
Coarse Filter Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Eastern Prairie Boggy Wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tallgrass Prairie Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tallgrass Prairie Deciduous Hardwoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tallgrass Prairie Choppy Sandhills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Western Plains Riparian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scoria Hills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Buttes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Western Wooded Draw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H-156
H-156
H-156
H-166
H-172
H-177
H-182
H-187
H-191
H-199
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-200
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-213
List of Tables
Table H-1: Distribution of Plant and Animal Species that are Protected Under
the Endangered Species Act and at Risk of Extinction Throughout Their Range. . . . . . . . . . . . H-7
Table H-2: Plant and Animal Species at Possible Risk of Extinction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-48
Table H-3: Distribution of Plant and Animal Species of Concern
Possibly at Risk of Regional/Local Imperilment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-79
Appendix H - Draft Biological Assessment
and Evaluation
Section 1. Introduction
Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) provide long-term management direction and
land allocation for National Forest System (NFS) lands. Federal regulation requires that these
plans be revised on a 10- to 15-year cycle. To respond to this regulatory requirement, revisions
of the Land and Resource Management Plans for eight National Grasslands and two National
Forests on the northern Great Plains have been prepared.
Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) mandates that "all federal departments and
agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their
authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act." Section 5 of the ESA directs the Secretary
of Agriculture to establish and implement a program to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants,
including Federally listed species. Section 7 of the act directs all federal departments and
agencies to ensure that their actions do not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any
threatened or endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of their
critical habitats. It also requires all federal departments and agencies to consult with the
Secretary of Interior or Secretary of Commerce (marine species only) whenever an authorized
action is likely to affect a listed or proposed species and/or its critical habitat. The biological
assessment portion of this specialist report is the internal process used by the Forest Service to
determine if its proposed actions, LRMP alternatives in this case, jeopardize any ESA-listed or
proposed species and if consultation with the Secretary of Interior is necessary.
It is also the policy of the Forest Service (FSM 2670.32) to avoid or minimize impacts to species
whose viability has been identified as a concern. Viability concerns have been identified for a
large number of Great Plains plant and animal species that are not currently protected under the
ESA. The biological evaluation portion of this specialist report discloses the predicted effects of
several LRMP alternatives on those species.
The preliminary analyses and results presented in this report were conducted primarily by
Forest Service biologists and botanists and represent the preliminary biological findings of the
Forest Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will review these biological findings for those
species protected under the ESA. The list of federally threatened, endangered, and proposed
species in the planning area that are protected under the ESA was recently confirmed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All the biological determinations made in this report should be
considered preliminary and are subject to change between the issuance of the draft and final EIS
and revised management plans. Additional information on population trends, area
requirements, and habitat of many of these species will be considered and additional analyses
completed for some of the species. Additional peer review by species specialists is also
anticipated. The biological assessment and evaluation to be completed for the final EIS is also
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-1
intended to be dynamic and will be amended with additional analyses, if necessary, when any
of the following occur:
•
A LRMP is amended or revised.
•
Additional species are brought under the protection of the Endangered Species Act.
•
Additional species are identified as sensitive by the Forest Service.
Area Affected
This is a combined planning effort for the following NFS lands:
Dakota Prairie Grasslands
Little Missouri National Grassland (LMNG)
Sheyenne National Grassland (SNG)
Grand River and Cedar River National Grasslands (GRCRNG)
Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest
Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG)
Oglala National Grassland (ONG)
Fort Pierre National Grassland (FPNG)
Buffalo Gap National Grassland (BGNG)
Nebraska National Forest
Nebraska National Forest (NNF)
Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest (SRMNF)
These NFS lands (and waters) encompass nearly three million acres, widely scattered over four
states within the Northern Great Plains. The planning area encompasses 250 million acres of the
Northern Great Plains within the states of Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota,
and Nebraska. Although these public lands are only two percent of the Northern Great Plains,
they are important for the ecological roles, products, and recreational and educational opportunities they provide. These unique units of the National Forest System incur demands for
livestock grazing, recreation, oil, gas, and mineral production and are recognized as significant
contributors to the livelihoods and life-styles of citizens. They are also recognized as an
important ecological resource and as significant contributors to wildlife habitat and biological
diversity on the Great Plains.
The Great Plains, once the continent’s largest ecosystem and the one most characteristic of the
United States, is considered by some to be the most changed and fragmented. These National
Grasslands and Forests are important components of the remaining prairie. Recent surveys
estimate that 1-4% of the tall grass prairie, 25-35% of mixed grass prairie, and 50-60% of the
short grass prairie remain, with the rest lost to urbanization, cultivation, and other factors
(Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). Much of the remaining grasslands and
shrublands are being invaded by exotic vegetation.
H-2
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Biological Assessment and Evaluation Process
Pre-field Review
Three lists of plant and animal species were developed. The first list is presented in Table H-1
and includes those species currently protected under the Endangered Species Act and at risk of
extinction throughout their range (rangewide imperilment). The second list (Table H-2, in
Section 3) includes those species that are candidates for listing under the Endangered Species
Act or ranked by The Nature Conservancy as a G-2 (imperiled) or G-3 (vulnerable) species.
These species may also be at risk of rangewide imperilment. The third and final list is shown in
Table H3 and includes species that may be at risk of regional or more local imperilment. Many
of the species included in Tables H-2 and H-3 are considered sensitive by Region 1 and/or 2 of
the Forest Service. To provide consistency across the planning area, a species listed as sensitive
in one of the Regions but not the other is considered sensitive across the entire planning area.
This is not required by regulations or Forest Service policy but is intended to reduce confusion
and to help enhance conservation of the species. Distribution by individual National Grassland
and Forest is also presented for each species in Tables H-1, H-2, and H-3. Numerous
information sources were consulted or contacted during the development of these lists
including but not limited to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, state
wildlife agencies, Forest Service records, Natural Heritage Program databases, other government agency lists, species lists of various conservation organizations, species specialists, and
published and unpublished scientific references. Many of the published references
summarized museum records. The Northern Great Plains committee of scientists also reviewed
these lists for accuracy and completeness.
Information on the habitat needs and ecological requirements of each species in the planning
area was consulted. Considerable information was available for some species; information was
minimal for others. Where available, information on the distribution of a species within an
individual National Grassland or Forest was considered. Species specialists were also consulted
or may be contacted in the near future during completion of the biological assessment and
evaluation for the final EIS and LRMPs.
Field Reconnaissance
Surveys and inventories for listed species like the black-footed ferret, bald eagle, American
burying beetle, blowout penstemon, and western prairie fringed orchid have been conducted
for many years by various individuals, organizations, and government agencies including but
not limited to the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, universities, and state wildlife
and natural resource agencies. Incidental sightings of species like the bald eagle, whooping
crane and peregrine falcon have also been recorded.
Additional surveys and inventories have been conducted by the Forest Service and/or others
for other species such as swift fox, sturgeon chub, mountain plover, greater prairie chicken, sage
grouse, California bighorn sheep, western burrowing owl, Regal fritillary butterfly, and Dakota
buckwheat. Many of these additional surveys focused primarily on candidate species and
species designated as sensitive by the Forest Service. Surveys of black-tailed prairie dog
colonies have also been conducted by the Forest Service.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-3
Information gathered from these surveys, inventories, and observations was used to help
describe species distributions, habitat use, and habitat suitability. The information was also
critical in helping determine potential effects from implementation of each of the alternatives.
Analysis of Effects
The potential effects of each LRMP alternative and the mix of land allocations and uses
authorized by each alternative on each imperiled species are disclosed in this document. These
evaluations include direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on each species. Interrelated and
interdependent actions are also identified.
The number of plant and animal species listed in Tables H1, H2 and H3 is relatively large. To
reduce the amount of unnecessary analyses, any species listed in the tables that meet one or
more of following criteria (screens) was eliminated from further detailed analyses:
•
Screen 1 - (Importance of Area)
Occurrence of species is questionable or incidental and the amount of suitable or
potential habitat on or near the National Grassland or Forest is negligible.
•
Screen 2 - (Risk)
The species or potential habitat for the species may occur, but it’s highly unlikely that
land uses and allocations authorized by the Forest Service would significantly affect the
species and/or its habitat either on NFS lands or downstream.
•
Screen 3 - (Lack of Information)
There is insufficient information for evaluating the effects of authorized land uses and
land allocations on habitat availability and suitability for the species. Determinations for
these species are simply unknown.
Those species eliminated from further detailed analyses are listed near the beginning of
Chapters 2, 3, and 4.
Effects on species at risk and species of concern from the following direction and actions were
considered in this biological assessment and evaluation:
Livestock grazing
Capability and suitability
Range developments (fencing and water developments)
Rangeland vegetation management Desired rangeland composition
Desired rangeland structure
Fire management
Forest vegetation management
Timber suitability
Desired forest structure
Fire and fuels management
Timber management
Plant and animal damage control
Prairie dog poisoning
Noxious weed spraying
Grasshopper spraying
Fish and wildlife management
Reintroductions
Prairie dog management
H-4
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Recreation management
Shooting
Human disturbance
Travel and motorized use
Special area designation
Wilderness and recommended for wilderness
Research Natural Areas
Recommended wild/scenic river
Special Interest Areas
Oil and gas leasing
Land ownership adjustment
Effects analyses were conducted using information and data gathered in the pre-field review
and field reconnaissance, in conjunction with information from both published and
unpublished references, species specialists, and experienced Forest Service biologists and
botanists.
Effects were analyzed using a fine filter approach (Hunter et al. 1998) for each individual species
listed in Tables H-1 and H-2 and most species in Table H3. Effects analyses for some of the
species in Table H-3 were conducted using a coarse filter approach (Hunter et al. 1998)
involving an evaluation of the predicted quality and quantity of major habitats across each NFS
unit and then determining if adequate representation of each habitat occurs under each alternative. This approach also involves grouping species that generally occur in similar habitats
and/or have similar life requirements. The species groups included in the coarse filter analyses
were those most influenced by vegetation management and not by other activities and allocations authorized in LRMPs. It’s likely that some of the species evaluated in this document with
a coarse filter analysis will be evaluated using a fine filter approach between the issuance of the
draft and final EIS and management plans.
Preliminary Determinations
This draft biological assessment and evaluation process culminates with a preliminary
determination of the likely effects of each planning alternative on each species or species group.
The preliminary determinations and not the natural history information in this document are
intended to be the focus of this report. The primary purpose was not to reiterate and document
the complete life histories of each species but to document the determinations and the most
relevant information supporting each determination. The types of determinations that can be
made for those species protected under ESA are provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and National Marine Fisheries Service (1998). The determinations (and abbreviations) made for
federally listed and proposed species are as follows:
•
No effect (NE).
•
Is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA).
•
Is likely to adversely affect (LAA).
•
Is likely to jeopardize proposed species/adversely modify proposed critical habitat (LJ).
The determination options presented above apply to the possible impacts of each planning
alternative on the range-wide status and recovery of federally listed or proposed species.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-5
Direction in Forest Service Manual 2670 establishes the types of determinations for Forest
Service-designated sensitive species. The determinations (and abbreviations) made for these
species is as follows:
•
No impact (NI).
•
Beneficial impact (BI).
•
May adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the
planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide
(MAII).
•
Likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or
in a loss of species viability rangewide (LRLV).
The determination options presented above for sensitive plant and animal species relate
primarily to the impacts of the alternatives on the viability of sensitive species populations on
each National Grassland and Forest within the planning area. The determination option for
each species or species group is chosen after considering the likely effects or impacts of human
activity, direct mortality risks, and habitat conditions (quality, quantity, and distribution) under
each alternative.
All preliminary determinations assume that the conservation measures and mitigation specified
in the EIS or LRMPs will be implemented in a timely manner or evaluated at the site-specific
project level and implemented if biologically appropriate. Otherwise, the probability that some
of the preliminary determinations made in this biological assessment are inaccurate will likely
increase. All conservation measures and mitigation actions identified in the revised LRMPs
and that respond in some way to the conservation needs of each species or species group are
coded and listed. An index listing the chapter and section in the proposed LRMP where the
conservation measures or mitigation are described is attached at the end of this report.
Specific biological determinations are not made for those species in Tables H2 and H3 that are
not designated as sensitive by the Forest Service. However, the general effects by alternative are
presented for each of these species.
H-6
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Section 2. Biological Assessment for Species
Protected Under the Endangered Species Act and at
Risk of Rangewide Imperilment
Table H-1: Distribution of Plant and Animal Species in the Planning Area that are Protected Under
the Endangered Species Act and at Risk of Extinction Throughout Their Range.
National Grassland or Forest
Species
LMNG
Blowout
penstemon
W prairie fringed
orchid
Ute ladies’-tresses
American burying
beetle
Whooping crane
Bald eagle
Peregrine falcon
Black-footed ferret
Mountain plover
Topeka shiner
GRCRNG
SNG
TBNG
BGNG FPNG
ONG
NNF
PRRD
K
N
U
S
K
K
K
S
SRMNF
N
N
N
K
U
U
N
K
NNF
BRD
N
K
K
U
N
OS
OS
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
S
S
K
S
K
K
K
K
U
U
U
K
U
U
U
U
K
U
U
U
N
N
K = Known occurrence in vicinity; date of last observation suggests that the species still occurs in area,
S = Suspected occurrence; may be historic records but no recent observations; suitable habitat likely,
U = Unknown occurrence; more surveys may be needed; may be historic records; potential habitat
possible,
N = No recent observations; surveys recently completed; may be historic records; potential habitat
possible,
OS = Off-site occurrence (downstream, etc.)
Species Eliminated From Further Analysis
Screens 1 and 2
•
Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests = Topeka Shiner
(Notropis topeka)
Screen 1
•
Buffalo Gap National Grassland = Ute Ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)
•
Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests = Western Prairie
Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara)
•
Fort Pierre National Grassland = American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus)
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-7
Species Evaluations
Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii)
Species Description
Blowout penstemon is a perennial forb of the figwort family that buds in early May and flowers
from mid-May through late June. Seed capsules dehisc in late July or August. Seeds fall near
the base of the plant or become windborn. However, most reproduction occurs by rhizomes,
and seedlings are rare (Stubbendieck et al. 1983 and 1984, Stubbendieck and Weedon 1984). The
stems of this plant root adventitiously, thus maintaining the plant in shifting sands of blowouts
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992).
References that were also consulted for additional information on this species included
Stubbendieck et al. (1989) and The Great Plains Flora Association (1986). The Great Plains
National Grasslands web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/nebraska/gpng) was also consulted.
Distribution
Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. To date, blowout penstemon has
not been found during surveys on the Nebraska or Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests. One
population occurs on state school lands next to the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest.
The species is endemic to the Nebraska Sandhills, and natural occurring populations are now
restricted to 7 areas in this region. Reintroductions have occurred at 6 additional areas. The
Great Plains National Grasslands web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/nebraska/gpng) was
consulted for maps and information on the current distribution of the species.
The plant is now being propagated in greenhouses to safeguard the species and to provide stock
for transplants back into suitable sites (Flessner and Stubbendieck 1989).
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings
ESA -Endangered; TNC/NHP - G1, N1; NE - Endangered
Habitat
The species was once a common plant in active sandhill blowouts. Blowout penstemon requires
sites that are devoid or nearly devoid of vegetation, sites usually created by active wind erosion.
It is a successional plant, colonizing blowouts just after the sand begins to stabilize (Flessner and
Stubbendieck 1989). The species declines with vegetation recovery. Historically, repeated fires
and bison grazing were believed to maintain active blowouts for this species.
Blowout penstemon is usually found on the leeward side of craters within blowouts. These
blowouts should not be confused with areas around windmills where livestock congregate and
cause active wind erosion. Suitable blowouts are generally active and move across the landscape.
H-8
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Recovery and Conservation Planning
A recovery plan was approved in 1992 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). According to the
plan, this species will be considered for delisting when a minimum of 15,000 individuals is
established in at least 10 population groups. Each population group must have at least 300
plants. Current population estimates indicate that there are approximately 2,200 plants
concentrated in 7 naturally occurring population groups and another 8,000 additional plants in 4
reintroduced population groups.
Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Since there are no known blowout penstemon populations on NFS lands, there are no potential
direct effects from authorized activities or allocations. Range management and fire suppression
can contribute to stabilization and increased vegetation cover on the sandhills, thereby reducing
the number and size of suitable blowouts for reintroduction and establishment of new populations of this species. Heavy livestock grazing intensity can promote blowouts and thereby
increase the amount of suitable habitat for the species.
There is evidence that grazing of blowout penstemon plants by livestock can be detrimental to
populations in pastures that are grazed season-long in the summer by livestock (Fritz 1998).
Shorter duration grazing did not demonstrate any significant effect on flowering plants. The
investigator suggested that higher stocking rates could have altered the results of the study.
The success of future transplants could be threatened by an ever-increasing use of blowouts by
off-road and all-terrain vehicles, especially on the Nebraska National Forest near Halsey. This
use could cause direct mortality of recent transplants or established plants.
Cumulative Effects
Range management practices on private lands in the Nebraska Sandhills can affect habitat
suitability for blowout penstemon. At this time, there is no reason to expect significant changes
in overall range conditions and trend across the sandhills.
Active fire suppression has occurred for decades and can be expected to continue, so we cannot
anticipate any significant changes in penstemon habitat due to larger and more frequent
wildfires. The amount of suitable habitat for blowout penstemon is expected to remain
relatively stable, albeit at restricted or reduced levels.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a grazing
permit. This facilitates use of livestock grazing to enhance habitat for blowout penstemon.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-9
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units
NA
Nebraska N.F. Units
GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-F(2,30), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
NA
Nebraska N.F. Units
MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
NA
Nebraska N.F. Units
GA1-A1, GA2-A1
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units
NA
Nebraska N.F. Units
TABLE 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
None
NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units
NA
Nebraska N.F. Units
None
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Restore ecological processes in selected areas if needed to initiate or maintain blowouts.
b. Restrict off-road vehicle access within blowouts that support blowout penstemon
populations.
c. Prevent drift of herbicides into known penstemon populations.
d. Initiate transplanting into suitable blowouts to establish, and maintain 2 new populations of blowout penstemon, one each on the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie
National Forests (possible geographic area direction).
H-10
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternative 1
NNF (BRD) and SRMNF
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." There are no known blowout penstemon
populations on the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests, but it is likely that there
is suitable habitat for transplants. Since the Forest Service, under this alternative, does not lay
out general guidance or an explicit course of action that would result in or lead to transplants, a
"likely to adversely affect" determination could have been concluded. However, there are
probably enough sites elsewhere in the sandhills to meet and exceed recovery objectives, so it is
doubtful that this lack of specific direction and action by the Forest Service would adversely
affect recovery of the species.
Alternatives 2-5
NNF (BRD) and SRMNF
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Although there are no known populations on
the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests, it is likely that there is suitable habitat
for transplants. Under these alternatives, direction to establish new blowout penstemon
populations on both of these areas represents a "beneficial effect" and a significant contribution
towards the recovery program for this species. It is recognized that additional site-specific
environmental analysis and public involvement may be required.
It is assumed that once the amount of suitable habitat on each National Forest has been
determined and prioritized, the Forest Service will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service concerning compatibility with other authorized activities and the location and amount
of land to be made available for establishing new populations.
Consultation and Reviews
John Sidle, USFS TES Coordinator, Great Plains National Grasslands
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara)
Species Description
Western prairie fringed orchid is a perennial forb, although most plants live 3 years or less (Sieg
and King 1995). This species reproduces primarily by seed, with flowering occurring between
late June and mid-July and seed dispersal (wind and water) occurring in mid-September on the
Sheyenne National Grassland. Flowering patterns are often erratic, and the plant commonly
undergoes periods of dormancy (Bowles 1983). The species is self-compatible, but pollination is
required for fruit and seed production (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Two species of
hawkmoths have been identified as pollen vectors for the orchid on the National Grassland
(Cuthrell and Rider 1993). Seed production is greatest during high precipitation years; during
droughts, many plants remain vegetative.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-11
The national recovery plan for this species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996) was consulted
as a primary reference for additional information on this species.
Distribution
Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Known populations of the
species on NFS lands within the planning area are found only on the Sheyenne National Grassland. Small isolated populations are found on the Valentine National Wildlife Refuge near the
Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests, but the species was not found on either
NFS unit during recent surveys. Suitable habitat has also not been identified on either National
Forest.
Surveys for the species on the Sheyenne National Grassland by Forest Service personnel and
others are ongoing. Natural Heritage Program records for species occurrence on the National
Grassland were also consulted.
The orchid population on the Sheyenne National Grassland is one of three remaining large
metapopulations of this species. The other two metapopulations occur in Minnesota and
Manitoba, Canada. Populations of this species are known from 173 sites in 6 states (Iowa,
Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota) as well as from Manitoba (Minnesota
Natural Heritage Program 1995).
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings
ESA - Threatened; TNC/NHP - G2.
Habitat
This species is associated with sedge meadows primarily within the tallgrass prairie biome. It
occurs in the hummocky sandhills habitat association (Manske 1980) on the Sheyenne National
Grassland. Across its range, the species is generally found in fire and grazing adapted
grassland communities, most often on unplowed calcareous prairies and sedge meadows (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). It has also been documented in successional plant communities
on disturbed sites.
Maintenance of functional, dynamic tallgrass prairie is key to survival of the species. Disturbances such as fire, flooding, and grazing occurred historically and may be important for orchid
regeneration. Precipitation and flooding events on the Sheyenne National Grassland influence
extinctions and recovery of local orchid populations (Sieg and King 1995).
The web site (http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/sheyenne/sheyenne.htm) was
also reviewed for additional information on this species and its habitat.
Recovery and Conservation Planning
A recovery plan was approved in 1996 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Since the species is
listed as a threatened species rather than an endangered species, and most of the existing plants
occur on lands in a protective ownership, the recovery plan emphasizes the need for actions that
prevent further declines in orchid populations and habitat quality. The recovery strategy
H-12
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
focuses on protecting the habitat of the remaining populations from conversion to agricultural
use and assuring that the frequency, timing, and intensity of management practices enhance or
maintain orchid populations. According to the recovery plan, the species will be considered for
delisting when sites that include occupied habitat harboring 90 percent of the plants in each
ecoregion are protected on public lands or at higher levels of protection.
A recovery strategy entitled "Management Guidelines for the Western Prairie Fringed Orchid on
the Sheyenne National Grassland" was prepared by the Forest Service and others in 1999
(Appendix N). The current draft of the guidelines is available for review on the Great Plains
National Grasslands web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/nebraska/gpng). These guidelines are
specific and relate to numerous types of authorized uses and management practices on the
Sheyenne National Grassland.
Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Burning, livestock grazing, and mowing can have positive or negative effects on western prairie
fringed orchid populations, depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of the activity (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1996).
Burning may directly impact orchids through mortality of individual plants and indirectly
through effects on habitat. It has been suggested that flowering may be suppressed by litter
accumulation and stimulated by fire (Bowles 1983, Bowles and Duxbury 1986).
Livestock may impact orchids directly through both grazing and trampling and indirectly
through effects on orchid habitat. The influence of livestock grazing on orchid populations is
related to when and how many times the grazing occurs, how long livestock are left in the
pasture, and the stocking rates and is interconnected with other management activities (such as
burning and mowing) and climatic conditions. Grazing systems that encourage heavy repeated
grazing throughout the growing season are more likely to be detrimental to individual orchids,
both in terms of reducing carbohydrate reserves and in preventing seed production. Livestock
grazing may also negatively impact alternate plant hosts for orchid pollinators. Yet, some
grazing may be important for regeneration by reducing competition from other vegetation.
Repeated mowing prevents orchids from completing their life cycle and reduces carbohydrate
reserves needed for growth the following season.
The potential impacts of grasshopper spraying on insect pollinator populations is unknown.
A serious threat to orchid viability and recovery is the increase of invasive exotic species like
leafy spurge. Leafy spurge reduces the quality of orchid habitat but at the same time, efforts to
control spurge and other exotics with chemicals pose a direct threat to orchids and may also
impact alternate host plants for orchid pollinators.
Any activities or authorized uses that lower water tables below the root zone of orchids have the
potential of seriously reducing orchid populations.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-13
Cumulative Effects
Most orchid habitat on private lands has already been destroyed or highly altered, and most of
these lands will remain unsuitable or poor quality for orchids. The decline of habitat on private
lands can be expected to continue as agricultural uses intensify. Water use and management
conflicts and issues in the vicinity of the National Grassland can also be expected to intensify,
and additional impacts to orchid populations on the National Grassland are possible if water
tables are lowered through water management practices on and off the National Grassland.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a grazing agreement.
Although there is some scientific uncertainty about the relationship between livestock grazing
and orchids, it’s unreasonable to discount possible beneficial and adverse effects from livestock
grazing on this threatened species on public land.
Wilderness designations resulting from wilderness proposals could reduce opportunities for
actively managing habitats for this species.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units
GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(1-5), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(3-5)
SG-B(3,6,7,9,13,14), SG-F(2,17,30), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-7,10-12), SG-J(1-7),
SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units
GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(1-5), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(3-5)
SG-B(3,6,7,9,13,14), SG-F(2,17,30), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-7,10-12), SG-J(1-7),
SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64, MA3.66
Nebraska N.F. Units
MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
GA4-A1, GA4-B1, GA4-C1
Nebraska N.F. Units
GA1-A1, GA1-B1, GA1-C1, GA2-A1, GA2-B1, GA2-C1
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
H-14
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix N (LRMP) for orchid management direction
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Specific management guidelines for livestock grazing, mowing, noxious weed control, revegetation, burning, travel, construction, water management, and other activities and uses are
presented in the 1999 management guidelines document (Appendix N in Dakota Prairie LRMP).
A standard in the LRMP for this unit specifies that the management guidelines document will
be consulted in authorizing activities and other management practices. It is recommended that
the orchid direction currently presented in Appendix N be moved forward as standards and
guidelines under geographic area direction in the final LRMP.
It’s recommended that the following conservation measure be considered for inclusion in the
final planning direction in the LRMP for the Nebraska National Forest:
a. In consultation and coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, evaluate opportunities for establishing orchid populations on the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie
National Forests and implement if suitable habitat exists.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5
SNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." This determination is based on the assumption
that the latest guidelines (10/9/98 or later) would be amended to the existing LRMP or included
in the revised LRMP for this National Grassland. These guidelines would serve as state-of-theart knowledge on how best to conserve the species on the Sheyenne National Grassland. As
part of an LRMP amendment process, ESA consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
would also help the Forest Service implement reasonable and prudent alternatives and conservation recommendations to protect and conserve orchid populations on the Sheyenne National
Grassland.
This determination is based solely on effects of Forest Service-authorized activities on the
orchid. Other factors mostly or partly beyond the control of the Forest Service, such as the
continued spread of leafy spurge and other exotic vegetation and the lowering of the water
table, continue to be serious threats to the species on the Sheyenne National Grassland.
Consultation and Reviews
Dr. Carolyn Hull Sieg, Research Scientist, U.S. Forest Service
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-15
Ute ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)
Species Description
Ute ladies’ tresses is a perennial forb in the orchid family. It was first described as a species in
1994. It generally blooms from late July through August but, depending on location and
climatic conditions, may bloom in early July or still be in flower as late as early October (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). Its seeds are very small and require specific symbiotic association with mycorrhizal fungi for germination (Arditti 1992). Like other orchid species, some
plants may germinate and remain underground in a saprophytic state for many years before
emerging. After emerging, individual plants may survive annual periods of dormancy and
bloom only rarely. Reproduction appears to be strictly sexual, with bumble bees (Bombus spp.)
as the primary pollinators (Dresler 1981, Sheviak 1984, Sipes et al. 1993).
The draft recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995) for this species was a primary
source of information for this species.
Distribution
Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Recent surveys (1998) for the
species on the Thunder Basin National Grassland were negative, but some areas may support
the species or suitable habitat. This species is not known to occur on the Buffalo Gap National
Grassland. The presence of potential or suitable habitat on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland
is questionable.
It is presently found in 26 locations in Wyoming and Nebraska, with additional sites in
Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. A total of 32 populations are known to
occur across this area.
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings
ESA - Threatened; TNC/NHP - G2
Habitat
This species inhabits moist soils in mesic or wet meadows, gravel bars, wet streambanks, and
old oxbows between elevations of 4,300 to 7,000 feet (Stone 1993). Jennings (1990) and Coyner
(1989, 1990) observed that the orchid seems to require "permanent sub-irrigation," indicating a
close affinity with floodplain areas where the water table is near the surface throughout the
growing season and into the late summer or early autumn. This orchid colonizes early successional riparian habitats subject to seasonal flooding from snowmelt and intermittent heavy
thunderstorms. It is not tolerant of long-term standing water and emergent vegetation
development.
H-16
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Recovery and Conservation Planning
A draft recovery plan for this species was prepared in 1995. This draft does not include population and habitat recovery goals and delisting criteria. The recovery plan direction focuses on
restoring natural stream dynamics (hydrologic patterns).
Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.
Direct and Indirect Effects
It is assumed that livestock grazing could have beneficial or adverse effects on the species
depending on stocking rates and grazing intensities, timing and duration. The potential impact
of grasshopper spraying on insect pollinator populations is unknown. Oil, gas and mineral
development could destroy populations or suitable habitat.
Cumulative Effects
Unknown
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development.
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. None
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. None
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
NA
Nebraska N.F. Units
NA
Thunder Basin N.G.
None
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-17
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. None
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
NA
None
Direction That Varies by Action Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. None
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1 - 5
TBNG
Determination is "no effect" since the species has not been found on the this unit nor has
potential habitat been identified. Surveys have been conducted but one additional area may
need to be surveyed in the future. If the species is eventually found on the National Grassland,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be consulted to help insure that reasonable and prudent
alternatives and conservation recommendations are implemented to protect and conserve the
species on the National Grassland.
Consultation and Reviews
American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus)
Species Description
These beetles are the largest carrion beetles in the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1991). These insects require carrion up to 10 ounces in size for reproduction (Lomolino et al.
1995, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). A chamber is excavated and the carrion is buried.
Eggs are deposited with the food source and, remarkable for insects, the female cares for the
young (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Without an adequate source of food for the young,
successful reproduction cannot take place. This species plays an important ecological role in
nutrient recycling and decomposition.
The recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991) was a primary reference for additional
information on this species.
H-18
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Distribution
Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Professional entomologists have
conducted surveys for the species on the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests
and on the Fort Pierre National Grassland. Observations of a few individual beetles are
confirmed on the Nebraska National Forest near Halsey and on the nearby Valentine National
Wildlife Refuge. The species to date has not been found on the Samuel R. McKelvie National
Forest or on the Fort Pierre National Grassland. Forest Service maps of occurrence locations
were consulted.
This beetle was formerly distributed throughout temperate eastern North America and west as
far as the Missouri River watershed in central Montana (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Its
historic range has been reduced more than 90 percent and is currently limited to disjunct
populations in Rhode Island, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Arkansas, and South Dakota (Ratcliff and
Jameson 1992). Historically, documented distribution in South Dakota was limited to a few
counties in the eastern part of the state and Haakon County. Recently (1995) live specimens
were caught in Gregory and Tripp counties in the southcentral portion of South Dakota
(Douglas Backlund, pers. comm., as found in Black Hills National Forest LRMP Biological
Assessment and Biological Evaluation). No known records, historical or contemporary, exist for
Wyoming. Populations also exist in the Platte River Valley in west-central Nebraska (Raithel
1999) and the Nebraska Sandhills.
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings
ESA - Endangered; TNC/NHP - G2; NE - Endangered.
Habitat
Existing populations inhabit a wide variety of habitats including maritime scrub plant
communities in the Northeast; deciduous and coniferous communities on slopes and ridge-tops,
deciduous riparian forest, and valley-bottom pastures in the South; and prairies with few trees
in the Upper Midwest (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). They have also been founded in
and near emergent vegetation around wetlands in the Nebraska Sandhills (Len McDaniels, pers.
comm.). Their broad geographic range may indicate that vegetation structure and soil types are
not constraining to the populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Common attributes
identified in the Recovery Plan include level topography, well-drained soils, and a well-formed
detritus layer (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Beetles found in South Dakota and
Nebraska were associated with sandy soils, which conforms to other areas of the midwest.
Recovery and Conservation Planning
A Recovery Plan was approved in 1991. The plan recommends protection and management of
occupied habitat, captive propagation, inventory for other populations, and the reestablishment of two additional self-sustaining populations (one in the west), with a minimum
of 500 individuals, as estimated by capture rates and blacklight inventories.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-19
Direct and Indirect Effects
Two factors have been proposed as causal agents in the precipitous population declines in this
species. First, is the reduction of the beetle’s optimum size prey, especially the young of
passenger pigeons (Ecopistes migratorius) and greater prairie chickens (Tympanuchus cupido).
These may have been the most important prey, but declines in the other birds and animals may
have also contributed to the decline. Second, fragmentation of vast natural habitats (e.g. Eastern
deciduous forest, Midwest prairies) has altered historic environments (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1991). In prairie states, increases in habitat edge has resulted in increases in vertebrate
scavengers like raccoon (Procyon lotor) and skunk (Mephitis mephitis) that may compete with
beetles for food. Grasshopper spraying could also cause beetle mortality.
Cumulative Effects
None
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
None
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3,17), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
NA
Nebraska N.F. Units
GA1-A1
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
H-20
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
None
NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
The following conservation measure should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Through ongoing and more intensive surveys, determine the extent of this species on the
Bessey Ranger District. The goal for this species is to have populations on both the
Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests, and if necessary, consult with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on opportunities to initiate new populations on one or
both of these planning units.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternative 1
NNF (BRD) AND SRMNF
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Beetles could be trampled by permitted livestock, recreational horses, and vehicles, but given their rarity, this is considered a "discountable
effect." Under existing LRMP direction, grassland habitat improvements on these areas should
help stabilize or increase populations of prairie grouse and other ground-nesting birds, which
may be important food sources for the beetles. This is considered a possible "beneficial effect."
Alternative 2
NNF (BRD) AND SRMNF
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Beetles could be trampled by permitted livestock, recreational horses, and vehicles, but given their rarity this is considered a "discountable
effect."
Grasshopper spraying by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has never
occurred on these units, but if spraying was proposed in the future, APHIS would have to
consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of ESA to mitigate any adverse
effects to the burying beetle. The Forest Service could consider authorizing the insecticide
application only after consultation has been successfully completed by APHIS.
Alternatives 3-5
NNF (BRD) AND SRMNF
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Beetles could be trampled by permitted livestock, recreational horses, and vehicles, but given their rarity this is considered a "discountable
effect."
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-21
Under these alternatives, grassland habitat improvements on these areas should help stabilize
or increase populations of prairie grouse and other ground-nesting birds, which may be
important food sources for the beetles. This is considered a possible "beneficial effect."
Grasshopper spraying by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has never
occurred on these units, but if spraying was proposed in the future, APHIS would have to
consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of ESA to mitigate any adverse
effects to the burying beetle. The Forest Service could consider authorizing the insecticide
application only after consultation has been successfully completed by APHIS.
Consultation and Reviews
Whooping Crane (Grus americana)
Species Description
This is one of the rarest and largest North American birds. Whooping cranes are omnivorous
feeders and seem to easily adjust to whatever suitable plant and animal foods they encounter
during migration (EA Engineering, Science and Technology 1986, Armbruster 1990).
The latest draft of the recovery plan for this species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994) and
Lewis (1995) were two of the primary references consulted for additional information on this
species.
Distribution
Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Incidental use in the form of
occasional foraging and roosting stops on or near several of the National Grasslands is
uncommon and has to be considered incidental. Whooping cranes occur as rare spring and fall
migrants in the planning area. Spring migration through the planning area generally occurs
sometime from late March through early May, while fall migration can be expected sometime
from early September through the first week in November. Standard surveys for the species on
NFS lands are conducted since their occurrence is so sporadic and incidental. Forest Service
maps of occurrence locations were consulted.
There are two principle whooping crane populations in the wild (Whooping Crane Recovery
Plan 1993). The population that migrates through portions of the planning area is known as the
Aransas/Wood Buffalo population. These birds (approximately 120 in the population) winter
in coastal Texas and nest in Canada (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). The second population is thought to have fewer than 12 members. These birds are referred to as the Rocky
Mountain population. They migrate between wintering grounds in Bosque del Apache in westcentral New Mexico and Gray River Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Idaho. This population is
nonbreeding. Some of these birds were reared as part of a cross-fostering program with greater
sandhill cranes.
H-22
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings
ESA - Endangered; TNC/NHP - G1, N1; MT, NE, SD - Endangered.
Habitat
Habitats used on or near NFS lands in the planning area by migrating whooping cranes include
small ponds, upland grasslands, and rivers.
Recovery and Conservation Planning
The latest revision of the recovery plan for this species was approved in 1994. Critical habitat is
designated at nine sites. However, none of the sites occur near any of the National Grasslands
or Forests in the planning area.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Whooping cranes could be exposed to grain-based rodenticides used for prairie dog poisoning if
during migration they would land on the National Grasslands to forage or rest in areas where
rodenticides were recently applied. Fences and powerlines could also result in whooping crane
mortality.
Cumulative Effects
None
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
None
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(1-5), GO1.8
SG-F(1,17,49), SG-G(2,3), SG-I5, SG-M(1,3), SG-P(3,8)
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(1-5), GO1.8
SG-F(1,17,49), SG-G(2,3), SG-I5, SG-M(1,3), SG-P(3,8)
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-23
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
GA2-A1, GA3-A1, GA3-5
Nebraska N.F. Units
GA1-A1, GA2-A1, GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1, GA7-A1,
GA8-A1, GA9-A1
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect" for the following NFS lands:
•
Nebraska National Forest (Bessey Ranger District)
•
Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest
•
Ft. Pierre National Grassland
•
Grand River/Cedar River National Grasslands
•
Little Missouri National Grassland
•
Buffalo Gap/Oglala National Grasslands
The likelihood of whooping cranes landing on the National Grasslands and Forests where
rodenticides (grain baits) were recently applied is so remote that it is considered a "discountable
effect."
Consultation and Reviews
H-24
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Species Description
There are two subspecies of the bald eagle. In the planning area, the subspecies of concern is the
northern bald eagle (H. leucephalus alascanus). This subspecies is thought to originate in the
central provinces of Canada and in the Great Lakes states (Dinan 1983). Bald eagles are
relatively long-lived birds that tend to return annually, as adults, to the same wintering areas.
Although fish and waterfowl are common food sources, during winter they also hunt uplands
for birds and mammals. They will also scavenge for many types of carrion.
The recovery plans for this species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983, 1984) were primary
references consulted for additional information on this species.
Distribution
Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. The bald eagle occurs primarily
as a spring and fall migrant across the planning area. Migrating eagles are commonly observed
along major rivers and in some of the coniferous forests within the planning area. They can also
be observed hunting in prairie dog colonies along the major rivers. Successful nesting on or
near NFS lands in the planning area was last recorded in 1975 along the Little Missouri River
(Little Missouri National Grassland). Territorial pairs continue to be sighted on several of the
National Grasslands, and recent nesting attempts have occurred on the Thunder Basin and
Little Missouri National Grasslands. Numerous winter roost sites have been documented on
the Thunder Basin National Grassland and are suspected along the Little Missouri River.
Routine surveys for this species are conducted by Forest Service personnel and others. Forest
Service maps of occurrence locations were consulted.
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings
ESA - Threatened; TNC/NHP - G4, N4; NE, SD - Endangered; WY - Species of Concern.
The bald eagle was downlisted to threatened in 1995.
Habitat
Three elements are considered important for effective winter habitat: perches, roosts, and food.
Bald eagles are commonly seen perched and roosting in trees along streams, rivers, lakes, and
reservoirs. They are also seen in ponderosa pine forests within the planning area. Roost sites
obviously need perches, and roosts are often located in areas protected from the wind by trees
and/or terrain. Wintering eagles on and near NFS lands in the planning area are frequently
observed feeding on carrion along roads and in areas where waterfowl concentrate. They are
also commonly observed hunting in prairie dog colonies.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-25
Recovery and Conservation Planning
Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota are included in the Northern States Bald Eagle
Recovery Zone; Wyoming is in the Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Zone. Recovery plans for
the northern states and Pacific states recovery zones were prepared in 1983 and 1984, respectively. Although critical habitat has been designated, none of the areas are on or near NFS lands
within the planning area.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Roosting and future potential nesting habitat in deciduous forests along streams and rivers can
decline if livestock grazing practices prevent tree regeneration and/or accelerate tree declines
already occurring. Reductions in prairie dog populations by poisoning can reduce winter
feeding areas for bald eagles. Secondary poisoning risks from prairie dog poisoning are unlikely
(Tietjen 1976). Power line electrocution can cause eagle mortality.
Cumulative Effects
Reductions in the threats to the species across its range, such as DDT pesticides, have obviously
reversed the population declines that lead to its ESA listing. The recent down-listing from
endangered to threatened is indicative of positive changes across the range of the species.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development.
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(1,3-8,16,17,51,52), SG-G(2,3),
SG-I5, SG-M(1,3), SG-P3
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(1,3-8,16,17,51,52), SG-G(2,3),
SG-I5, SG-M(1,3), SG-P3
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(1,3-8,16,17,51,52), SG-G(2,3),
SG-I5, SG-M(1,3), SG-P3
H-26
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64, MA3.66
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G.
MA2.1
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
GA1-A1, GA2-A(1,2,4,5), GA3-A(1,2,5), GA4-A1
Nebraska N.F. Units
GA1-A1, GA2-A1, GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1,
GA7-A1, GA8-A1, GA9-A1, GA10-A1, GA11-A1, GA11B1
Thunder Basin N.G.
GA1-A1, GA2-A1, GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
None
None
None
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian and prairie dog direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian and prairie dog direction
Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian and prairie dog direction
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect" for each National Grassland and Forest.
However, implementation of alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 will result in enhanced positive trends in
riparian habitats, when compared to Alternative 1. This is considered a "beneficial effect."
Under these alternatives, management of at least 80 riparian areas will emphasize tree regeneration, which will slow, prevent, or possibly reverse the decline of roosting habitat associated with
gallery forests. This is especially important for cottonwood floodplains, which are commonly
used for roosting and perching. Implementation of Alternatives 3 through 5 will also result in
substantial increases in prairie dog colonies, which are commonly used for hunting by
migrating and wintering bald eagles.
American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinis anatum)
Species Description
The race of this species that occurs in the planning area is Falco peregrinus anatum (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1984). This race suffered an unprecedented population decline during the
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-27
1950s, primarily from the bio-accumulation of pesticides, especially DDT. These chemicals have
been linked to eggshell thinning and parental inattentiveness that leads to reproductive failure.
Widespread use of chemical pesticides, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and DDT to control insect
pests began in the late 1940s. Organochlorines continue to pose the main threat to peregrine
falcons (Western Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1993).
Distribution
Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. The species is considered a
migrant on the NFS lands in the planning area. Spring migration through this area generally
occurs in early May, and fall migrations are generally in September. Use of these NFS lands is
rare, incidental, and unpredictable, and because of this, no attempt has been made to conduct
routine standardized surveys or to map primary habitat used by migrating falcons. Forest
Service maps of occurrence locations were consulted. No nesting of the species has been
confirmed on or near the NFS lands in the planning area. In the 1970s, an attempt to establish
nesting peregrine falcons in the cliffs on the NNF’s pine forests was attempted unsuccessfully.
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings
ESA - Endangered; TNC/NHP - G4T4, N3; MT, NE, SD - Endangered; WY - Species of Concern
The species is currently being evaluated for delisting (Federal Register 8/26/98).
Habitat
Adults travel up to 17 miles during hunting forays (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984).
Preferred hunting areas include cropland, meadows, river bottoms, marshes, lakes, and young
and mature conifer plantations (Mearns 1985, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Small birds
are favored prey. Little is known of wintering habitats, but peregrines are frequently associated
with large rivers or waterfowl refuges where prey are numerous. Migrating peregrines, on or
near NFS lands in the planning area, have been observed in ponderosa pine forests and in open
rangeland.
Recovery and Conservation Planning
A existing recovery plan for this species was approved in 1984. Critical habitat has not been
identified for this species. The species is currently being evaluated for delisting (Federal
Register 8/26/98).
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.5(1), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(1,3-5,9,10,16,17), SG-G(2,3), SG-I5, SG-M(1,3), SG-P3
H-28
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.5(1), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(1,3-5,9,10,16,17), SG-G(2,3), SG-I5, SG-M(1,3), SG-P3
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.5(1), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(1,3-5,9,10,16,17), SG-G(2,3), SG-I5, SG-M(1,3), SG-P3
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64, MA3.66
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
GA2-A(1,2,4,5), GA3-A(1,2,5)
Nebraska N.F. Units
GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1, GA7-A1, GA8-A1,
GA9-A1, GA10-A1, GA11-A1, GA11-B1
Thunder Basin N.G.
GA1-A1, GA2-A1, GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
None
None
None
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5
Determination is "no effect" for all of the National Grasslands and Forests in the planning area.
There is no reasonable basis for expecting any of the activities or land allocations authorized by
this planning effort to have an impact on the falcons’ incidental use of these lands. Also, any
nesting that might be observed in the future on the NFS lands in the planning area would
trigger consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to help insure that nesting would
not be threatened by authorized activities.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-29
Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes)
Species Description
The black-footed ferret is a medium-sized carnivore and the only ferret native to North
America. The species is primarily nocturnal. Anderson et al. (1986), Clark (1989), and the
national recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988) were consulted for additional
information on this species.
Distribution
Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Black-footed ferret surveys have
been conducted on all NFS lands where prairie dog poisoning has occurred in the past and
where it continues. Many of these surveys were initiated in the 1970s and have been conducted
to varying degrees of standardization and intensity. Although occasional ferret-like sign was
observed on the various NFS units, wild ferrets were never found and confirmed by U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service biologists on or near these lands. An exception to this is a sighting by a
biologist near the Buffalo Gap National Grassland but that sighting remains questionable, even
though it is listed as a confirmed sighting by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is believed the
last unquestionable record occurred near the Buffalo Gap National Grassland in 1965 and
involved a roadkill near Cottonwood, South Dakota. It is believed that all ferrets on NFS lands
in the planning area today are the result of an ongoing reintroduction program on the Buffalo
Gap National Grassland and adjoining Badlands National Park. Planning maps attached to the
planning documents show the location of this reintroduction area and other proposed
reintroduction areas.
All other known ferret populations in the wild are also the result of reintroduction programs.
Other reintroduced populations occur in Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, and in a new site along
the border of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings
ESA - Endangered; TNC/NHP - G1, N1; MT, NE, SD - Endangered; WY - Species of Concern.
Habitat
Prairie dogs and their colonies are the habitat of black-footed ferrets, and ferret movements off
prairie dog colonies represent dispersal to find other prairie dog colonies. Complexes of
several thousand acres and more of active prairie dog colonies provide suitable habitat for
reintroductions.
The total acreage of active prairie dog colonies on each National Grassland and Forest at the
time of the last surveys (1995-1997) is as follows:
•
GRCRNG - 1,590 (1,000 acres protected from poisoning).
•
LMNG - 2,150 (1,600 acres protected from poisoning).
•
TBNG - 18,240 (4,810 acres protected from poisoning).
H-30
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
•
ONG - 430 (150 to 250 acres protected from poisoning).
•
BGNG - 13,270 (6,100-7,350 acres protected from poisoning).
•
FPNG - 720 (150-250 acres protected from poisoning).
•
NNF - 70 (all acres protected from poisoning).
The above acreages include fully and partially active colonies but do not include colonies that
were inactive at the time of the last survey.
The total acreage of active prairie dog colonies expected to occur in the next 10 years on each
National Grassland and Forest, given the rodenticide-use criteria presented under each alternative, is presented below. The acreages of active prairie dog colonies would occur both in and
outside (dispersal habitat) black-footed ferret reintroduction habitat areas.
Alternative
GR/CRNG
LMNG
TBNG
BG/ONG
FPNG
NNF
1
1,000
1,600
>5,400
6,250-7,600
150-250
100-150
2
<1,000
<1,600
<5,400
<6,250
<150
Unknown
3
1,500-3,700
2,900-7,300
23,300-59,700
20,200-48,500
700-1,700
Unknown
4
2,600-6,400
5,400-13,100
25,200-66,700
21,400-52,500
1,200-2,900
Unknown
5
1,500-3,700
2,900-7,300
21,900-56,400
20,000-47,800
700-1,700
Unknown
Recovery and Conservation Planning
The latest recovery plan was approved in 1988 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988), and the
recovery objective is to ensure the immediate survival of the species by accomplishing the
following:
1. Increasing the captive population of black-footed ferrets to a census size of 200 breeding
adults by 1991.
2. Establishing a prebreeding census population of 1,500 free-ranging black-footed ferret
breeding adults in 10 or more populations, with no fewer than 30 breeding adults in any
population by the year 2010,
3. Encourage the widest possible distribution of reintroduced black-footed ferret populations.
An environmental impact statement for black-footed ferret reintroduction in the Badlands
National Park and Conata Basin portion of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland was issued in
1994.
Critical habitat has not been designated for the black-footed ferret.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Prairie dog poisoning obviously reduces prey availability for black-footed ferrets. Repeated
poisoning also reduces burrow availability for shelter. Primary and secondary poisoning of
ferrets from consuming poisoned prairie dogs or bait are not considered significant threats.
Use of burrow fumigants do pose a direct threat to individual ferrets.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-31
Currently, there is no empirical data from controlled experiments that document significant
reductions in prairie dog populations as a result of recreational shooting. Accidental ferret
mortality associated with prairie dog shooting is possible.
Livestock grazing can be used to either help contain or increase prairie dog colony acreages,
which in turn affects habitat availability and suitability for ferrets. Intense development and
activity associated with oil, gas, and mineral development could result in direct and indirect
negative effects.
Cumulative Effects
It is likely that reductions in prairie dog populations on private lands through poisoning will
continue, thereby resulting in further losses of ferret habitat. Additional reductions of prairie
dog colonies on adjoining and nearby Indian Reservations could also occur in the future.
Lands previously owned by The Nature Conservancy have been added to the potential ferret
reintroduction area on the Thunder Basin National Grassland. Other opportunities to cooperate
with tribal organizations in black-footed ferret recovery probably also exist, but additional
coordination is needed to ascertain the likelihood of future cooperative projects with adjoining
Indian reservations.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development. Determining range to be suitable for livestock
grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of
the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Livestock grazing permittees commonly request
prairie dog poisoning on NFS lands to reduce forage consumption and clipping by prairie dogs.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.8
SG-F(1,49,50,52), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.8
SG-F(1,49,50,52), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.8
SG-F(1,49,50,52), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units MA3.63
Thunder Basin N.G. MA3.63
H-32
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
GA2-A(1,2,4,5), GA3-A(1,2,5)
Nebraska N.F. Units
GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1, GA7-A1, GA8-A1
Thunder Basin N.G.
GA1-A1, GA2-A1, GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G.
Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. None
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units
See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction
The land areas allocated to Management Area 3.63 (Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Area)
varies by alternative (see below). The location and boundaries of each reintroduction area listed
below are shown on the Alternative Maps attached to the DEIS and LRMPs.
Reintroduction Area
LRMP
Alternative
NFS
Acres
Current Colony
Acreage
Predicted Colony Acreage
in 10 Years
Conata Basin/Badlands
(BGNG + BNP)
1
8,050
4,400
<5,470
2
3
4
5
61,510
83,870
87,970
61,510
10,480
10,910
10,970
10,480
16,400-38,200
17,100-39,700
17,200-39,900
16,400-38,200
Cheyenne River (TBNG)
1
2
3
4
5
33,750
41,230
51,400
129,060
41,230
2,600
9,740
12,430
15,860
9,740
2,240-5,400
2,240-5,400
19,600-46,200
25,000-58,600
15,400-36,500
Smithwick (BGNG)
1
2
3
4
5
0
0
25,270
32,960
25,270
NA
NA
300
300
300
NA
NA
1,200-2,800
1,200-2,800
1,200-2,800
Horse Creek (LMNG)
1
2
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-33
Reintroduction Area
LRMP
Alternative
3
4
5
NFS
Acres
Current Colony
Acreage
0
27,920
0
NA
300
NA
Predicted Colony Acreage
in 10 Years
NA
1,200-2,800
NA
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
Little Missouri National Grassland
a. The Horse Creek area should be included as potential black-footed ferret habitat (M.A.
3.63) under Alternatives 2, 3, and 5.
Buffalo Gap National Grassland
a. The Smithwick area should be included as potential ferret habitat (M.A. 3.63) under
Alternative 2.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternative 1
LMNG
Determination is "likely to adversely affect." It is highly unlikely that ferrets currently occur in
this area, but there is a shortage of sites to meet the national recovery objective of establishing 10
or more populations. At least one potential black-footed ferret reintroduction area occurs on
this unit, yet no direction occurs in this alternative to evaluate, propose, or prepare that site.
Without this additional site, the probability of the national recovery objective being met is
significantly reduced.
This determination is based on preliminary information regarding the biological suitability of
this site as a potential future reintroduction area. Additional field evaluations to more
thoroughly evaluate the biological suitability of this site will be conducted in the near future. If
the area is found to be biologically unsuitable, this determination should be "not likely to
adversely affect."
SNG
Not applicable.
GR/CRNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that
black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current
landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the
capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future,
opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate prairie dog colony expansion and the
establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated.
Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservations
could also be evaluated in the future. The prairie dog populations maintained under the current
prairie dog management direction, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie
dog population growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize.
H-34
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
FPNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that
black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current
landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the
capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future,
opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate prairie dog colony expansion and the
establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated.
Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservations
could also be evaluated in the future. The prairie dog populations maintained under the current
prairie dog management direction, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie
dog population growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize.
BGNG/ONG
Determination is "likely to adversely affect." Ferret reintroduction in the Conata
Basin/Badlands Reintroduction Area would continue under the direction in the current
amended LRMP. Estimated current and 10-year ferret carrying capacities for this area,
including the habitat on the Badlands National Park and adjoining dispersal habitat, are 114-141
and 127-156 ferret families, respectively (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). These
estimated capacities far exceed the minimum of 30 breeding adults per site recommended in the
national recovery plan.
However, under this alternative, the recently identified Smithwick Reintroduction Habitat Area
on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland is not evaluated, proposed, or prepared as a future site.
Every potential reintroduction area is critical given the increasing threat of plague epizootics
and the shortage of suitable sites to meet the national recovery objective f establishing 10 or
more black-footed ferret populations by the year 2010. Without this additional site, the
probability of the national recovery objective being met is significantly reduced.
TBNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that
black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Direction in the current LRMP for black-tailed
prairie dogs appears to provide sufficient habitat for a small ferret reintroduction area. It is
estimated that this area could possibly support the minimum number of 30 adult ferrets
recommended in the Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). However, additional environmental analyses and public involvement beyon,d the
existing LRMP and Record of Decision, would likely be necessary before the area could be
allocated as potential black-footed ferret reintroduction habitat. Eventual authorization of this
area for black-footed ferret reintroduction would be an obvious contribution to the national
recovery program.
NNF (PRRD)
Not applicable.
NNF (BRD)
Determination is "no effect." It is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets occur in these small
isolated colonies in the Nebraska Sandhills, and it is highly unlikely that the area supports any
potential ferret habitat. This part of the Sandhills does not have the capability of supporting
large prairie dog colony acreages because of steep and rough topography and the capability to
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-35
grow tall and dense vegetation. It appears that the area may not be able to support viable
prairie dog populations over the long-term (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment).
SRMNF
Not applicable.
Alternative 2
LMNG
Determination is "likely to adversely affect." It is highly unlikely that ferrets currently occur in
this area. However, due to the shortage of sites to meet the national recovery objective of
establishing 10 or more populations, at least one potential reintroduction area occurs on this
unit. Although there is a reintroduction area on the unit, no direction occurs in this alternative
to evaluate, propose, or prepare this site. Without this additional site, the probability of the
national recovery objective being met is significantly reduced. This determination could be
reduced to "not likely to adversely affect" if this potential habitat was allocated to Management
Area 3.63.
This determination is based on preliminary information regarding the biological suitability of
this site as a potential future reintroduction area. Additional field evaluations to more
thoroughly evaluate the biological suitability of this site will be conducted in the near future. If
the area is found to be biologically unsuitable, this determination should be "not likely to
adversely affect."
SNG
Not applicable.
GR/CRNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that
black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current
landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the
capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future,
opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate prairie dog colony expansion and the
establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated.
Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservations
could also be evaluated in the future. The prairie dog populations maintained under this the
direction in this alternative, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog
population growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize.
FPNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that
black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current
landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the
capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future,
opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate the establishment of a future
reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated. Opportunities to have a
combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservation also need further evaluation. The prairie dog populations maintained under the direction in this alternative, barring a
plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog population growth should opportunities for
a future reintroduction area materialize.
H-36
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
BGNG/ONG
Determination is "likely to adversely affect." The Conata Basin/Badlands Ferret Reintroduction
Area is substantially expanded under this alternative. Estimated current and 10-year ferret
carrying capacities for this area including the habitat on the Badlands National Park and
adjoining dispersal habitat are 181-223 and 416-514 ferret families, respectively (Northern Great
Plains Viability Assessment).
However, under this alternative the recently identified Smithwick Reintroduction Habitat Area
on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland is not evaluated, proposed, or prepared as a future site.
Every potential reintroduction area is critical, given the increasing threat of plague epizootics
and the shortage of suitable sites to meet the national recovery objective of establishing 10 or
more black-footed ferret populations by the year 2010. Without this additional site, the
probability of the national recovery objective being met is significantly reduced. This
determination could be reduced to "not likely to adversely affect" if this potential habitat was
allocated to Management Area 3.63.
TBNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect the species." Surveys indicate it is highly
unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Direction in this alternative
allocates a 41,230-acre reintroduction habitat area which expands significantly beyond the
reintroduction area under Alternative 1. However, it was not possible to estimate current and
future ferret capacities for this area (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). Authorization of this area for black-footed ferret reintroduction represents a significant contribution to the
national recovery program, assuming that plague does not decimate prairie dog populations in
the future. A recent, nearby plague epizootic suggests that plague poses a more immediate
threat to this potential reintroduction area .
NNF (PRRD)
Not applicable.
NNF (BRD)
Determination is "no effect." It is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets occur in these small
isolated colonies in the Nebraska Sandhills, and it is highly unlikely that the area supports any
potential ferret habitat. This part of the Sandhills is not capable of supporting large prairie dog
colony acreages because of steep and rough topography and the capability to grow tall and
dense vegetation. It appears that the area may not be able to support viable long-term prairie
dog populations (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment).
SRMNF
Not applicable.
Alternative 3
LMNG
Determination is "likely to adversely affect." It is highly unlikely that ferrets currently occur in
this area. However, due to the shortage of sites to meet the national recovery objective of
establishing 10 or more populations, at least one potential reintroduction area occurs on this
unit. Although there is a reintroduction area on the unit, no direction occurs in this alternative
to evaluate, propose, or prepare this site. Without this additional site, the probability of the
national recovery objective being met is significantly reduced. This determination could be
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-37
reduced to "not likely to adversely affect" if this potential habitat was allocated to Management
Area 3.63.
This determination is based on preliminary information regarding the biological suitability of
this site as a potential future reintroduction area. Additional field evaluations to more
thoroughly evaluate the biological suitability of this site will be conducted in the near future. If
the area is found to be biologically unsuitable, this determination should be "not likely to
adversely affect."
SNG
Not applicable.
GR/CRNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect the species." Surveys indicate it is highly
unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland,
given its current landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to
have the capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the
future, opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate prairie dog colony expansion
and the establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be
evaluated. Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian
reservations also need further evaluation. The prairie dog populations maintained under this
the direction in this alternative, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog
population growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize.
FPNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect". Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that
black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current
landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the
capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future,
opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate the establishment of a future
reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated. Opportunities to have a
combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservation also need further evaluation. The prairie dog populations maintained under the direction in this alternative, barring a
plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog population growth should opportunities for
a future reintroduction area materialize.
BGNG/ONG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." The Conata Basin/Badlands Ferret Reintroduction Area is substantially expanded under this alternative. Estimated current and 10-year ferret
carrying capacities for this area, including the habitat on the Badlands National Park and
adjoining dispersal habitat, are 197-243 and 464-573 ferret families, respectively (Northern Great
Plains Viability Assessment).
The Smithwick Reintroduction Habitat Area on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland is also
allocated as a future 25,270-acre ferret habitat area under this alternative. This site will not be
suitable for a reintroduction for another 10 to 15 years. Current prairie dog populations are
small and inadequate, and expansion of these populations will be emphasized initially. Opportunities to cooperate with the Pine Ridge Sioux Tribe and expand the reintroduction area into
the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation also need further evaluation.
H-38
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
TBNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that
black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Direction in this alternative allocates an
expanded 51,400 acre reintroduction habitat area. The current and future ferret capacities for
this area and the adjoining dispersal habitat under this alternative are estimated to be 181-184
and 216-221 ferret families (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). Authorization of this
area for black-footed ferret reintroduction represents a significant contribution to the national
recovery program, assuming that plague does not decimate prairie dog populations in the
future. A recent, nearby plague epizootic suggests that plague poses a more immediate threat
to this potential reintroduction area .
NNF (PRRD)
Not applicable.
NNF (BRD)
Determination is "no effect." It is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets occur in these small
isolated colonies in the Nebraska Sandhills, and it is highly unlikely that the area supports any
potential ferret habitat. This part of the Sandhills is not capable of supporting large prairie dog
colony acreages because of steep and rough topography and the capability to grow tall and
dense vegetation. It appears that the area may not be able to support viable long-term prairie
dog populations (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment).
SRMNF
Not applicable.
Alternative 4
LMNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." It is highly unlikely that ferrets currently occur
in this area. Direction in this alternative allocates the 27,920-acre Horse Creek reintroduction
area. This area will not be suitable for a reintroduction for another 10 to 15 years. Current
prairie dog populations are small and inadequate, and expansion of these populations will be
emphasized initially. Authorization of this area for black-footed ferret reintroduction represents
a significant contribution to the national recovery program, assuming that plague does not
decimate prairie dog populations in the future. Under this alternative, approximately 11,700
acres of the reintroduction area is also allocated to "backcountry recreation nonmotorized."
SNG
Not applicable
GR/CRNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that
black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current
landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the
capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future,
opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate prairie dog colony expansion and the
establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated.
Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservations
also need further evaluation. The prairie dog populations maintained under this the direction
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-39
in this alternative, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog population
growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize.
FPNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that
black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current
landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the
capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future,
opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate the establishment of a future
reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated. Opportunities to have a
combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservation also need further evaluation. The prairie dog populations maintained under the direction in this alternative, barring a
plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog population growth should opportunities for
a future reintroduction area materialize.
BGNG/ONG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." The Conata Basin/Badlands Ferret Reintroduction Area is substantially expanded under this alternative. Estimated current and 10-year ferret
carrying capacities for this area including the habitat on the Badlands National Park and
adjoining dispersal habitat are 197-243 and 464-573 ferret families, respectively (Northern Great
Plains Viability Assessment).
The Smithwick Reintroduction Habitat Area on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland is allocated
and expanded as a future 32,960-acre ferret habitat area under this alternative. This site will not
be suitable for a reintroduction for another 10 to 15 years. Current prairie dog populations are
small and inadequate, and expansion of these populations will be emphasized initially. Opportunities to cooperate with the Pine Ridge Sioux Tribe and expand the reintroduction area into
the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation also need to be evaluated in the near future.
TBNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect the species." Surveys indicate it is highly
unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Direction in this alternative
allocates an expanded 129,060 -cre reintroduction habitat area. The current and future ferret
capacities for this area and the adjoining dispersal habitat under this alternative are estimated to
be 216-221 and 285-290 ferret families (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). Authorization of this area for black-footed ferret reintroduction represents a significant contribution to the
national recovery program, assuming that plague does not decimate prairie dog populations in
the future. A recent, nearby plague epizootic suggests that plague poses a more immediate
threat to this potential reintroduction area .
NNF (PRRD)
Not applicable.
NNF (BRD)
Determination is "no effect." It is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets occur in these small
isolated colonies in the Nebraska Sandhills, and it is highly unlikely that the area supports any
potential ferret habitat. This part of the Sandhills is not capable of supporting large prairie dog
colony acreages because of steep and rough topography and the capability to grow tall and
dense vegetation. It appears that the area may not be able to support viable long-term prairie
dog populations (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment).
H-40
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
SRMNF
Not applicable.
Alternative 5
LMNG
Determination is "likely to adversely affect." It is highly unlikely that ferrets currently occur in
this area. However, due to the shortage of sites to meet the national recovery objective of
establishing 10 or more populations, at least one potential reintroduction area occurs on this
unit. Although there is a reintroduction area on the unit, no direction occurs in this alternative
to evaluate, propose, or prepare this site. Without this additional site, the probability of the
national recovery objective being met is significantly reduced. This determination could be
reduced to "not likely to adversely affect" if this potential habitat was allocated to Management
Area 3.63.
This determination is based on preliminary information regarding the biological suitability of
this site as a potential future reintroduction area. Additional field evaluations to more
thoroughly evaluate the biological suitability of this site will be conducted in the near future. If
the area is found to be biologically unsuitable, this determination should be "not likely to
adversely affect."
SNG
Not applicable.
GR/CRNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect the species." Surveys indicate it is highly
unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland,
given its current landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to
have the capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the
future, opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate prairie dog colony expansion
and the establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be
evaluated. Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian
reservations also need further evaluation. The prairie dog populations maintained under this
the direction in this alternative, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog
population growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize.
FPNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that
black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current
landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the
capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future,
opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate the establishment of a future
reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated. Opportunities to have a
combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservation also need further evaluation. The prairie dog populations maintained under the direction in this alternative, barring a
plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog population growth should opportunities for
a future reintroduction area materialize.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-41
BGNG/ONG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." The Conata Basin/Badlands Ferret Reintroduction Area is substantially expanded under this alternative. Estimated current and 10-year ferret
carrying capacities for this area including the habitat on the Badlands National Park and
adjoining dispersal habitat are 195-241 and 457-565 ferret families, respectively (Northern Great
Plains Viability Assessment).
The Smithwick Reintroduction Habitat Area on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland is allocated
as a future 25,270 acre ferret habitat area under this alternative. This site will not be suitable for
a reintroduction for another 10 to 15 years. Current prairie dog populations are small and
inadequate, and expansion of these populations will be emphasized initially. Opportunities to
cooperate with the Pine Ridge Sioux Tribe and expand the reintroduction area into the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation also need to be evaluated in the near future.
TBNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that
black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Direction in this alternative allocates an
expanded 129,060-acre reintroduction habitat area. The current and future ferret capacities for
this area and the adjoining dispersal habitat under this alternative are estimated to be 170-174
and 214-218 ferret families (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). Authorization of this
area for black-footed ferret reintroduction represents a significant contribution to the national
recovery program, assuming that plague does not decimate prairie dog populations in the
future. A recent, nearby plague epizootic suggests that plague poses a more immediate threat
to this potential reintroduction area.
NNF (PRRD)
Not applicable.
NNF (BRD)
Determination is "no effect." It is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets occur in these small
isolated colonies in the Nebraska Sandhills, and it is highly unlikely that the area supports any
potential ferret habitat. This part of the Sandhills is not capable of supporting large prairie dog
colony acreages because of steep and rough topography and the capability to grow tall and
dense vegetation. It appears that the area may not be able to support viable long-term prairie
dog populations (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment).
SRMNF
Not applicable.
Consultation and Reviews
H-42
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus)
Species Description
The mountain plover is a medium-sized, ground-nesting bird of the uplands. The diet of plovers
is grasshoppers and other invertebrates. This species was first collected by John Kirk Townsend
in 1832 along the Sweetwater River in Wyoming and named by Audubon as the Rocky
Mountain plover.
Knopf (1996) and Johnson et al. (1998) were primary references consulted for additional
information on this species. The Johnson et al. (1998) report was also available on the Northern
Prairie Wildlife Research Center web site:
•
(www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/grasbird.htm).
Distribution
Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Surveys for the species on NFS
lands by Forest Service biologists have been conducted on the Oglala and Thunder Basin
National Grasslands. The species is believed to currently occur only on the Thunder Basin
National Grassland. There are currently about 14,000 acres of nesting habitat being used on the
National Grassland, and it is estimated that 30 to 40 nests occur annually on the National Grassland. It is also estimated that approximately 150 adults and fledglings use the National
Grassland annually. Maps of the current nesting habitat and nesting sites on the National
Grassland maintained by the Forest Service were consulted for this evaluation. It is uncertain if
potential habitat occurs on the Oglala and Buffalo Gap National Grasslands. The historical
distribution of Mountain Plovers on the northern Great Plains included eastern and central
Montana and sites throughout Wyoming. A single record of a plover in North Dakota is
available (Roosevelt 1885), and the species was historically a rare breeder in western South
Dakota. The most recent sighting in South Dakota was in 1977 (South Dakota Ornithologists’
Union 1991). Some birds have been recorded recently in western Nebraska.
The species breeds exclusively on the dry tablelands of the western Great Plains and Colorado
Plateau, and winters in California, southern Texas and Arizona, and in Mexico. It arrives on its
breeding grounds in late March and April, long before the grasses begin to green. Adults and
fledglings leave the breeding grounds by early August. Current estimated populations are
estimated between 8,000 to 10,000 birds.
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings:
Proposed for Listing as Threatened Under ESA, Former ESA Candidate.
TNC/NHP G2, N2B.
FS and BLM Sensitive Species.
State Listed and Species of Concern.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-43
Habitat
The Mountain Plover nests primarily in shortgrass prairie sites of historically major herbivore
assemblages, specifically prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), bison (Bison bison), and pronghorn
(Antilocapra americana). It also nests sporadically in more xeric, desert shrub zones to the west.
On its breeding range, this species prefers large, flat grassland areas with sparse and short
vegetation and bare ground (Knowles et al. 1982, Graul 1973, Olson and Edge 1985, Giezentanner 1970).
The plover is a bird of open, flat tablelands. An endemic breeding species of the Great Plains
(Mengel 1970), the plover is generally considered an associate of the shortgrass prairie (Graul
and Webster 1976) dominated by blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) (Knopf and Miller 1994). They
avoid montane landscapes and seek areas of local aridity, disturbance, or short, intensively
grazed grass when found on prairies. The plover is especially attracted to landscape altered by
active prairie dog towns. They are commonly associated with blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) or
buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides) (Johnson et al. 1998). In the northern Great Plains where
grazing intensity is not as intense as it was historically and mixed grasses are more prevalent
now, most plovers are found on remnant prairie dog towns (Tyler 1968, Knowles et al. 1982,
Knowles and Knowles 1984, Olson-Edge and Edge 1987, Shackford 1991).
The plover also breeds in semidesert sites within, and west of, the short grass prairie. These
sites are mostly bare ground with scattered short shrubs of the genera Atriplex or Artemisia
(Wallis and Wershler 1981, Parrish 1988, Day 1994), prickly pear (Opuntia) and Spanish-bayonet
(Yucca spp.) (Coues 1874). In these areas too, birds often are associated with prairie dog activities or other forms of surface disturbance, such as areas of cattle concentrations. Open, dry
alkali flats are also favored habitat (Knopf and Ruper 1995).
In Colorado, minimum area needed per brood was at least 69 acres, with brooding areas often
overlapping (Graul 1973, Knopf and Rupert 1996). Three males defended territories averaging
40 acres.
Mountain plovers seem to prefer larger (>15 acres) prairie dog colonies for nesting (Knowles et
al. 1982, Olson 1984). As previously mentioned, active prairie dog colonies are prime mountain
plover nesting habitat. The current and predicted 10-year acreages of active prairie dog colonies
for each National Grassland and Forest in the planning area have already been presented in the
black-footed ferret evaluation in this document.
Recovery and Conservation Planning
A recovery plan or conservation strategy has not been prepared for this species. Critical habitat
has not been designated for this species. Johnson et al. (1998) conducted a comprehensive
review of mountain plover and their management and presented a list of management recommendations for conserving the species.
H-44
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Direct and Indirect Effects
Livestock grazing at moderate and high intensities can improve habitat for this species by
reducing vegetation cover (Wershler and Wallis 1987, Knowles et al. 1982. Bock et al. 1993). The
risk of losing nests to livestock trampling is considered insignificant (Knopf 1996). Livestock
grazing at reduced intensities can result in deterioration and loss of plover habitat.
Burning to maintaining areas of shorter grass within mixed grassland can be beneficial (Wallis
and Wershler 1981, Knopf 1996).
Activities associated with oil and gas development may be compatible with mountain plover
management in that open habitat with bare ground is commonly created (Day 1996). However,
activities should be curtailed to reduce disturbance during peak breeding (Ball 1996).
Since grasshoppers are important in the diet of mountain plovers, it is possible that grasshopper
spraying on rangelands could negatively impact this species when its on its breeding range.
Roadless designation and wilderness proposals would likely reduce prairie dog shooting,
thereby enhancing mountain plover habitat and reducing disturbance of plovers. Possible nest
loss due to motorized travel is also reduced.
Wilderness proposals could lead to wilderness designation that could reduce opportunities to
use prescribed fire specifically for mountain plover habitat enhancement.
Cumulative Effects
Continued conversion of rangeland to croplands can be expected to occur on private lands.
Although fallow cropland may attract nesting plovers, it may also pose additional risk to
females and nests due to cultivation practices.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application for
permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development. Determining range to be suitable for
livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or
inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Livestock grazing permittees
commonly request prairie dog poisoning on NFS lands to reduce forage consumption and
clipping by prairie dogs.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.8
SG-F(1,3,48,49,51-53), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3), SG-Q2
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-45
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
NA
Nebraska N.F. Units
NA
Thunder Basin N.G.
GA1-A1&B1, GA2-A1&B1, GA3-A1&B1, GA4-A1&B1,
GA5-A1&B1, GA6-A1&B1
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
NA
None
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
Thunder Basin National Grassland
a. Use livestock grazing, prairie dogs, and burning in plover habitat to maintain large areas
of shortgrass within a mosaic of lightly grazed and ungrazed areas. Burning large flats
near or adjoining prairie dog colonies during late summer, fall, or before spring greenup is desired so large blackened areas are available when plovers arrive in the spring.
The burns will also accelerate growth of adjoining prairie dog colonies. Until additional
information becomes available, prescribed burns of a section or more should be emphasized. The lighter grazed and ungrazed areas provide sites with fuels for future burning,
b. Promote large prairie dog colonies in mountain plover habitat.
Buffalo Gap and Oglala National Grassland
a. Evaluate effectiveness of properly timed and located prescribed burns and livestock
grazing in attracting mountain plover or in establishing nesting populations with
reintroduced birds. Until additional information becomes available, prescribed burns of
a section or more should be emphasized. The prescribed burning program needs to be
closely coordinated with the livestock grazing program to insure that adequate fuels are
available in those locations planned for burning.
H-46
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
b. Assign 3.64 management area direction to priority areas that are potential plover nesting
habitat, and identify the desired acreages for very low grassland structure and for
prescribed burning.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5
TBNG
Determination is "not likely to adversely affect" for all alternatives for the Thunder Basin
National Grassland. The rationale for this determination is that all alternatives, including Alternatives 1 and 2, would be anticipated to maintain or expand current prairie dog colony
acreages, the prime nesting habitat on the National Grassland, until more specific recovery
direction becomes available through development of a national recovery plan. Also, under
Alternatives 3 through 5, the acreage of active prairie dog colonies will increase substantially as
use of rodenticides is reduced. This is considered a "beneficial effect" since this will provide
additional quality plover nesting habitat. Alternatives 2 through 5 also call for increases in
prescribed burning on the National Grassland which, if strategically located and timed for
plovers, would also result in enhanced habitat conditions for the species. This too is considered
a "beneficial effect."
BGNG/ONG
Determination is "no effect." Plovers have not been confirmed on or near these areas. Efforts to
survey for plovers and to evaluate the potential of establishing nesting populations through
burning, livestock grazing, and possible plover reintroductions could eventually result in
significant contributions to the recovery program for this species. This is considered a possible
"beneficial effect." Current acreages of prairie dog colonies are maintained or increased under
all alternatives while a national recovery plan is being prepared.
Consultation and Reviews
Fritz Knopf, Senior Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-47
Section 3 - Biological Evaluation for Species that May
be at Risk of Rangewide Imperilment but are Not
Protected Under the Endangered Species Act
The following table displays the distribution of plant and animal species in the planning area
that may be at possible risk of extinction throughout their range but are not currently protected
under the Endangered Species Act. Species identified by the Forest Service as sensitive are italicized. These species are ranked as G2 or G3 by the Natural Heritage Program.
Table H-2: Plant and Animal Species at Possible Risk of Extinction.
National Grassland or Forest
Species
Dakota buckwheat
Smooth goosefoot
Barr orphaca
Dakota skipper
Eastern skipperling
Regal fritillary
Sturgeon chub
Swift fox
LMNG GRCRNF SNG TBNG BGNG FPNG
K
K
K
K
S
K
K
U
K
S
U
K
S
K
U
K
S
K
K
K
K
K
ONG
NNF
PRRD
NNF
BRD
S
S
S
K
U
N
K
SRMNF
S
U
K
S
K = Known occurrence in vicinity. Date of last observation indicates that species still occurs in area.
S = Suspected occurrence. May be historic records but no recent observations. Suitable habitat likely.
U = Unknown occurrence. More surveys may be needed. May be historic records. Potential habitat
possible.
N = No recent observations. Surveys recently completed. May be historic records. Potential habitat
possible.
OS = Off-site occurrence (downstream, etc.).
Species Eliminated From Further Analysis
None
Species Evaluations
Dakota Buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri)
Species Description
Dakota buckwheat is a regional endemic. In fact, this species has the distinction of being the
only known vascular plant that is endemic to the Dakotas (Ode 1987). The species was first
collected and identified as a new species by Stephen Sargent Visher in 1912 while he was
conducting a geological reconnaissance for the South Dakota Geological Survey. Despite being
described as a new species in 1913 by Aven Nelson, very few specimens were collected over the
H-48
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
subsequent years. The species did not receive full recognition as a taxonomically distinct
species until James Reveal studied the genus Eriogonum more thoroughly in the 1960s.
Dakota buckwheat first emerges in the spring from May through late June, depending on its
geographic location. It is an annual species whose flowers first appear from late June to late
July and continue to be produced into September. Seeds ripen and fall throughout this period.
This species is wind-pollinated and self-fertile.
Distribution
Table H-2 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Known occurrences on or near
NFS lands within the planning area include the Little Missouri, Grand River/Cedar River, and
Buffalo Gap National Grasslands. It is suspected that the species could occur on the Oglala
National Grassland. Forest Service maps of occurrence locations were consulted. All of these
National Grasslands contain potentially suitable habitats that could function as important
refugia for the species and provide for its distribution throughout its known range. The
McKenzie Ranger District of the Little Missouri National Grassland and the Buffalo Gap
National Grassland contain some of the most extensive populations and largest occupied habitat
of this species.
The range of the species appears to be restricted to west-central North Dakota and west-central
South Dakota
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings
TNC/NHP G3, N3; BLM - Sensitive; FS - Sensitive
Habitat
Dakota buckwheat is considered an obligate resident of badlands. It is a primary successional
species that inhabits mostly barren, actively eroding clay and shale substrates. Important
habitats are toeslopes of eroding clay knobs. These badlands landforms contain habitats for a
variety of plant and wildlife species not commonly found in the adjacent rolling grassland
plains. Common native plant species found with Dakota buckwheat include:
•
Broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae).
•
Saltbush (Atriplex argentea).
•
Knotweed (Polygonum ramossissimum).
Introduced plant species are also found with its badlands habitats, including the following:
•
Russian thistle (Salsola iberica).
•
Sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis).
•
Kochia (Kochia scoparia).
Soil analyses demonstrate that Dakota buckwheat grows in a very harsh soil environment
characterized by dense clay soils which are sodium-affected and nutrient-poor. In addition,
these soils have a high shrink-swell capacity. All these characteristics contribute to a harsh
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-49
environment which inhibits secondary plant succession and provides Dakota buckwheat with a
habitat niche which is largely free from most plant competition.
Conservation Planning
A conservation strategy has not been prepared.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Competition from non-native plants, such as Russian thistle and kochia, can be a significant
threat. Heavy livestock grazing seems to encourage spread of these two exotic species.
Trampling by livestock may be a problem under certain circumstances. Ground-disturbing
activities associated with oil, gas, mineral, and other types of developments could result in
destruction of plants and suitable habitat. Indiscriminate spraying of noxious weeds could
result in plant mortality.
Cumulative Effects
Similar threats to the species (exotic plants and trampling) occur on private lands.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development. Determining range to be suitable for livestock
grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of
the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(2-5), GO1.8
SG-F(1,2), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2),
SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(2-5), GO1.8
SG-F(1,2), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2),
SG-Q2
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
H-50
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
GA1-A1, GA2-A(1,4,5), GA3-A(1,5)
Nebraska N.F. Units
GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1, GA7-A1, GA8-A1, GA10-A1
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
The following conservation measure should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Prioritize this species for preparation of a conservation strategy.
b. Locate range developments, including water developments, to avoid buckwheat populations or highly suitable habitat.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5
LMNG, GRCRNG, BGNG/ONG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Consultation and Reviews
Smooth Goosefoot (Chenopodium subglabrum)
Species Description
This annual forb flowers from July through September. Its fruit is an indehiscent utricle.
Distribution
Table H-2 summarizes smooth goosefoot occurrence in the planning area. The species is known
from several populations on the Little Missouri National Grassland. Species distribution is
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-51
centered in Nebraska and South Dakota, with additional outlying populations found in
southern Canada, eastern Oregon and Washington, through the western states to North
Dakota, Kansas, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Montana, and Idaho. However, records
from at least five of these states are in question (Lenz 1993). The species was first collected in
North Dakota in 1946. All of the known populations in North Dakota are very small, and
habitat is considered limited and threatened (Lenz 1993).
The Flora of the Great Plains (1986) notes that smooth goosefoot is quite rare and has been
collected infrequently during the past several decades. The population(s) located during the
1989 survey of Theodore Roosevelt National Park are among the most recent collections of this
species anywhere. To date, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not considered the species for
listing as threatened and endangered, and it cannot be considered until distribution and
taxonomy are settled in western parts of the species’ distribution (Heidel 1990).
There are three known smooth goosefoot populations on the Little Missouri National Grassland,
all of which are located along the sandy floodplains of the Little Missouri River. There are an
additional six populations in the Little Missouri River floodplain habitat on private and
National Park Service land. In 1993, the Little Missouri River experienced significant flood
events and some of the known populations for this species could not be relocated (S. Rinehart,
field notes). It is not known if populations within the Park were also affected. Therefore the
population base for this species may have been significantly reduced through this stochastic
event. Populations may have become re-located along the Little Missouri River corridor.
However, no target surveys have been conducted since the flood (North Dakota Heritage
Program, personal communication).
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings
TNC/NHP G3; IUCN - Rare; COSEWIC - V; FS - Sensitive. It is given a rarity rank in Alberta,
Manitoba, Nebraska, South Dakota, Saskatchewan, Wyoming, and Montana (Lenz 1993).
Habitat
Smooth goosefoot appears to be restricted to sand dunes, sandy soils, and riverbanks. It is
considered a primary successional species on actively eroding slopes at the edge of stabilizing
sand. Populations are highest in areas of finer and more compacted sand. In addition, the
species is tolerant of alkali-impregnated areas, including areas which are so sodium affected
that few other plants will grow there. The species is considered both a halophyte (salt-loving)
and xerophyte (adapted for growth under dry conditions) plant. Populations throughout its
range on all habitats are always very low (Smith and Bradley 1990).
In Canada, the species is found on sand dunes and sandy hills within the mixed grass plains.
The primary threats to its habitat occur from conversion of native grassland to tame pasture and
cropland, loss of natural habitat through changes in grazing and fire regime, invasion of nonnative species, and management which has favored stabilization of sand dunes (Smith and
Bradley 1990). A study on stabilization of sand dunes in Canada attributes a lack of fire cycle to
a loss in the dynamic nature of actively moving sandy areas. Large areas of sandy plains in
Canada have become stabilized over the last forty years (Smith and Bradley 1990).
H-52
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Conservation Planning
A conservation strategy has not been prepared.
Direct and Indirect Effects
In North Dakota, primary management threats are invasion by exotic species, particularly leafy
spurge which can overrun habitat along the Little Missouri River (Lenz 1993). All of the 1989
populations on the Theodore Roosevelt National Park were in proximity to leafy spurge (Heidel
1990). Additional threats include herbicide spraying, livestock trampling, and changes in river
hydrology which may result in loss of floodplain habitat.
Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge can be a significant threat to this species. Leafy spurge
prefers riparian habitats and large populations are found along the Little Missouri River in
habitats occupied by smooth goosefoot. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of habitat but, at the
same time, efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct
threat to sensitive species. In addition, many chemicals are restricted for use within riparian
zones. Livestock grazing management, including changes in the type of animal (sheep/goats),
grazing season, and/or intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in some situations for the
control of noxious weeds. Biocontrol may be especially important in habitats occupied by
smooth goosefoot.
Competition from non-native invasive plants can be a significant threat to this species. Invasive
species such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome can be found within suitable habitats
preferred by this species such as along riverine systems. In addition, on drier sites, exotic
species such Russian thistle (Salsola iberica), sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), crested wheatgrass
(Agropyron cristatum), and kochia (Kochia scoparia) significantly reduce the diversity of native
species. Some types of livestock grazing seem to encourage spread of these invasive species,
while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment and spread.
Under some circumstances, livestock trampling in riparian areas and repeated visits to these
areas for water can be a problem for smooth goosefoot. Individual plants may be directly
affected by trampling. Trampling can interfere with reproduction of smooth goosefoot,
depending upon the time of year the disturbance occurred.
Livestock may graze on smooth goosefoot, preventing the species from completing its life cycle
or resulting in loss of individuals. However, livestock grazing may be beneficial after seed set.
Grazing can reduce dead material and open up canopy layers of plants, allowing for the
germination and establishment of new plants.
Burning and livestock grazing can have positive or negative effects on this sensitive plant
species, depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance. Many sand dunes and
actively eroding sandy areas have been stabilized by changes in grazing and fire regimes from
those open soil conditions under which this species evolved.
Sand dune habitat for smooth goosefoot may require a fire regime to retain the active nature of
these communities. At the same time, burning may directly impact the sensitive plant species
by causing mortality to individuals and populations.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-53
Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations. Information is
lacking about specific pollinators for this sensitive plant species.
Management activities can cause a loss of equilibrium in riparian systems, resulting in excessive
flooding events along drainages and excessive erosion, sedimentation, and/or channelization.
This, in turn, may reduce habitat for this sensitive plant species. Excessive removal of vegetation on uplands can result in rill, sheet, and gully erosion and excessive soil and water runoff.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with oil, gas, mineral, and other types of development
could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk.
Roads management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles and travel management
plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending
on habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant
species along travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors.
Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or
plant populations, depending on types of recreational use; road and trail use patterns and intensities; rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes; and other
factors.
Cumulative Effects
The following effects can be expected to occur/continue on private lands:
•
Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands and
tame pasture can be expected to occur on private lands.
•
Stabilization of sand dunes and actively eroding sandy areas, resulting in continued loss
of habitat for this species.
•
Development activities such as road and building construction, resulting in some loss of
suitable habitat for this species and some possible plant and population mortality.
•
Changes in livestock grazing and fire regimes that are unfavorable for the conservation
of this sensitive plant species.
Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, nonnative plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands
occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and
croplands. Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect pollinators
for this species.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD), eventual on-site development, and additional roads, traffic, and pipelines.
H-54
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG O(1,2), SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
GA2-A(1,4,5), GA3-A(1,5)
Nebraska N.F. Units
NA
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
None
NA
NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
The following conservation measures are recommended for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Prioritize this species for preparation of a conservation strategy.
b. Provide management direction for sand dunes and other actively eroding sandy areas in
habitat supporting this species or in selected areas of highly suitable habitat. These
areas should not be stabilized or actively seeded with the intent of providing vegetative
cover. Actively eroding sandy zones should be managed through fire regimes and
grazing to maintain open conditions. For example, it is hypothesized that late summer
or fall fires formerly created lush green areas the following spring. These green patches
may have attracted large herds of grazing bison and resulted in re-activation of the sand
dunes (Smith and Bradley 1990). However, livestock should be discouraged from
concentrating in sand dunes all summer long as this may result in species mortality.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-55
c. Manage riverine and sand dune habitats as high priority areas for noxious weed control.
In addition, these habitats should be monitored periodically for new starts of noxious
weeds. These areas should also be priority areas for control.
d. Range improvements such as fences, salt, and water developments should not be placed
near sand dune or riverine habitats, unless the specific purpose is to initiate active
erosion.
Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
LMNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal
listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." This determination was based upon the
limited amount of habitat and small number of known populations for this species within the
planning area, combined with the significant threats to smooth goosefoot habitat. The riverine
and sand dune habitats needed by this species comprise a very small part of the total land base
within the planning area. Threats to both these habitats are very high and include noxious
weed and exotic plant species and habitat loss through sand dune stabilization. The levels of
prescribed fire within Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are a positive move towards restoring the fire
regime under which this species and its habitats evolved. However, it is not known if the treatments will occur in areas which will benefit this species. Alternatives 3 and 5 also provide for
no net increase (from current levels) of noxious weeds. Alternatives 2 and 4 provide for a 15%
reduction (from current levels) of noxious weeds. Again, it is not known if the treatments will
occur in areas which will benefit this species. Also, chemical use is restricted within riparian
zones. The spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the maintenance of habitat for this species.
All of the known populations of this species in the planning area are found in western North
Dakota along sandy riverine habitat. Small populations of smooth goosefoot are found in the
south unit of Teddy Roosevelt National Park. It is suspected that additional suitable habitat for
this species occurs in actively eroding sandy areas within the planning area. However, many of
the sandy areas on the northern Great Plains have been stabilized through historic settlement
practices. In addition, alteration of presettlement fire and grazing regimes has resulted in
vegetative cover and stabilization of other prairie sandy areas.
Implementation of the conservation measures presented on the previous two pages would
reduce the severity of this determination for Alternatives 2 through 5.
Consultation and Review
H-56
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Barr Orphaca (Astragulus barii)
Species Description
This perennial forb, also known as Barr’s milkvetch, is endemic to this region. The plant grows
in low, dense mats and its trifoliate leaves are densely pubescent. The species flowers from June
through August, depending on locality and annual weather patterns. As a long-lived perennial,
it may produce few or no flowers in any particular year. Barr orphaca was first described by
R.C. Barneby in 1956.
Distribution
Table H-2 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. The species is known to occur
on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland and is suspected of occurring on the Oglala and
Thunder Basin National Grasslands. Throughout its range, barr orphaca occurs in sparse
populations in four counties in southwest South Dakota, six counties in northeast Wyoming,
and three counties in eastern Montana (Schassberger 1990).
Status and Other Organization Rankings
TNC/NHP G3; IUCN - Rare; FS - Sensitive
Habitat
The species occurs in areas of sparse vegetative cover. Within the planning area, it is found on
eroding knolls, buttes, and hilltops in thin barren soil that has eroded from sandstone or
siltstone. The species appears to be restricted to specific rock stratum in and along several
major drainages in the three states where it occurs. Schassberger (1988) speculates that due to
its intolerance to competition from other plant species, it may not be present in habitat in more
advanced successional stages. In other parts of its range (Montana), the species has occassionally been found with overstory cover such as ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Rocky
Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), and shadscale
(Atriplex confertifolia) (Schassberger 1988). In Montana, the species is found on eroding knolls
and barren hilltops of a particular limestone caprock. In Wyoming, the Powder River populations of barr orphaca are found on eroding sandstone bluffs.
Drought-induced loss of individual barr orphaca plants in Montana suggests that a long-term
change towards a warmer and drier climate might threaten the existence of some populations,
especially those on more exposed locations (Schassberger 1990).
Conservation Planning
A conservation strategy has not been prepared.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-57
Direct and Indirect Effects
Competition from non-native invasive plants can be a threat. Some types of livestock grazing
seem to encourage spread of these invasive species, while some grazing strategies can reduce
rates of encroachment and spread.
Noxious weeds, such as leafy spurge and Canadian thistle, occur in scattered populations
throughout the mixed grass and shortgrass plains. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of
sensitive species habitat. At the same time, efforts to control spurge and other invasive species
with chemicals can pose a direct threat to sensitive species. Livestock grazing management,
including changes in the type of animal (sheep/goats), grazing season, and/or intensity of use,
can provide positive benefits in some situations for the control of noxious weeds.
Burning and livestock grazing can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant species,
depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive
characteristics of the individual plant species.
Livestock grazing can reduce dead material within plant communities and open up canopy
layers of plants, allowing germination and establishment of new plants. Excessive livestock
grazing can interfere with reproduction of species such as barr orphaca that reproduce by seed.
However, this species may lie too close to the ground to receive much grazing pressure.
Livestock trampling during wet times of year can be a problem under some circumstances.
Excessive and repeated soil compaction may result in reduced plant vigor. Individual plants
may be directly affected by trampling.
Burning may directly impact the species by causing mortality or indirectly through modification
of its habitat.
Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations. Information
about specific pollinators for this sensitive plant species is lacking, however it is suspected to be
insect pollinated (Schassberger 1990).
Excessive removal of vegetation on uplands can result in rill, sheet, and gully erosion and
excessive soil and water runoff. Increased erosion can result in lowered water tables. Any
activities that lower water tables below the root zone of sensitive plant species may place individual plants or populations at risk.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with oil, gas, mineral, and other types of development
could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk.
Cumulative Effects
Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the exchange of invasive, nonnative plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands
occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and
croplands.
H-58
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
On private lands, the following effects are likely to occur/continue:
•
Development activities, such as road and building construction on private lands, which
will result in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and possibly some
mortality of sensitive plants and population loss.
•
Livestock grazing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant
species.
•
Conversion of rangelands to croplands resulting in continued loss of suitable habitat.
•
Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands, which may reduce or threaten insect pollinators for some sensitive plant species.
Road management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles and travel management
plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants, depending on habitat fragmentation; road use restrictions; rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel
routes; loss of suitable habitat to travel routes; and other factors.
Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or
plant populations, depending on types of recreational use; road and trail use patterns and intensities; rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes; and other
factors.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
NA
Nebraska N.F. Units
GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1, GA7-A1, GA8-A1
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-59
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
NA
NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
The following conservation measure should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction for all units containing this species:
a. Prioritize this species for the preparation of a conservation strategy.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
BGNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
This species occurs in a very limited number of populations in the planning area. However,
potential habitat seems to be readily available within the planning area. In addition, threats to
known populations and potential habitat seem to be low from proposed management activities
under all alternatives. Under all alternatives, sufficient low structure habitat would be present,
which may enhance its competitive edge over other plant species. Barr orphaca habitat does not
seem to be highly suitable for noxious weed establishment. The species provides low forage
interest for livestock. Habitat has low potential for fire. The highest potential threat may come
from livestock water developments or livestock trailing. Additional threats may come from
human disturbance activities such as road or facilities construction.
Dakota Skipper (Hesperia dacotae)
Species Description
Like others in the skipper family, adults are diurnal and feed on nectar of selected forbs. Larvae
eat leaves of selected grasses. Both sexes emerge in mid-June in western North Dakota and the
third week of June in eastern North Dakota. Mating is single generational and occurs shortly
after emergence. Main flight lasts from two to three weeks. Females oviposit near floodplains.
H-60
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Distribution
Table H-2 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Several extant sites are
documented in North and South Dakota, including the Little Missouri and Sheyenne National
Grasslands. Forest Service maps of occurrence locations were consulted. The species is
suspected of occurring on the Grand River and Cedar River National Grasslands, but inventories are incomplete. The Dakota skipper historically occurred from southern Manitoba across
portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois.
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings
TNC/NHP G2G3, N3; FS Sensitive; State listed and species of concern.
Habitat
The Dakota skipper is considered an obligate resident of undisturbed tallgrass to mixed grass
prairies. It tolerates only light livestock grazing in tallgrass prairie. In particular, preferred
habitats on the Sheyenne National Grassland are wet mesic sites dominated by big and little
bluestem (Andropogon geradii and A. scoparius respectively), with a variety of Compositae to
serve as a nectar source for adults (e.g. Echinacea angustifolia, Ratibida columnifera, Petalostemum
candidum, Campanula rotundifolia, Erigeron spp., Gaillardia spp., and Rudbeckia spp). There also
appears to be a high preference for areas with little bluestem and white camas (Zigadenus
elegans).
Dry, ungrazed or lightly grazed mesic sites in rolling prairie near river valleys or on north
slopes are preferred habitats on the Little Missouri National Grassland. Vegetation communities are dominated by little bluestem and needlegrasses (Stipa spp.). Forb associates include
harebell (Campanula rotundifolia), wood lily (Lilium philadelphicum), and alkalai grass (Zigadenus
elegans). These sites typically consist of extensive stands of narrow-leaf purple coneflower,
Gaillardia, and black-eyed Susan. Adult flights are strongly synchronized with narrow-leaf
purple coneflower bloom.
Conservation Planning
A conservation strategy has not been prepared. However, Moffat, and McPhillips (1983)
provide a general set of habitat management guidelines for butterflies in the northern Great
Plains.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Projects that lower groundwater levels could negatively impact this species and its habitat.
Grasshopper spraying on rangelands could negatively impact this species depending on timing.
Invasion of native grassland communities by woody plants and exotic vegetation could reduce
larval-host plant species. Bluestem grasslands are being converted to bluegrass- (Poa spp.) and
smooth brome- (Bromus inermis) dominated areas. Prescribed burns can kill adults and larvae.
Heavy and moderate livestock grazing can alter preferred species composition and vegetation
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-61
structure, thereby reducing habitat suitability for this species. Major expansion of prairie dog
populations could possibly alter preferred vegetation communities and vegetation structure.
Cumulative Effects
Additional threats to the species on private lands are the continuing conversion of native grasslands to cropland and the use of grasslands for hay production.
Interrelated and Independent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1),
GO1.8
SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17), SG-G(1-3), SG-I(3-7,10-12), SGJ(1-7), SG-M(1-3), SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64, MA3.66
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
GA2-A(1,4,5), GA3-A(1,5), GA4-A1
Nebraska N.F. Units
NA
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
See Appendix N (LRMP) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
H-62
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian mananagement direction
See Appendix D (DEIS) for noxious and undesirable plant direction
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
The following conservation measures and mitigation should be considered for inclusion in the
final planning direction:
a. Inventory and identify locations of rare butterfly and skipper populations prior to
prescribed burning, mowing, and grasshopper spraying.
b. Consult Moffat and McPhillips (1993) or the most current references on management
recommendations for butterflies and skippers as part of the biological evaluation process
for prescribed burns, mowing, livestock grazing, grasshopper spraying, and other activities or permits.
c. Manage so that suitable habitats (vegetation composition and structure) are available on
an annual basis for adults and butterfly larvae. Protect these sites to ensure population
availability for recolonization of suitable habitats.
d. Establish well-distributed populations on the Sheyenne and Little Missouri National
Grasslands. Increase the size and juxtaposition of occupied habitats and avoid
management activities that further isolate populations.
e. Cooperate with other agencies and landowners to identify and manage populations
adjoining National Grasslands.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-2
SNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal
listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." In this case, the concern is population
viability on the Sheyenne National Grassland and vicinity. The relative lack of native grasslands off the National Grassland makes it less likely that there would be other populations
available to recolonize populations lost on the National Grassland as a result of authorized
activities.
Implementation of the conservation measures identified on the previous page would reduce the
severity of this determination for Alternative 2.
Alternatives 3-5
SNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Under these alternatives, adjustments in livestock grazing intensities and added emphasis on
restoring native vegetation should result in positive habitat trends for this species.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-63
Alternatives 1-5
LMNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
The basis for this determination is the considerable acreages of private, tribal, state, and other
federal grasslands, including the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, that adjoin or are near the
National Grassland. It is assumed that these other areas would likely serve as a source of
butterflies to recolonize local populations that could be lost on the National Grassland as a
result of authorized activities.
Alternatives 1-5
GRCRNG
Determination is "no impact." The species is not known to occur on these National Grasslands.
It is possible and perhaps likely that this species will eventually be found on these areas. If they
are located and found to be widespread on these units, the determination would change to "may
adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area,
nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." The basis for this
determination is the considerable acreages of private, state, and tribal grasslands that adjoin or
are near the National Grassland. It is assumed that these other areas would likely serve as a
source of butterflies to recolonize local populations that could be lost on the National Grassland
as a result of authorized activities.
Consultation and Reviews
Eastern Skipperling (Oarisma powesheik)
Species Description
The eastern skipperling is another member of the skipper family. Peak emergence in the
Dakotas for this species is in late June through mid-July. Mating is single generational and
occurs shortly after emergence. Main flight lasts from two to three weeks.
Distribution
Table H-2 summarizes occurrence in the planning unit. The only known occurrence within the
planning area on NFS lands is on the Sheyenne National Grassland. Historically, it occurred
throughout the Sheyenne National Grassland in the McLeod area and in the vicinity of the Stack
Slough National Wildlife Refuge.
The species historically was common across the prairies and is now restricted to isolated,
remnant prairie sites. Its current distribution extends from Michigan west to southeastern
Manitoba, eastern North Dakota and South Dakota. Several extant sites are documented in
southeastern North and northeastern South Dakota.
H-64
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings
TNC/NHP G2/G3; State Listed and Species of Concern.
Habitat
The eastern skipperling is considered an obligate resident of undisturbed/ungrazed
tallgrass/wetland ecotones. Important habitats are composed of perennial forb, grass, and sedge
components growing on saturated soils. These areas form the transition area between aquatic
and upland sites. Lowland to Midland sites on the SNG are potentially important habitats.
Indicator plants of suitable habitat include the following:
•
Joe Pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum).
•
marsh milkweed (Asclepias incarnata).
•
marsh aster (Aster simplex).
•
gayfeather (Liatris pynostachya).
Indicator grass species include the following:
•
big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii).
•
prairie code grass (Spartina pectninata).
•
green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens).
•
spikerushes (Eleocharis spp.).
Spikerush is potentially an important larval host. The eastern skipperling is frequently
associated with areas that support Dakota skippers and Arogos skippers (Atrytone arogos). It is
also roughly synchronous and sympatric with these species. The presence of a significant
Asteraceae component is also considered a requisite. Important nectar sources include
narrow-leaf purple coneflower (Echinacea angunstifolia), long-headed coneflower (Ratidiba
columnifera), and black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia spp.).
Conservation Planning
A conservation strategy has not been prepared. However, Moffat and McPhillips (1983) provide
a general set of habitat management guidelines for butterflies in the northern Great Plains.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Projects that lower groundwater levels could negatively impact this species and its habitat, as
could grasshopper spraying on rangelands, depending on timing. Invasion of native grassland
communities by woody plants and exotic vegetation could reduce larval-host plant species.
Prescribed burns can kill adults and larvae. Livestock grazing reduces habitat suitability for this
species. Mowing can also reduce habitat suitability for this species.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-65
Cumulative Effects
Additional threats to the species on private lands are the continuing conversion of native grasslands to cropland and the use of grasslands for hay production.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1),
GO1.8
SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17), SG-G(1-3), SG-I(3-7,10-12), SG-J(17), SG-M(1-3), SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64, MA3.66
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
GA4-A1
Nebraska N.F. Units
NA
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
H-66
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
See Appendix N (LRMP) for riparian management direction
NA
NA
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian mananagement direction
See Appendix D (DEIS) for noxious and undesirable plant direction
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Inventory and identify locations of rare butterfly and skipper populations prior to
prescribed burning, mowing, and grasshopper spraying.
b. Consult Moffat and McPhillips (1993) or the most current references on management
recommendations for butterflies and skippers as part of the biological evaluation process
for prescribed burns, mowing, livestock grazing, grasshopper spraying, and other activities or permits.
c. Manage so that suitable habitats (vegetation composition and structure) are available on
an annual basis for adults and butterfly larvae. Protect these sites to ensure population
availability for recolonization of suitable habitats.
d. Establish well-distributed populations on the Sheyenne National Grassland. Increase
the size and juxtaposition of occupied habitats and avoid management activities that
further isolate populations.
e. Cooperate with other agencies and landowners to identify and manage populations
adjoining or near National Grasslands.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Specific determinations are not made for this species since it is not listed under ESA and is not
designated as sensitive by the Forest Service. However, the likely effects under each alternative
are identified and compared.
Alternative 1-2
SNG
Under these alternatives, the emphasis continues to be livestock grazing, and preferred undisturbed (rested) habitats are restricted to flooded areas, which may be minimal some years. The
concern with these alternatives is population viability on the Sheyenne National Grassland and
vicinity. The relative lack of native grasslands off the National Grassland reduces the likelihood
that other populations would be available to recolonize populations that could be lost on the
National Grassland as a result of authorized activities.
Alternatives 3-5
SNG
Under these alternatives, more emphasis is given to restoring native prairie and maintaining a
more diverse grassland, both in terms of plant species composition and grassland structure.
This should result in positive habitat trends for this species.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-67
Consultation and Reviews
Regal Fritillary (Spyeria idalia)
Species Description
This species is a very distinctive and large butterfly of the brush-footed butterfly family
(Nymphalidae). Males emerge in early to mid-June and appear through early July. Females
follow one to two weeks later. Female flights continue into August. Eggs are laid near but not
necessarily on violets, and larvae over-winter in leaves and litter. The larvae emerge in the
spring and feed on violets (Fritz 1997). The species tends to widely disperse over large areas.
Royer and Marrone (1992) was a primary reference consulted in this evaluation.
Distribution
Table H-2 summarized occurrence in the planning area. The species is known or suspected to
occur on or near the Little Missouri, Grand River/Cedar River, Sheyenne, Fort Pierre, and the
Buffalo Gap National Grasslands and on the Samuel R. McKelvie and Nebraska National
Forests (Bessey Ranger District). The Regal fritillary historically occurred from the eastern
United States, west to Manitoba and North and South Dakota.
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings
TNC/NHP G3, N3; FS Sensitive
Habitat
The species is most commonly associated with undisturbed tallgrass to mixed grass/bluestem
prairies. Preferred habitats include big and little bluestem (Andropogon geradii and A. scoparius),
wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.), and needlegrass (Stipa spp.), with a variety of Asteracea species
that serve as nectar sources for adults (e.g. Echinacea angustifolia and E. pallida, Ratibida
columnifera, Petalostemum candidum, Campanula rotundifolia, Erigeron spp., Gaillardia spp., and
Rudbeckia spp.). Swampy and subirrigated meadows are also used by adults (Arnett 1997, Fritz
1997). Other nectar sources for adults include Viola spp., Asclepias spp., Cirsium spp., Monarda
spp., and Liatris spp. Larvae feed only on species of violets (Viola spp.). The principle
requirement in all habitats appears to be the presence of extensive grasslands with high
densities of violet and other nectar sources.
Conservation Planning
A conservation strategy has not been prepared. However, Moffat and McPhillips (1983) provide
a general set of habitat management guidelines for butterflies in the northern Great Plains.
Recommendations are also provided by Royer and Marrone (1992).
H-68
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Direct and Indirect Effects
Projects that lower groundwater levels could negatively impact this species and its habitat.
Grasshopper spraying on rangelands could negatively impact this species, depending on
timing. Invasion of native grassland communities by woody plants and exotic vegetation could
reduce native plant species vital to this butterfly. Prescribed burns can kill adults and larvae.
Livestock grazing can reduce habitat suitability for this species. Mowing can reduce habitat
suitability for this species.
Cumulative Effects
Additional threats to the species on private lands are the continuing conversion of native grasslands to cropland and use of grasslands for hay production.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.5(1),
GO1.7(1), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17), SG-G(1-3), SG-I(37,10-12), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1-3), SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.5(1),
GO1.7(1), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17), SG-G(1-3), SG-I(37,10-12), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1-3), SG-Q2
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64, MA3.66
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G.
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA1-A1, GA2-A(1,4,5), GA3-A(1,5) GA4-A1
Nebraska N.F. Units GA1-A1, GA9-A1
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-69
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
See Appendix N (LRMP) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian mananagement direction
See Appendix D (DEIS) for noxious and undesirable plant direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian mananagement direction
See Appendix D (DEIS) for noxious and undesirable plant direction
Thunder Basin N.G.
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Inventory and identify locations of rare butterfly and skipper populations prior to
prescribed burning, mowing, and grasshopper spraying.
b. Consult Moffat and McPhillips (1993) or the most current references on management
recommendations for butterflies and skippers as part of the biological evaluation process
for prescribed burns, mowing, livestock grazing, grasshopper spraying, and other activities or permits.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-2
SNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal
listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." Under these alternatives, the emphasis
continues to be livestock grazing. Undisturbed (rested) areas are restricted to flooded areas,
which may be minimal some years. The concern with these alternatives is population viability
on the Sheyenne National Grassland and vicinity. Another concern is the relative lack of native
grasslands off the National Grassland. This situation reduces the likelihood that other populations would be available to recolonize populations lost on the National Grassland as a result of
authorized activities. The determination for Alternative 2 could be reduced to "may adversely
impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a
trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide" by emphasizing an increase in
native prairie restoration efforts, undisturbed and ungrazed habitat, and high structure grasslands.
H-70
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Alternatives 3-5
SNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Under these alternatives, more emphasis is given to restoring native prairie and maintaining a
more diverse grassland, both in terms of plant species composition and grassland structure.
This should result in positive habitat trends for this species.
Alternatives 1-5
LMNG, GRCRNG, FPNG, BGNG, NNF (BRD), SRMNF
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
The basis for this determination is the considerable acreages of private, state, tribal, and other
grasslands that adjoin or are near the National Grasslands. These other areas would likely serve
as a source of butterflies to recolonize local populations that could be lost on the National Grasslands as a result of authorized activities.
Consultation and Reviews
Sturgeon Chub (Macrohybopsis gelida)
Species Description
The sturgeon chub is a slender minnow with small eyes, a small horizontal mouth, and low
ridges or keels along the sides and back. It is unique within the Cyprinidae family in having
keeled scales. Adults typically range in size from 50 to 70 mm, with maximum sizes near 100
mm. It is presumed to be a benthic taste feeder and is highly specialized for swift and turbid
water (Lee et al. 1980). It has small, conical barbels at the corners of its mouth and a long,
somewhat flattened snout that projects far beyond the upper lip (Pflieger 1978). Sturgeon chub
mature reproductively at 2 years of age, and it is thought that they spawn in deep water in swift
current (Botrell et al. 1964).
Distribution
Table H-2 summarizes sturgeon chub distribution in the planning area. In South Dakota it is
found in the Missouri River, White River, Cheyenne River, and Grand River (Bailey and Allum
1962). The Buffalo Gap, Fort Pierre, and Grand River National Grasslands are within the
immediate watersheds of these rivers. More current surveys indicate it is still in portions of the
Cheyenne and White Rivers (G. Cunningham personal communication, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1993).
Sturgeon chub have recently been reintroduced into the Little Missouri River in North Dakota
near the Little Missouri National Grassland. The species was considered widely distributed in
the Little Missouri River in the late 1970s (Reigh 1978 and Reigh and Owen 1979, cited in Kelsh
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-71
1993). However, Kelsh (1993) did not document this species on 24 sampling stations along the
Little Missouri between Marmarth and Medora. Other later surveys of the Little Missouri River
(Peterka 1993) also failed to document sturgeon chub in this river system. Kelsh (1993) hypothesizes that the extended droughts of the 1980s may have resulted in the extirpation of sturgeon
chub from this system.
The sturgeon chub was historically found in the Mississippi and Missouri River drainages,
extending from Louisiana, northwest into Montana and Wyoming. It is now extirpated from 23
of 27 tributaries where it occurred historically (Werdon 1993). The species is still documented in
the Yellowstone River in Montana.
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings
FWS Candidate; TNC/NHP G2 N2; FS and BLM Sensitive Species; State listed and species of
concern.
Habitat
Sturgeon chub are associated with medium to large Great Plains rivers. Sturgeon chub appear
to be turbid water specialists that live primarily over gravel in the current of turbid, silty, and
free-flowing rivers (Baxter and Simon 1970, Pflieger 1978). Turbid water adaptations for this
species include small eyes and external taste buds abundantly developed over head, body, and
fins. The taste buds are probably of primary importance in locating food. The feeding habits of
the sturgeon chub have not been studied (Baxter and Simon 1970). The function of the keels on
the scales is unknown, but they may act as current detectors for orientation (Pflieger 1978).
Conservation Planning
A conservation strategy has not been prepared for this species.
Direct and Indirect Effects
The primary threat to this species has been the major impoundment projects on the Missouri
River and its major tributaries. Water development projects, channelization, and irrigation
diversions on the Missouri River and its tributaries have flooded riffle habitat, altered temperature and flow regimes, and reduced turbidity. Small impoundments on private and federal
rangelands may modify hydrological flow patterns, especially during droughts, and reduce
downstream flow.
Additional water developments may result in future water depletions. Water depletions
probably make isolated populations in smaller tributaries more vulnerable to extirpation during
droughts. Stocking of piscivorous game fish also threatens disjunct and isolated sturgeon chub
populations. This problem is probably further exacerbated by the reduced sturgeon chub stock
or lack of stock for recolonizing areas of local extinction.
Pollution and toxic spills from industry and agriculture could alter water quality, reduce habitat
suitability, and/or poison sturgeon chub. Sand and gravel extraction operations have restricted
H-72
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
fish movements and destroyed habitat. Agricultural water uses may affect water availability in
streams and rivers during drought.
Cumulative Effects
Same as direct and indirect effects identified above.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic, and pipelines.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.8, GO1.9, GO1.10
SG-B(3,4,7,11-14), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.8, GO1.9, GO1.10
SG-B(3,4,7,11-14), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A2, GA2-D2, GA3-A2, GA3-D2
Nebraska N.F. Units GA3-D2, GA4-D2, GA6-D2, GA8-D2
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
None
None
NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-73
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Cooperate with states and others in identifying tributaries where minimum instream
flows and other special considerations are needed to protect sturgeon chub populations.
b. Cooperate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others in assessing impacts of small
impoundment developments on NFS lands on hydrologic flow patterns and
downstream sturgeon chub habitat. If the species is proposed or listed under ESA,
consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the possible impacts of small
impoundment construction on NFS lands.
c. Conduct a risk assessment for accidental oil and gas discharge from NFS lands into
waters occupied by prairie fishes that are imperiled, and if necessary, take corrective
actions.
d. Conduct project-level biological evaluations assessing potential risks of issuing special
use permits for sand and gravel extraction along rivers on NFS lands and oil and gas
pipeline construction.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Specific determinations are not made for this species since it is not listed under ESA and is not
designated as sensitive by the Forest Service. However, the likely effects under each alternative
are identified and compared.
Alternatives 1-5
LMNG, GRNG, BGNG, FPNG
It is assumed that the conservation measures listed above will mitigate any adverse effects from
Forest Service authorized activities and allocations.
Consultation and Reviews
Swift Fox (Vulpes velox)
Species Description
Scientists have long debated the taxonomic status of the two arid land foxes, the swift fox and
kit fox (Kahn et al. 1997). These two taxa are the smallest canids in North America. We
presume the swift fox taxa only occurs in the planning area. Swift fox are considered endemic
residents of grassland prairies on the Great Plains, while kit fox occupy the more desert
environments further south (Kahn et al. 1997).
Adult swift fox are usually about 12 inches tall and weigh about 5 to 6 pounds. They are
monestrous and apparently monogamous They form pairs in early winter that may last for
years. Litter size, based on pup counts, ranges from 4 to 5, and dispersal begins in September
H-74
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
and August. Swift fox use dens year-round to protect themselves from predators and the
weather.
Distribution
Table H-2 summarizes occurrence in the planning area. Populations occur on and near Thunder
Basin, Buffalo Gap, and Oglala National Grasslands. Forest Service maps of occupied swift fox
habitat on NFS lands were reviewed for this evaluation.
Recent accounts suggest that the swift for may be increasing and reoccupying some portions of
their historic range (Sammuel and Martin 1982). Current swift fox distribution can be
considered as relatively widespread and includes portions of South Dakota, Wyoming, and
Nebraska. Swift fox are apparently absent from North Dakota although several recent
confirmed observations suggest the species may exist at extremely low densities in the southwestern counties. In Wyoming, swift fox occupy much of their historical range, although
surveys in some counties are incomplete. Swift fox are known to occur in very limited numbers
in the panhandle and southwestern Nebraska. Distributions and associated densities appear
highly variable.
ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings
FWS Candidate; TNC/NHP G3, N3; FS and BLM Sensitive Species; State listed and species of
concern; COSEWIC - Endangered.
This species was petitioned for listing under ESA in 1992. The 90-day finding from U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service concluded that a species listing may be warranted range-wide. The 12month finding issued in 1995 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service resulted in a "warranted, but
precluded decision," concluding that the magnitude of threats to the species is low to moderate
although the immediacy of threats remains imminent. The current candidate status of the swift
fox is reviewed annually.
Habitat
Swift fox appear to be habitat generalists and occupy a variety of shrubland and grassland
types. Habitats commonly include intermittent and permanent water sources during most
years. The species also occurs in predominately agricultural landscapes and appear to be very
adaptive to these unnatural habitats. There is a tendency for swift fox to prefer level to
moderately rolling terrain that affords good visibility for detecting other predators, such as
coyotes and golden eagles (Hillman and Sharps 1978, Hines 1980).
They are opportunistic feeders taking a variety of prey and carrion. Small mammals including
black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomy ludovicianus), northern pocket gophers (Thomomys talpoides)
and thirteen-lined ground squirrels (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus) made up most of their
summer diet in South Dakota (Uresk and Sharps 1986); small birds, grasshoppers, beetles, grass
and cactus (Opuntia spp.) comprised the rest. Swift fox are commonly observed hunting road
sides, presumably in search of carrion.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-75
Conservation Planning
A conservation strategy was prepared by state wildlife agencies in 1998.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Prairie dog poisoning on NFS lands could reduce prey availability, especially during winter
when some prey species are unavailable. Swift fox may be more vulnerable to coyotes and
other predators when they hunt fewer and smaller prairie dog colonies. The effects of coyote
damage control to reduce livestock losses on swift fox are uncertain. Use of M-44s by government animal damage control agents could result in accidental swift fox mortality. Increased
roads and vehicle traffic associated primarily with oil and gas development could also increase
swift fox mortality.
Cumulative Effects
Predator control on private lands to reduce livestock losses may result in accidental swift fox
mortality. In some areas, predator control on private lands may have an indirect effect of
enhancing swift fox populations by reducing overall coyote populations, thereby reducing
predation on swift fox.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads and traffic.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3,31-33,50-53), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3,31-33,50-53), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1
H-76
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1, GA7-A1, GA8-A1, GA10-A1
Thunder Basin N.G. GA1-A1, GA2-A1, GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
None
None
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5
TBNG, BGNG/ONG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Additional oil and gas development could result in additional roads and traffic and additional
swift fox mortality.
Consultation and Reviews
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-77
Section 4. Biological Evaluation for Species that may
be at Risk of Regional or More Local Imperilment
The distribution of plant and animal species of concern in the planning area that may be at risk
of regional or more local imperilment are listed in Table H-3 (following page). Some species
may have local populations within the planning area or on NFS lands that may be at risk of
being extirpated. These species are ranked as G4 or G5 by the Natural Heritage Program.
Species Eliminated from Further Analysis
Screen 1
• white-faced ibis
•
common loon
•
osprey
•
plains spotted skunk
Screen 2
•
river otter
•
Townsend’s big-eared bat
•
northern short-horned lizard
•
pale milk snake
•
upland sandpiper
•
tiger salamander
•
mountain lion
Screen 3
• dwarf shrew
H-78
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Table H-3: Distribution of Plant and Animal Species of Concern Possibly at Risk of Regional/Local Imperilment.
National Grassland or Forest
Species
Classification
LMNG
GRCRNG
SNG
Labrador bedstraw
FS - Sensitive
K
Marsh bellflower
FS - Sensitive
K
Buckbean
FS - Sensitive
IA - Threatened
K
Nodding buckwheat
FS - Sensitive
Slender cottongrass
FS - Sensitive
Lanceleaf cottonwood
FS - Sensitive
K
S
Torrey’s cryptantha
FS - Sensitive
K
S
Dogberry
FS - Sensitive
K
Crested shield fern
FS - Sensitive
K
Marsh fern
FS - Sensitive
K
Oak fern
FS -Sensitive
IA - Threatened
K
Sensitive fern
FS - Sensitive
K
Leathery grape-fern
FS - Sensitive
K
Little grape-fern
FS - Sensitive
K
Spinulose woodfern
FS - Sensitive
K
Lady-fern
FS - Sensitive
K
Shining flatsedge
FS - Sensitive
K
Umbrella flatsedge
FS - Sensitive
K
Frostweed
FS - Sensitive
K
Broad-leaved goldenrod
FS - Sensitive
K
Beach heather
FS - Sensitive
K
Marsh horsetail
FS - Sensitive
K
Meadow horsetail
FS - Sensitive
Sand lily
FS - Sensitive
K
TBNG
BGNG
ONG
NNF
PRRD
S
S
S
K
NNF
BRD
SRMNF
S
K
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
K
S
K
S
K
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
K
K
FPNG
S
S
S
S
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-79
National Grassland or Forest
NNF
BRD
SRMNF
S
S
S
S
S
S
K
S
K
FS - Sensitive
K
S
K
Bog willow
FS - Sensitive
IA - Threatened
K
Tawny crescent butterfly
FS - Sensitive
K
Prairie skipper
IA - Spp Concern
MN - Threatened
FS - Sensitive
K
Flathead chub
FS - Sensitive
K
Species
Classification
LMNG
GRCRNG
SNG
TBNG
BGNG
FPNG
ONG
Sandgrass
FS - Sensitive
MN - Spp Concern
K
Showy lady’s slipper
FS - Sensitive
IA - Threatened
K
Small white lady’s slipper
FS - Sensitive
IA, MN - Spp Concern
COSEWIC - E
K
Blue lips
FS - Sensitive
K
S
S
S
Alyssum-leaf phlox
FS - Sensitive
K
S
S
S
Limber pine
FS - Sensitive
K
Upright pinweed
FS - Sensitive
S
Alkali sacaton
FS - Sensitive
K
Delicate sedge
FS - Sensitive
IA - Spp Concern
K
Foxtail sedge
FS - Sensitive
K
Handsome sedge
FS - Sensitive
K
Wahoo spindle-tree
FS - Sensitive
K
Golden stickleaf
FS - Sensitive
Adder’s tongue
FS - Sensitive
IA - Spp Concern
Hooker’s townsendia
FS - Sensitive
Loesel’s twayblade
NNF
PRRD
K
S
S
K
K
S
S
U
K
K
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
U
S
K
U
U
U
U
K
U
K
K
H-80
National Grassland or Forest
Species
Classification
LMNG
Longnose sucker
SD - Threatened
K
Plains topminnow
FS - Sensitive
Northern leopard frog
FS - Sensitive
MT - Spp Concern
COSEWIC - V
GRCRNG
SNG
BGNG
FPNG
ONG
NNF
PRRD
NNF
BRD
SRMNF
U
K
K
Northern short-horned lizard COSEWIC - Vulnerable
FS - Sensitive
SD - Rare
K
K
Tiger salamander
FS - Sensitive
K
K
Western smooth green snake
MT - Spp Concern
IA - Threatened
K
Pale milk snake
FS - Sensitive
MT - Spp Concern
Blanding’s turtle
IUCN - Lower Risk
SD - Endangered
American bittern
FS - Sensitive
PIF - Moderate Priority
WY - Spp Concern
Priority
Greater prairie chicken
FS - Sensitive
MN - Spp Concern
COSEWIC - XT
Yellow-billed cuckoo
FS - Sensitive
PIF - Moderate Priority
MT, WY - Spp Concern
U
U
Long-billed curlew
FS - Sensitive
BLM - Sensitive
COSEWIC - V
WY - Spp Concern
PIF - High Priority
WY-PIF - Level 1
K
S
K
K
K
U
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
U
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
U
U
K
S
S
K
S
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
S
K
TBNG
K
S
K
U
U
K
U
K
U
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
U
K
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
K
H-81
National Grassland or Forest
Species
Classification
LMNG
GRCRNG
SNG
TBNG
BGNG
FPNG
ONG
NNF
PRRD
NNF
BRD
SRMNF
Dickcissel
BLM - Sensitive
PIF - Moderate Priority
S
S
K
K
U
K
K
K
Northern goshawk
FS - Sensitive
BLM - Sensitive
MT, WY - Spp Concern
S
S
S
K
S
S
S
S
Sage grouse
FS - Sensitive
WY-PIF - Level 1
COSEWIC - E
K
K
K
Ferruginous hawk
FS - Sensitive
BLM - Sensitive
COSEWIC - V
MT, WY - Spp Concern
WY-PIF - Level 1
K
K
U
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
Swainson’s hawk
BLM - Sensitive
WY-PIF - Level 1
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
White-faced ibis
FS - Sensitive
BLM - Sensitive
MT, WY - Spp Concern
U
U
U
K
Common loon
FS - Sensitive
BLM - Sensitive
Merlin
FS - Sensitive
WY - Spp Concern
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
Osprey
SD - Threatened
U
Short-eared owl
COSEWIC -V
PIF - Moderate
IA -Threatened
MN - Spp Concern
WY-PIF - Level 1
K
U
K
U
U
U
U
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
U
S
K
K
K
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-82
National Grassland or Forest
Species
Classification
LMNG
GRCRNG
SNG
TBNG
BGNG
FPNG
ONG
NNF
PRRD
NNF
BRD
SRMNF
Western burrowing owl
FS - Sensitive
BLM - Sensitive
COSEWIC - E
MT - Spp Concern
MN - Endangered
WY-PIF - Level 1
K
K
U
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
Upland sandpiper
FS - Sensitive
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
Loggerhead shrike
FS - Sensitive
BLM - Sensitive
COSEWIC - T
MT - Spp Concern
PIF - Moderate Priority
MN - Threatened
WY-PIF - Level 1
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
Baird’s sparrow
FS - Sensitive
BLM - Sensitive
MT - Spp Concern
PIF - High Priority
MN - Endangered
WY-PIF - Level 1
K
K
K
U
U
Fox sparrow
FS - Sensitive
K
K
Trumpeter swan
IUCN - Lower Risk
FS - Sensitive
BLM - Sensitive
MT,WY - Spp Concern
WY-PIF - Level 1
Black tern
FS - Sensitive
BLM - Sensitive
PIF - Moderate Priority
IA - Spp Concern
WY-PIF - Level 1
Lewis woodpecker
FS - Sensitive
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
U
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
H-83
National Grassland or Forest
Species
Classification
LMNG
GRCRNG
SNG
TBNG
BGNG
Black-backed woodpecker
FS - Sensitive
BLM - Sensitive
WY - Spp Concern
Townsend’s big-eared bat
IUCN - Vulnerable
FS - Sensitive
BLM - Sensitive
MT,WY - Spp Concern
S
U
K
Black-tailed prairie dog
COSEWIC - Vulnerable
BLM - Sensitive
MT,WY - Spp Concern
FS - Sensitive
K
K
K
K
Mountain lion
SD - Threatened
S
K
S
Plains pocket mouse
MN - Spp Concern
IA - Endangered
Fringe-tailed myotis
WY - Spp Concern
FS - Sensitive
U
U
River otter
NE - Endangered
SD - Threatened
K
K
California bighorn sheep
FS - Sensitive
K
Dwarf shrew
FS - Sensitive
MT, WY - Spp Concern
Plains spotted skunk
MT - Spp Concern
MN, IA - Spp Concern
U
U
U
Least weasel
MN - Spp Concern
K
K
K
FPNG
ONG
NNF
PRRD
U
U
NNF
BRD
SRMNF
K
N
K
K
S
S
U
U
U
U
K
K
K
K
S
K
U
S
K
K
K
K
U
U
U
U
U
S
U
U
K = Known occurrence in vicinity, date of last observation indicates that species still occurs in area.
S = Suspected occurrence, may be historic records but no recent observations, suitable habitat likely.
U = Unknown occurrence, more surveys may be needed, may be historic records, potential habitat possible.
N = No recent observations, surveys recently completed, may be historic records, potential habitat possible.
OS = Off-site occurrence (downstream, etc.).
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-84
Species Descriptions for Fine Filter Analyses
These descriptions are for those Table H-3 species that warrant fine filter analyses
because of more complex land use relationships.
Sand Lily (Leucocrinum montanum)
Species Description
This perennial forb is peripheral to its range within the planning area. It is a low growing
perennial with deeply buried rootstocks. Sand lily is an early flowering species generally
blooming in May.
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The species is known
to occur on the Little Missouri National Grassland and is suspected of occurring on the Grand
River/Cedar River National Grassland, the Buffalo Gap National Grassland, the Nebraska
National Forest, the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grasslands. Within the planning area, sand lily is known from sparse populations. However, it is
more plentiful in the main part of its range in the western part of the United States.
Habitat
The species occurs in sandy areas on mixed grass prairie. Within the planning area it is found
on sandy terraces, sandy swales, hillsides and open coniferous woods.
Conservation Planning
Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been developed for this species in
the planning area.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Competition from non-native invasive plants can be a threat. Some types of livestock grazing
seem to encourage spread of these invasive species while some grazing strategies can reduce
rates of encroachment and spread. Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge and Canadian thistle
occur in scattered populations throughout the mixed grass and shortgrass plains. Noxious
weeds reduce the quality of sensitive species habitat but at the same time, efforts to control
spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to sensitive species.
Livestock grazing management, including changes in the type of animal (sheep/goats), grazing
season, and/or intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in some situations for the control
of noxious weeds.
Burning and livestock grazing can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant species,
depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-85
characteristics of the individual plant species. Burning may directly impact the species by
causing mortality or indirectly through modification of its habitat.
Grazing can reduce dead material within plant communities and open up canopy layers of
plants, allowing for the germination and establishment of new plants. Excessive livestock
grazing can interfere with reproduction of sand lily. Sand lily is considered palatable to livestock. Early season grazing can impact plant growth and flowering during its most vulnerable
period. Livestock trampling during wet times of year can be a problem under some
circumstances. Excessive and repeated soil compaction may result in reduced plant vigor.
Individual plants may be directly affected by trampling.
Excessive removal of vegetation on uplands can result in rill, sheet, and gully erosion and
excessive soil and water runoff. Increased erosion can result in lowered water tables. Any
activities that lower water tables below the root zone of sensitive plant species may place individual plants or populations at risk.
Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations. Information is
lacking about specific pollinators for this sensitive plant species, however it is suspected to be
insect pollinated.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with oil, gas, mineral, and other types of development
could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk.
Road management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles and travel management
plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants, depending on habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel
routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors.
Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or
plant populations, depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and
intensities, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes, and
other factors.
Cumulative Effects
Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, nonnative plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands
occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and
croplands. Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will
continue, resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible
mortality of sensitive plants and population loss. Livestock grazing practices that are
unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private
lands. Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands can be
expected to occur on private lands. Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or
threaten insect pollinators for some sensitive plant species.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
H-86
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1&3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A(1,4,5), GA3-A(1,5)
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Do not graze livestock in habitats supporting this species during the early season when
the species is growing and flowering. To control the timing of livestock grazing may
require development of riparian pastures that include occupied and unoccupied habitat
for this species.
b. Manage mixed grass and shortgrass habitats that supports the species to provide for a
mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes within the landscape. Especially
important may be seral stages which provide a high component of species diversity.
Well-distributed plant communities of high species diversity will be needed to act as
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-87
seed sources for other areas within the landscape where diversity may be reduced.
Landscapes which do not provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may
result in loss of suitable habitat for this sensitive species and others.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1 and 2
LMNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal
listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." This species is known from a very limited
number of populations within the planning area. Historic and current occurrence records for
the Little Missouri National Grasslands shows this species prefers sandy soils usually with
added moisture conditions. All element occurrence records from the Grassland place the
species along sandy terraces adjacent to drainages. These drainageways have historically and
into the present provided watering sources to livestock. Many of the habitats associated with
the drainageways have been altered from pre-settlement conditions, resulting in loss of quality
habitat for this species. In addition, available evidence seems to indicate a downward trend in
number of individuals and populations. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the levels of grazing,
combined with other direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, may result in the loss of habitat
and populations of the species within the planning unit. There is no concern for population
viability in other parts of the planning area or rangewide however. Alternative 2 would
provide for decreases in mid to higher seral conditions which reduces suitable conditions for the
species and its habitats. This alternative provides for higher levels of noxious weed control,
however it also provides for increased livestock use with the potential for increases in the
spread and establishment of noxious weeds and exotic species. Noxious weeds and many
exotics prefer riparian habitats and areas of added moisture. In addition, many chemical treatments are reduced for use within riparian zones.
The two units of Theodore Roosevelt National Park provide similar habitat conditions.
However, there are no known populations of this species in either unit of the Park.
Implementation of the recommendations presented in the Conservation and Mitigation
Measures section for this species would reduce the severity of this determination for Alternative
2. Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of "may adversely
impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor
cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide" for Alternative 2.
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5
LMNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
H-88
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Upright Pinweed (Lechea stricta)
Species Description
This perennial forb flowers from May through July depending on location and weather conditions.
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The species is known
to occur on the Sheyenne National Grassland and suspected of occurring on the Little Missouri
National Grassland and the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests.
Habitat
Upright pinweed is categorized as a generalist species being found within several habitats
across the tallgrass and mixed grass prairie. It’s found primarily in habitats within the tallgrass
prairie and choppy sandhills on the Sheyenne National Grassland, but may also occur on the
mixed and shortgrass prairie in the western part of the planning area. Within the Northern
Great Plains planning area, the habitat components associated with this species are uncommon
and occupy a very small percentage of the total land base.
The tallgrass prairie on the Sheyenne National Grassland is dominated by grass species such as
big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi), indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), and switchgrass (Panicum
virgatum). These communities intergrade into mixed grass prairie in the eastern portion of the
Sheyenne Grasslands (Seiler 1974). Within these communities, the disturbance processes of
herbivory, fire, and climatic fluctuations were the significant determinants for plant distribution
and community composition.
Conservation Planning
Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been developed for this species in
the planning area.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge occur in scattered populations throughout the tallgrass
prairie. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of sensitive species habitat but at the same time,
efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to
sensitive species. Livestock grazing management, including changes in the type of animal
(sheep/goats), grazing season, and/or intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in some
situations for the control of noxious weeds.
Competition from non-native, invasive plants (exotics) can be a significant threat. Invasive
species such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome often form monocultures significantly
reducing the diversity of native species. Some types of livestock grazing seem to encourage
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-89
spread of these invasive species while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment
and spread.
Burning, livestock grazing, and mowing can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant
species depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive
characteristics of the individual plant species. Properly timed burning, grazing, and mowing
may be beneficial in maintaining the quality of native grassland habitats. Lack of disturbance
can cause some sites to convert to shrub habitats dominated by willow species.
Burning may directly impact this species by causing mortality or indirectly impact the species
through effects on its habitat. Mowing and summer burning may prevent completion of the life
cycle for upright pinweed. Early spring and late fall burning should have no effect on the
species and may be beneficial.
Livestock grazing can prevent sensitive plants from completing their life cycles and producing
seeds or sprores. Excessive and continuous livestock grazing on sensitive plants can lead to
impacts on plant regrowth, thereby reducing the vigor of plants within the population.
Upright pinweed is not considered palatable to cattle but could be grazed by sheep or goats.
Grazing can reduce dead material within plant communities and open up canopy layers of
plants, allowing for the germination and establishment of new plants. Livestock trampling can
be a problem under some circumstances. Trampling could be detrimental to individual plants.
In addition, excessive and repeated soil compaction from trampling may result in reduced plant
vigor.
Repeated mowing may prevent upright pinweed from completing its life cycle and may also
reduce carbohydrate reserves. Mowing should have no affect after seed set.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with road and trail development could result in
mortality of plants or place their populations at risk. Road management determinations for
ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans can have positive or negative
effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat fragmentation, road use
restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes, loss of
suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can have
positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations depending on types of
recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of spread of invasive, nonnative plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.
Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations for upright
pinweed. Information is lacking about specific pollinators for many sensitive plant species.
Increased rates of channelization in drainages can result in a lowered water tables. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of some sensitive plant species may place individual plants or populations at risk.
Cumulative Effects
Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, nonnative plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands
occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and
croplands.
H-90
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands can be
expected to occur on private lands. Livestock grazing and mowing practices that are
unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private
lands. Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will
continue, resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible
mortality of sensitive plants and population loss.
Drainage ditches on adjacent private land may lower water table levels below the root zone of
some sensitive plant species, putting individuals or populations at risk. Insecticide spraying on
adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect pollinators for some sensitive plant species.
Wilderness designation may reduce the opportunity to prescribe burn specifically for
enhancing sensitive plant species habitat.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64, MA3.66
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA4-A1, GA4-B1
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-91
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
The following conservation measure should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. This species should be a priority for preparing a conservation strategy. The conservation
strategy should address the estimated number of individuals and the distribution of
reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species throughout its
existing range within the planning area. In addition, the conservation strategy should
address maintaining stable or increasing populations for this species and will discuss the
methodology for assessing population trend. The relationship of this species to vegetation succession under various disturbance regimes needs to be determined. This analysis could also be incorporated into a conservation stragegy.
b. Manage the habitats where this species occurs as a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5
SNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
This determination is based upon the limited habitat available to this species within the
planning units, planning area, and rangewide. Habitat quality may be affected by grazing
intensity, season of use, livestock distribution, and trampling. Exotic species populations may
continue to expand negatively affecting the sensitive plant populations. The known population
of this species may be affected by grazing intensity, season of use, livestock grazing distribution,
and trampling. Alternatives 3 and 5 would provide for increases in mid to higher seral conditions which should favor the mosaic of landscape habitat conditions needed to ensure suitable
habitat for the species. The acres of rangeland annually rested from livestock grazing under
Alternatives 3 and 5 also more closely approximate the grazing conditions under which this
species and tallgrass prairie habitats evolved as compared to current grazing conditions. In
addition, the level of prescribed fire under Alternatives 3 and 5 is a step towards restoring the
fire regime under which the species evolved. On a broad scale, both alternatives also provide
for no net increase (from current levels) of noxious weeds. The existence and spread of noxious
and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the maintenance of high quality, tallgrass
prairie habitat. Both occupied and unoccupied habitat for this species should be a priority for
noxious weed control.
H-92
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Alternative 2
SNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal
listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide". This determination was based upon the low
number of known populations of this species and the limited habitat available within the
planning units, planning area, and rangewide. Under this alternative, the direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of management activities may result in the loss of known populations with
the potential to affect population viability within the planning unit. Alternative 2 would
provide for decreases in mid to higher seral conditions which may reduce suitable conditions
for the species and the habitats upon which it depends. Alternative 2 provides for higher levels
of noxious weed control, however it also provides for increased livestock use with the potential
for increases in the spread and establishment of noxious weeds and exotic species. The acres of
rangeland annually rested from livestock grazing do not approximate the grazing conditions
under which this species or tallgrass prairie habitats evolved. In addition, the levels of
prescribed fire do not approximate the fire regime under which this species or tallgrass prairie
habitats evolved.
Handsome Sedge (Carex formosa)
Species Description
This perennial sedge is cespitose with short, tough rootstocks. The fruit is an achene, and
fruiting occurs from early June to mid-July.
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The species is known
to occur on the Sheyenne National Grassland. The population on the SNG represents the
western-most extension of this species’ range. This species is a rare inhabitant of mesic
deciduous forests throughout its range, which is centered around the Great Lakes and extends
from New England to North Dakota (Challey and Heidel 1993).
Habitat
The species appears to be restricted to moist eastern deciduous woodlands on alluvial soils.
Dominant vegetation includes green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and aspen (Populus
tremuloides). The one known population on the Sheyenne National Grassland is found in the
riverine wetlands complex, consisting of mesic areas resulting from upland drainage patterns of
the Sheyenne River. Here it occurs on the river bottom near the base of north-facing bluffs
along the river valley margin.
Conservation Planning
Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been developed for this species in
the planning area.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-93
Direct and Indirect Effects
Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge occur in scattered populations throughout the tallgrass
prairie. Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge, Canada thistle, and purple loosestrife reduce the
quality of habitat for this species but at the same time, efforts to control spurge and other
invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to the species. In addition, many
chemicals are restricted for use within riparian areas.
Competition from non-native invasive plants (exotics) can be a threat. Invasive species such as
Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome have the potential to compete with this species for
habitat, significantly reducing population numbers. Encroachment by exotic woody species
may also threaten species habitat.
Livestock trampling and trailing can be a problem for this species. Habitat occurs in areas
which are typically very shaded and livestock use these areas for shade in the heat of the
summer, if accessible. In addition, excessive and repeated soil compaction from trampling may
result in reduced plant vigor. Livestock grazing can prevent this species from completing its life
cycle and producing seeds. In addition, excessive and continuous livestock grazing can lead to
impacts on plant regrowth, thereby reducing the vigor of plants within the population. This
species may have moderate palatability to cattle . It is considered a grasslike plant and may be
inadvertently chosen by livestock also.
Increased rates of channelization in drainages can result in a lowered water tables. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone may place individual plants or populations at
risk.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with road and recreational trail development could
result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Road management
determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans can have
positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat
fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along
travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management
planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations,
depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of
spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.
Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or
plant populations, depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and
intensities, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes,
and other factors.
Cumulative Effects
Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands and draining
of croplands can be expected to occur on private lands.
Livestock grazing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species
are likely to continue on some private lands.
Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, nonnative plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands
H-94
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and
croplands. Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands
and draining of croplands can be expected to occur on private lands. Livestock grazing
practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to
continue on some private lands.
Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue,
resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and possible mortality of
sensitive plants and population loss.
Drainage ditches and irrigation can alter the hydrologic regime of mesic habitats, inducing drier
conditions to these habitats, preventing the plants from completing their life cycle, and/or
killing the plants.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining federal range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64, MA3.66
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA4-A1
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Appendix N (LRMP) for orchid management direction.
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-95
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units
Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
The following conservation and mitigation measures should be considered for inclusion in the
final planning direction for all units containing this species:
a. This species should be a priority for preparing a conservation strategy. The conservation
strategy should address the estimated number of individuals and the distribution of
reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species throughout its
existing range within the planning area. In addition, the conservation strategy should
address maintaining stable or increasing populations for this species and will discuss the
methodology for assessing population trend. The relationship of this species to vegetation succession under various disturbance regimes needs to be determined. This analysis could also be incorporated into a conservation stragegy.
b. Manage habitats for this species as priority areas for noxious weed control. In addition,
habitats should be monitored periodically for new starts of noxious weeds and these
areas should also be priority areas for control. Biocontrol of noxious weeds using goats
or sheep should be avoided in these areas.
c. Current and future populations of the species should be protected from livestock
grazing. This may require fencing.
d. Water developments, oilers, and livestock salt and mineral should be not be placed near
or in these habitat types.
e. Hiking, horseback, ORV, and mountain bike trails in habitats supporting this species
should be designated through planning, to prevent habitat damage from dispersed use.
f.
The riverine habitats along the Sheyenne River are highly dependent upon maintenance
of the hydrologic regime in the Grassland. Any activities which would change the
hydrologic regime should be discouraged.
Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
SNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend towards
federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." This species is known from only one
population on the Sheyenne National Grassland and it occurs in a riverine wetland habitat
which is also extremely rare in the planning area. The determination was based upon the
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of introduced plant species, livestock grazing and
recreation on the known population of this species and its limited habitat. In addition the
riverine habitat with which it is associated has a very low tolerance to disturbance. New or
increased populations of exotic and noxious weeds may be hard to control since many
chemicals are restricted for use within riparian zones. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the known
population lies within Management Area 6.1 Rangeland Resource Production. Under Alternatives 3 and 5, the known population lies within proposed wilderness areas. Under Alternative
H-96
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
4, the known population lies within Management Area 4.22 Scenic Areas, Vistas, or Travel
Corridors.Disturbance from recreational use, exotics, and livestock grazing and trampling in
occupied and unoccupied habitat may result in loss of the one known population and the
habitat upon which it depends within the planning unit and possibly within the planning area.
There should be no concerns for population viability rangewide, however. In addition, these
sites are highly dependent upon maintenance of the hydrologic regime in the Grassland.
Habitat for this species may be found within the Sheyenne Springs RNA although no populations are known from this area. Protection may also be provided by the Nature Conservancy’s
Pigeon Point Preserve and the ND State Game and Fish Department Mirror Pool Wildlife
Management Area.
Implementation of the following conservation measure plus those recommended under the
Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this species would reduce the severity of this
determination for Alternatives 2 through 5:
Under all alternatives, the known population and associated habitat are recommended for
placement within Management Area 2.1 Special Interest Area (SIA) or 3.64, special plant and
wildlife habitat. Under Alternative 3, the area occurs within a proposed wilderness area
(Management Area 1.2) which would be compatible with both 2.1 and 3.64 Management
Area designations. Under Alternative 3, 2.1 or 3.64 designation would place an added layer
of specific management direction for this species and its habitat. The intent of the 2.1 or 3.64
management area designation under all alternatives is to provide additional direction
specifically for the one known popula;tion of this species on the Sheyenne National
Grassland and its rare habitat. The proposed wilderness under Alternative 5 is much larger
than the area proposed under Alternative 3, and recreational use may be more highly
dispersed under that alternative .
Implementation of the conservation measures recommended under the Conservation Measures
and Mitigation section for this species would reduce the severity of this determination for Alternative 5.
Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of "may adversely impact
individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a
trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide" for all the alternatives.
Consultation and Reviews
Kurt Hansen, Range Management Specialist, USDA-Forest Service, Medora RD
Darla Lenz, Botanist, North Dakota Natural Heritage program
Tawny Crescent Butterfly (Phyciodes batesii)
Species Description
The tawny crescent is a medium-sized member of the brush-footed butterfly family
(Nymphalidae). Adults mate in June and lay egg clusters on the underside of aster (Aster laevis
and A. simplex) leaves. Larvae overwinter and then pupate the following June to emerge as
adults. Dogbane (Apocynum spp.) and spurge (Euphorbia spp.) are favored nectar sources for
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-97
adults. Fritz (1997) was a primary reference for this species. The TNC website
(http://biosource.heritage.tnc.org) was also consulted for information on this species.
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The species is
known to occur on the Little Missouri National Grassland and the Nebraska National Forest
(Pine Ridge). It’s suspected to occur on the Thunder Basin and Oglala National Grasslands.
Habitat
Preferred habitats in the planning area include ponderosa pine savannah and associated
riparian habitats. The more moist sites associated with north slopes, springs and riparian zones
are favored. Other forest and grassland ecotones are also used. As mentioned above, aster
serves as larvae hosts, and dogbane and spurge are favored nectar sources for adults.
Conservation Planning
A conservation strategy has not been prepared. However, Moffat and McPhillips (1983) provide
a general set of habitat management guidelines for butterflies in the northern Great Plains.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Projects that lower groundwater levels could negatively impact this species and its habitat.
Herbicide treatments to control leafy spurge reduces nectar sources. Grasshopper spraying on
rangelands could negatively impact this species depending on timing. Prescribed burns can kill
adults and larvae. Livestock grazing can reduce habitat suitability for this species, especially
where riparian and other wetland sites are degraded. Mowing can cause direct mortality and
reduced habitat suitability for this species.
Cumulative Effects
An additional threat to the species on private lands is the continued use of insecticides, conversion of native grasslands to cropland and tame grasslands used for hay production (Finch 1991).
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
H-98
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.7(1), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,5,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3)
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.7(1), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,5,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3)
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A(1,2,4), GA3-A(1,2)
Nebraska N.F. Units GA11-A1
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Inventory and identify locations of rare butterfly and skipper populations prior to
prescribed burning, mowing and grasshopper spraying.
b. Consult Moffat and McPhillips (1993) or the most current references on management
recommendations for butterflies and skippers as part of the biological evaluation process
for prescribed burns, mowing, livestock grazing, grasshopper spraying and other activities or permits.
c. Manage so that suitable habitats (vegetation composition and structure) are available on
an annual basis for adults and butterfly larvae. Protect these sites to ensure population
availability for recolonization of suitable habitats.
d. Help establish well-distributed populations. Increase the size and juxtaposition of
occupied habitats and avoid management activities that further isolate populations.
e. Cooperate with other agencies and landowners to identify and manage populations
adjoining or near National Grasslands.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-99
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5
LMNG, NNF (Pine Ridge), TBNG, ONG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide".
Consultation and Reviews
Prairie Skipper (Hesperia ottoe)
Species Description
Like others in the skipper family (Hesperidae), adults are diurnal and feed on nectar of selected
forbs. Eggs are laid in the grass canopy and larvae feed on leaves of selected grasses. Mating is
single generational, and occurs shortly after emergence. Main flight occurs from June into early
August. Females oviposit near floodplain. Adults feed on nectar from a variety of plant species
including blazing star (Liatris spp.), hoary vervain (Verbena stricta), purple coneflower (Echinacea
angustifolia). Populations are generally small and localized.
The TNC website (http://biosource.heritage.tnc.org) was a primary source for information on
this species.
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. This species is
known to occur on the Little Missouri National Grassland and is suspected of occurring on the
Grand River/Cedar River National Grassland.
Habitat
This is a species of undisturbed open mid-grass to tallgrass prairie. Drier prairie sites may be
favored.
Conservation Planning
A conservation strategy has not been prepared. However, Moffat and McPhillips (1983) provide
a general set of habitat management guidelines for butterflies in the northern Great Plains. The
information on the TNC website for this species also provides a comprehensive set of habitat
management guidelines for this species.
H-100
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Direct and Indirect Effects
Grasshopper spraying on rangelands could negatively impact this species depending on timing.
Prescribed burns can kill adults and larvae. Livestock grazing can reduce habitat suitability for
this species. Mowing can reduce cause direct mortality and reduced habitat suitability for this
species.
Cumulative Effects
Continued use of insecticides and conversion of rangeland to croplands can be expected to
occur on private lands (Finch 1991). An additional threat to the species on private lands is
grassland mowing for hay production.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units
GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.7(1), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,5,6,10,11), SGJ(1-7), SG-M(1,3)
Nebraska N.F. Units
NA
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
MA2.1, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units
NA
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
GA2-A(1,2,4), GA3-A(1,2)
Nebraska N.F. Units
NA
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units
Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units
NA
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
NA
NA
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-101
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units
See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management
Nebraska N.F. Units
NA
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Inventory and identify locations of rare butterfly and skipper populations prior to
prescribed burning, mowing and grasshopper spraying.
b. Consult Moffat and McPhillips (1993) or the most current references on management
recommendations for butterflies and skippers as part of the biological evaluation process
for prescribed burns, mowing, livestock grazing, grasshopper spraying and other activities or permits.
c. Manage so that suitable habitats (vegetation composition and structure) are available on
an annual basis for adults and butterfly larvae. Protect these sites to ensure population
availability for recolonization of suitable habitats.
d. Help establish well distributed populations on the Little Missouri National Grassland.
Increase the size and juxtaposition of occupied habitats and avoid management activities
that further isolate populations.
e. Cooperate with other agencies and landowners to identify and manage populations
adjoining or near the National Grassland.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5
LMNG, GR/CRNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Consultation and Reviews
Flathead Chub (Platygobio gracilis)
Species Description
This member of the Cyprinidae family is a large silvery minnow that as adults grow to 95 to 190
mm in length. This species spawns during mid or late summer when water temperatures are
relatively high. They feed primarily on terrestrial insects and small invertebrates (Lee et al.
1980) but also consume some aquatic vegetation. Flathead chubs provide a forage base for
larger piscivorous fish and are commonly used as baitfish by anglers (Baxter and Stone 1995;
Lee et al. 1980).
H-102
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The species is
currently found in the Cheyenne River (Buffalo Gap National Grassland and Thunder Basin
National Grassland) and Little Missouri River (Little Missouri National Grassland) and some of
their tributaries. It also occurs in the Bad River (Buffalo Gap National Grassland), Dismal River
(Nebraska National Forest), Niobrara River (Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest), Hat Creek
(Oglala National Grassland) and Antelope Creek (Thunder Basin National Grassland).
The flathead chub is found in large, turbid rivers from the Northwest Territories south through
the Great Plains states of the United States.
Habitat
This species inhabits a wide variety of habitats. They can be found in turbid rivers in swift
current to pools in small clear streams. The species appears to be tolerant of a wide variety of
environmental conditions.
Conservation Planning
A biological evaluation conducted by Forest Service resource specialists in 1995 assessed the
effects of livestock grazing on the plains topminnow. This evaluation also identifies numerous
conservation and mitigation measures.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Recent studies have indicated that the range and populations of this species may be declining
(Tabor 1993). Primary causes for these apparent declines are not definitive. Commercial
exploitation as baitfish is a possible contributing factor. Toxic spills into rivers and streams
could threaten local populations. Destructive livestock grazing along small streams could
degrade habitat (USDA Forest Service 1995).
Cumulative Effects
Same as those identified under previous section.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-103
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.8, GO1.9, GO1.10
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.8, GO1.9, GO1.10
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.8, GO1.9, GO1.10
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A2, GA3-A2
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. None
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
None
None
None
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Conduct a risk assessment for accidental oil and gas discharge from NFS lands into
waters occupied by imperiled fish species and, if necessary, take corrective actions.
b. To determine appropriate site-specific conservation and mitigation measures for the
effects of livestock grazing on imperiled fish species, consult the latest biological evaluations for the reissuance of term livestock grazing permits.
c. Cooperate with states and others in identifying tributaries where minimum instream
flows and other special considerations are needed to protect sturgeon chub populations.
H-104
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
d. Cooperate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others in assessing impacts of small
impoundment developments on NFS lands on hydrologic flow patterns and
downstream sturgeon chub habitat.
e. Conduct project-level biological evaluations assessing potential risks of issuing special
use permits for sand and gravel extraction along rivers on NFS lands and oil and gas
pipeline construction.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5
LMNG, BGNG, TBNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide".
Longnose Sucker (Catastomus catastomus)
Species Description
This member of the Catostomidae family range from dwarf forms to over 600 mm in length. Its
highly variable morphologically across its range (Lee et al. 1980). This species spawns in
during spring and early summer when water temperatures are relatively cold. Bottom invertebrates make up the diet of this species.
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The only NFS lands
in the planning area associated with this species is the Little Missouri National Grassland where
the species occurs in the Little Missouri River.
This sucker is the most widespread sucker species in North America. It’s found in Canada and
Alaska, south from western Maryland, north to Minnesota, west and north through northern
Colorado and through Washington.
Habitat
The longnose sucker is found in cool, spring-fed streams where it feeds on the bottom on algae,
crustaceans, snails and insect larvae . It spawns in lakes or in shallow-flowing streams over
gravel. The longnose sucker does not sexually mature until 4 to 9 years of age.
Conservation Planning
None
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-105
Direct and Indirect Effects
Toxic spills into rivers and streams could threaten local populations. Destructive livestock
grazing along small streams could degrade habitat. Small impoundments on private and
federal rangelands may modify hydrological flow patterns, especially during droughts, and
reduce downstream flow.
Cumulative Effects
Same as those identified under previous section.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
This further results in the need to provide livestock water, often in the form of small impoundments in drainages. Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in
an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads,
traffic and pipelines.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.8, GO1.9, GO1.10
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A2, GA3-A2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
H-106
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
None
NA
NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Conduct a risk assessment for accidental oil and gas discharge from NFS lands into
waters occupied by imperiled fish species and, if necessary, take corrective actions.
b. To determine appropriate site-specific conservation and mitigation measures for the
effects of livestock grazing on imperiled fish species, consult the latest biological evaluations for the reissuance of term livestock grazing permits.
c. Cooperate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others in assessing impacts of small
impoundment developments on NFS lands on hydrologic flow patterns and
downstream native fish habitat.
d. Cooperate with states and others in identifying tributaries where minimum instream
flows and other special considerations are needed to protect sturgeon chub populations.
e. Cooperate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others in assessing impacts of small
impoundment developments on NFS lands on hydrologic flow patterns and
downstream sturgeon chub habitat.
f.
Conduct project-level biological evaluations assessing potential risks of issuing special
use permits for sand and gravel extraction along rivers on NFS lands and oil and gas
pipeline construction.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Specific determinations are not made for this species since it is not listed under ESA and is not
designated as sensitive by the Forest Service. However, the likely effects under each alternative
were considered.
Alternatives 1-5
LMNG
It’s assumed that the conservation measures listed above will mitigate any adverse effects from
Forest Service authorized activities and allocations.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-107
Plains Topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus)
Species Description
This is a small fish (38-64 mm) that is olive brown in color, with bronze reflections. It lacks the
side-bars present on the banded killifish. Breeding males have orange or red colored fins
(Ashton and Dowd 1991). Spawning occurs in early summer and eggs are deposited by females
on submerged aquatic vegetation and algae. Likely food items consist of small aquatic insects
and aquatic vegetation (Baxter and Stone 1995; Lee et al. 1980).
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. It’s known to occur
in the Dismal River (Nebraska National Forest), Niobrara River (Samuel R. McKelvie National
Forest), and Cheyenne River (Thunder Basin National Grassland), and Antelope Creek
(Thunder Basin National Grassland).
There are two population centers for this species. One is centered in Nebraska and the other is
mostly limited to Missouri (Lee et al. 1980).
Habitat
The plains topminnow prefers shallow streams with clear water and sand or gavel substrates.
This species will utilize sloughs and backwater habitats also. Special habitat requirements
include abundant aquatic vegetation. They are a good indicator of unpolluted streams that
should be expected to run clear.
Conservation Planning
A biological evaluation conducted by Forest Service resource specialists in 1995 assessed the
effects of livestock grazing on the plains topminnow. This evaluation also identifies numerous
conservation and mitigation measures.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Destructive livestock grazing along small streams could degrade habitat (USDA Forest Service
1995). Toxic spills into rivers and streams could threaten local populations.
Cumulative Effects
Same as those identified under previous section.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
H-108
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.8, GO1.9, GO1.10
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-C(1-3,6), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.8, GO1.9, GO1.10
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-C(1-3,6), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. None
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. None
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Conduct a risk assessment for accidental oil and gas discharge from NFS lands into
waters occupied by imperiled fish species and, if necessary, take corrective actions.
b. To determine appropriate site-specific conservation and mitigation measures for the
effects of livestock grazing on imperiled fish species, consult the latest biological evaluations for the reissuance of term livestock grazing permits.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-109
c. Cooperate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others in assessing impacts of small
impoundment developments on NFS lands on hydrologic flow patterns and
downstream native fish habitat.
d. Cooperate with states and others in identifying tributaries where minimum instream
flows and other special considerations are needed to protect sturgeon chub populations.
e. Cooperate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others in assessing impacts of small
impoundment developments on NFS lands on hydrologic flow patterns and
downstream sturgeon chub habitat.
f.
Conduct project-level biological evaluations assessing potential risks of issuing special
use permits for sand and gravel extraction along rivers on NFS lands and oil and gas
pipeline construction.
Preliminary Determination and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5
NNF, SRMNF, TBNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis)
Species Description
This species occurs as both a summer resident and a rare yearlong resident. They feed on treeboring insects and also catch flying insects. Like other woodpeckers, they are cavity nesters
and have an average clutch size of 6 to 7 eggs.
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. They are known to
occur on the Thunder Basin and Oglala National Grasslands and on the Nebraska National
Forest (Pine Ridge).
Habitat
Preferred habitat is cottonwood floodplains and burned ponderosa pine woodlands with
abundant snags. Open ponderosa pine savannah is also preferred habitat.
Conservation Planning
Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been developed for sage grouse in
the planning area.
H-110
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Direct and Indirect Effects
Fire suppression in ponderosa pine woodlands can result in long-term incremental decline in
habitat suitability for the species. Prescribed burns can help maintain ponderosa pine savannah
and preferred habitat for Lewis’ woodpecker. Lack of silvicultural treatments to maintain
ponderosa pine savannah can result in long-term incremental decline in habitat suitability for
the species.
Cumulative Effects
Fire suppression is very active on adjoining private lands. Thinning and harvest of ponderosa
pine on private lands have increased substantially over the last 2 decades which is probably
compensating, at least in part, for habitat deterioration resulting from fire suppression.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining and classifying timber lands as suitable for commercial harvests can result in
additional acres of ponderosa pine thinning and improved habitat conditions for the Lewis’
woodpecker.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3, GO1.7(2), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(5), SG-M(1,3)
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3, GO1.7(2), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(5), SG-M(1,3)
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units MA1.31(10), MA2.1, MA3.64, MA5.12
Thunder Basin N.G. MA1.31(10), MA2.1, MA5.12
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units GA10-B1, GA11-B1&C1
Thunder Basin N.G. GA1-B1, GA3-B1, GA5-B1, GA6-B1
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-111
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
None
None
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Include desired forest vegetation conditions (for open ponderosa pine stands) as
standards and guidelines to Management Area 5.12 or to Geographic Area Descriptions
for Oglala and Thunder Basin National Grasslands.
Preliminary Determination and Rationale
The following preliminary determinations are made in the absence of having information on the
desired acreages of dense ponderosa pine forests versus savannah. Hopefully, this information
will be available for preparation of the final biological assessment and evaluation.
Alternatives 1 and 3
TBNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Acres burned during wildland fires would likely be similar across all alternatives since suppression efforts do not vary. The acres likely to be prescribed burned are similar under Alternatives
1 and 3.
Alternatives 2, 4, and 5
TBNG
Determination is "beneficial impact." Although the acres burned during wildland fires would
be the same across these alternatives, the acres prescribed burned would likely increase under
these alternatives when compared to Alternatives 1 and 3.
Alternatives 1 and 2
NNF (Pine Ridge R.D.) and ONG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Acres burned during wildland fires would likely be similar across all alternatives since suppression efforts do not vary. Prescribed burning is not anticipated under these alternatives.
H-112
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Alternative 3-5
NNF (Pine Ridge R.D.) and ONG
Determination is "beneficial impact." Although the acres burned during wildland fires and the
acres of ponderosa pine thinning would be the same across these alternatives, the acres
prescribed burned would likely increase under these alternatives when compared to Alternatives 1 and 2.
Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)
Species Description
Black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) are diurnal, burrowing rodents that live in
densely populated colonies on North American grasslands and shrublands. Densities ranging
from 3 to 18 prairie dogs per acre have been documented in South Dakota (Cincotta 1985,
Hoogland 1995). This species is monoestrus and typical litter size, when young first emerge
from their natal burrows, ranges from 1 to 6 with an average of approximately 3 (Hoogland
1995). Prairie dogs eat a variety of plant material and their diets vary depending on local plant
species composition (Fagerstone 1981). They seem to prefer grasses including western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), and buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides).
Forbs and various plant parts including roots are also consumed. They also clip vegetation to
maintain visibility. Long-term colonization of a site frequently results in a reduction in grasses
and an increase in forbs and bare ground (Coppock et al. 1983, Archer et al. 1987), and colonies
frequently expand to fill adjoining suitable habitat. Some yearling prairie dogs will normally
disperse in May or June to other colonies or to establish new colonies. Dispersal distances up to
10 km have been documented (Knowles 1985).
Hoogland (1995) and Jones et al. (1983) were consulted as primary references for detailed
descriptions and additional information on this species.
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. Maps of prairie dog
colonies maintained by the Forest Service were reviewed for this evaluation. Status of active
and partially active prairie dog colonies based on the latest inventories (1995-97) and existing
LRMPs (Alternative 1) is as follows:
NFS Unit
LMNG
SNG
GR/CRNG
FPNG
BG/ONG
NNF (BRD)
NNF (PRRD)
SRMNF
Total Colony Acreage Number of Colonies Acreage Protected from Poisoning
2,860
123
1,600
0
0
NA
1,590
19
1,000
720
42
150-250
14,150
305
6,250-7,600
0
0
NA
70
8
All
0
0
Not Applicable
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-113
NFS Unit
Total Colony Acreage Number of Colonies Acreage Protected from Poisoning
TBNG
18,240
146
4,810
Black-tailed prairie dog colonies now cover about 800,000 acres in the United States, Canada and
Mexico, and this represents an overall reduction in colony acreage since European settlement of
North America of greater than 90% (Knowles 1998, Mulhern and Knowles 1997). The species
was recently petitioned for listing as a threatened species by several conservation organizations.
Habitat
This species occurs mostly on shortgrass and mixed grass prairie on the Great Plains. Some
populations are also found in the Nebraska sandhills. Suitability of habitats for this species is
enhanced by low vegetative cover and increased visibility to detect predators. Because of this,
these animals prefer areas with disturbed soils and/or grasslands grazed by cattle or bison.
They can also modify shrublands to meet their needs by cutting down individual shrubs from
the perimeter of their colonies. They typically colonize grasslands of a wide variety of soil
types and that are flat to gently rolling. They avoid wetlands and areas with high water tables.
Hoogland (1995), Jones et al. (1983), Knowles (1982), and Clippenger (1989) were consulted for
additional information on the habitat relationships of this species.
Conservation Planning
Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies involving federal, state, county and tribal
agencies and other interested organizations have not been prepared.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Prairie dog poisoning reduces or eliminates prairie dog populations. Criteria as to when, where
and why rodenticides can be used on NFS lands to poison prairie dogs varies by alternative.
The total acreage of active prairie dog colonies predicted to occur in 10 years after rodenticide
use under each alternative is as follows:
NFS Unit
LMNG
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Alt. 5
1,600
< 1,600
2,900-7,300
5,400-13,100
2,900-7,300
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
< 1,000
1,500-3,700
2,600-6,400
1,500-3,700
150-250
< 150
700-1,700
1,200-2,900
700-1,700
6,250-7,600
< 6,250
20,200-48,500
21,400-52,500
20,000-47,800
100-150
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
NNF (PRRD)
0
0
0
0
0
SRMNF
0
0
0
0
0
> 5,400
< 5,400
23,300-59,700
25,200-66,700
21,900-56,400
SNG
GR/CRNG
FPNG
BG/ONG
NNF (BRD)
TBNG
In addition to the amount of prairie dog poisoning, precipitation patterns over the next 10 years
and the resulting vegetative growing conditions will have a significant influence on the
H-114
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
dynamics of prairie dog colonies. The predicted colony acreages shown in the table above for
alternatives 3, 4 and 5 are expressed as a range. The upper end of the range is more likely if
drought conditions and unfavorable growth conditions dominate during this period. Under
drought and unfavorable moisture conditions, vegetative growth is minimal and prairie dog
colonies expand at faster rates. The lower end of the ranges is more likely if precipitation
patterns and growth conditions are favorable and prairie dog colony expansion rates are
reduced. Colony acreages under alternatives 1 and 2 are constrained by the use of rodenticides
to specified maximum acreages or to minimize effects on forage for permitted livestock on NFS
lands.
Livestock grazing and its affects on vegetation can be managed to either help contain or increase
prairie dog colony acreages.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with development of impoundments, rangeland ripping
and pitting, pipelines, oil and gas, and other construction activities can enhance habitat suitability for prairie dogs.
Prairie dogs are popular targets for many recreational shooters. However, empirical data,
resulting from controlled experiments, that document significant reductions in prairie dog
populations as a result of recreational shooting are unavailable at this time. As a minimum, it’s
suspected that recreational shooting of prairie dogs can significantly reduce prairie dog
densities and indefinitely maintain reduced densities in smaller isolated colonies. Shooting
prairie dogs in colonies that have been previously poisoned could likely prevent or slow
population recovery in those colonies. Regulating shooting of prairie dogs is recognized by the
Forest Service as being primarily under state authority. However, the Forest Service can issue
closure orders for prohibiting specific activities including shooting or the discharge of firearms.
Roadless designation and wilderness proposals could likely reduce recreational shooting of
prairie dogs in those areas.
Plague, an exotic disease that’s highly lethal to prairie dogs, is a serious threat to the persistence
of local and possibly regional black-tailed prairie dog populations. The impact of a plague
epizootic and periodic reoccurrences of the disease on local prairie dog populations is
undoubtedly influenced by the size and distribution of prairie dog colonies, which are largely
determined by the use of rodenticides.
Cumulative Effects
Approximately 55% of all prairie dog colonies occur on private and state lands (Mulhern and
Knowles 1995). It’s likely that reductions in prairie dog populations on private lands through
poisoning, loss of habitat (cultivation), and shooting will continue.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Livestock grazing permittees or grazing associations commonly request prairie dog poisoning
on NFS lands to reduce forage consumption and clipping by prairie dogs.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-115
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.8
SG-F(1,50-54), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.8
SG-F(1,50-54), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.8
SG-F(1,50-54), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64, MA3.63(4&5)
Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1, MA3.63(4&5)
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA1-E1, GA2-E1, GA3-E1
Nebraska N.F. Units GA4-E1, GA5-E1, GA8-E1, GA9-E1, GA10-E1
Thunder Basin N.G. GA2-E1
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction
See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction
See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5 (Short-term Viability Assuming No Plague Risk)
LMNG, GR/CRNG, FPNG, BG/ONG, TBNG
A determination of "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of
viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability
rangewide" is concluded for the prairie dog populations on each National Grassland under each
alternative. The rationale for this determination is that each alternative provides for the maintenance (no rodenticides) of multiple colonies on each National Grassland, and almost every
colony and colony complex on these areas expand and appear to serve as "source" populations
H-116
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
in the absence of rodenticides, plague, and excessive shooting. This determination assumes that
all or most rangelands supporting prairie dog colonies will continue to be grazed by livestock,
thereby retaining high habitat suitability levels for prairie dogs.
It’s acknowledged that the prairie dog populations on the Nebraska National Forest (BRD) may
not be viable, not because of Forest Service authorized activities but because of marginal habitat
(predominance of loose sandy soils and other unfavorable habitat characteristics). Prairie dog
poisoning is not authorized on this unit.
Alternatives 1-5 (Long-term Viability With Plague Risk)
LMNG, GR/CRNG, FPNG, BG/ONG, TBNG
For prairie dog populations on any National Grassland to be considered in this evaluation as
having a "moderate" probability of long-term persistence, prairie dog management direction
would have to maintain at least one colony complex of at least 1,000 acres and 10 colonies (see
NGP Viability Assessment). Multiple complexes on each National Grassland are considered as
providing a "high" probability of persistence and likelihood of recolonization following a
plague epizootic. The Little Missouri, Buffalo Gap and Thunder Basin National Grasslands are
extensive enough to support multiple and more widely dispersed colony complexes, making it
less likely that a plague epizootic could simultaneously impact all colonies across any of the
three National Grasslands. Obviously, recolonization of impacted colonies is more likely when
there’s multiple complexes, making long-term persistence more probable. The number of
complexes currently existing or expected under each alternative is as follows:
Alternative
NFS Unit
1
2
LMNG
1
0-1
1
2
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
GR/CRNG
0
0
1
1-3
1
FPNG
0
0
1
1
1
BG/ONG
1
1
2-3
2-3
2-3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
1
2
1
SNG
NNF (PRRD)
NNF (BRD)
SRMNF
TBNG
3
4
5
When considering both the number of complexes and the relative size of each NFS unit, the
following preliminary determinations are made:
Alternative
NFS Unit
1
2
3
4
5
MAII
LRLV
MAII
BI
MAII
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
GR/CRNG
LRLV
LRLV
MAII
BI
MAII
FPNG
LRLV
LRLV
MAII
BI
MAII
LMNG
SNG
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-117
Alternative
NFS Unit
1
2
3
4
5
BG/ONG
MAII
MAII
MAII
BI
MAII
NNF (PRRD)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NNF (BRD)
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
SRMNF
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MAII
MAII
MAII
MAII
MAII
TBNG
NA = not applicable.
NI = no impact.
BI = beneficial impact.
MAII = may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning
area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.
LRLV = likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a
loss of viability rangewide.
The LRLV determinations in this table for Alternative 2 could be reduced in severity to a MAII
determination if interior colonies were protected from poisoning in the same manner that they
are protected under Alternatives 3 and 5.
Consultation and Reviews
Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
Species Description
This small raptor is a ground-dwelling owl that is active both day and night. They prefer open
grasslands with an abundance of burrows often constructed by prairie dogs and other
burrowing mammals. Abandoned burrows are used for nesting, shelter and security. In some
parts of their range where soils conditions permit, they excavate their own burrows. Burrowing
owls on the northern plains are mostly migratory, breeding within the planning area and then
apparently wintering in dispersed locations including Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas,
and Mexico (Haug et al. 1993). They begin arriving in the planning area in April and most
migrate out of the area in September and October (South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union 1991).
Prey consists primarily of invertebrates, including grasshoppers, and small mammals, but they
will also consume small birds, reptiles, and amphibians (Haug et al. 1993). They tend to be
opportunistic feeders. They have one nest annually but they sometimes re-nest if their first nest
is destroyed. Clutch sizes range for 3 to 12 eggs.
The Canadian National Recovery Plan for the Burrowing Owl (Canadian Burrowing Owl
Recovery Team), Haug et al. (1993) and an earlier biological evaluation for burrowing owls
prepared by Region 2 of the Forest Service were primary references consulted for additional
information and descriptions for this species.
H-118
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. They are known to
occur on all NFS units in the planning area except the Sheyenne National Grassland.
Burrowing owls have been essentially extirpated from eastern North Dakota over the last 15 to
30 years (Murphy et al. 1998).
Maps of prairie dog colonies (burrowing owl habitat) maintained by the Forest Service were
reviewed for this evaluation. As previously mentioned, active prairie dog colonies are prime
burrowing owl habitat. The current and predicted 10-year acreage of active prairie dog colonies
for each National Grassland and Forest in the planning area have already been presented in the
black-footed ferret and prairie dog assessment (pages 27, 78 and 79).
Their breeding range covers most of the western half of the United States.
Habitat
Prairie dog colonies are the preferred habitat of burrowing owls in the western part of the
planning area, and all prairie dog colonies are considered potential burrowing owl habitat.
Prairie dog colonies provide burrows and early successional grasslands with low structure that
burrowing owls prefer (McCraken, Uresk, and Hansen 1985, Plumpton 1992). Evidence
suggests that burrowing owl productivity may be increase with increasing colony size
(Desmond et al. 1995, Pezzolesi 1994). Prairie dog colonies that fail to repopulate after
poisoning remain suitable for owls for a while but eventually degrade and become unsuitable
(Desmond 1991). In Nebraska, burrowing owls also used abandoned badger holes as burrows
(Desmond 1991). Observations of non-breeding burrowing owls on the Nebraska National
Forest (PRRD) and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest, where there are no prairie dog
colonies, have been incidental.
Richardson’s ground squirrels (Spermophilus richardsonii) colonies are used by nesting
burrowing owls in the eastern part of the planning area (Konrad and Gilmer 1984). Burrowing
owls are territorial around their nests. Brood and breeding pair densities on the Badlands
National Park and Buffalo Gap National Grassland ranged from approximately 100 to 170 acres
per brood/breeding pair (Martell et al. 1993).
Conservation Planning
Canada has a recent national recovery plan for the species (Canadian Burrowing Owl Recovery
Team 1995). Much of their conservation measures involve retaining rodent populations and
restricting grasshopper spraying.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Poisoning of prairie dogs reduces and further fragments burrowing owl habitat. However, the
risk of primary or secondary poisoning of burrowing owls during rodent poisoning appears to
be negligible (James et al. 1990). The acres of active prairie dog colonies currently on each
National Grassland and Forest and expected over the next 10 years under each alternative is
presented in the black-tailed prairie dog evaluation in this document. Prairie dogs are also
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-119
popular targets for many recreational shooters. Burrowing owls can be accidentally shot by
prairie dog shooters. Prairie dog shooting could also indirectly affect availability of prairie dog
colonies as burrowing owl habitat. See the preceding prairie dog evaluation in this report for
more additional information on the effects of prairie dog shooting. Regulating shooting of
prairie dogs is recognized by the Forest Service as being primarily under state authority.
However, the Forest Service can issue closure orders for prohibiting specific activities including
shooting or the discharge of firearms.
Livestock grazing at moderate and high intensities can improve habitat for this species by
reducing vegetation cover and encouraging growth and establishment of prairie dog colonies.
Since grasshoppers and other invertebrates are important prey species for burrowing owls, it is
possible that grasshopper spraying on rangelands could negatively impact owls on their
breeding range.
Cumulative Effects
Continued use of insecticides and conversion of rangeland to croplands can be expected to
occur on private lands (Finch 1991). Approximately 55% of all prairie dog colonies occur on
private and state lands (Mulhern and Knowles 1995). It is likely that reductions in prairie dog
populations on private lands through poisoning, loss of habitat (cultivation), and shooting will
continue.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Livestock grazing permittees or grazing associations commonly request prairie dog poisoning
on NFS lands to reduce forage consumption and clipping by prairie dogs.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3,14,15), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3,14,15), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3,14,15), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3)
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64, MA3.63(4&5)
Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1, MA3.63(4&5)
H-120
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. None
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction
See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction
See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5 - Short-term viability assuming no plague risk
LMNG, GR/CRNG, FPNG, BG/OGNG, TBNG, NNF (BRD)
A determination of "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of
viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability
rangewide" is concluded for short-term viability of prairie dog populations and associated
burrowing owl habitat. This determination assumes no active plague in prairie dog colonies in
the future. The rationale for this determination is that almost every prairie dog colony and
colony complex on mixed and shortgrass prairie expand and appear to serve as "source"
populations in the absence of rodenticides, plague and excessive shooting and in the presence of
livestock grazing.
The prairie dog populations on the Nebraska National Forest (BRD) may not be viable because
of marginal habitat (loose sandy soils and other unfavorable habitat characteristics). This puts
burrowing owl habitat at risk on this unit but this appears not to be the result of Forest Service
actions.
Alternatives 1-5 - Long-term Viability With Plague Risk)
LMNG, GR/CRNG, FPNG, BG/OGNG, TBNG, NNF (BRD)
Because of burrowing owl dependence on prairie dog colonies on the northern plains, the
determinations for long-term viability of prairie dog populations are the same for burrowing
owls.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-121
Consultation and Reviews
California Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana)
Species Description
The subspecies, Ovis canadensis auduboni, originally occupied the northern plains, including the
eastern portions of Wyoming and Montana and western North Dakota, South Dakota and
Nebraska (Jones et al. 1983). The last known survivors in western North Dakota, Nebraska and
South Dakota were recorded in 1905, 1918 and 1924, respectively (Jones et al. 1983). The last
known Audubon was shot in eastern Pennington County, South Dakota, not too far from the
present day Buffalo Gap National Grassland. In addition to hunting, disease associated with
domestic and feral livestock probably also contributed their demise of this species (Knue 1991).
The subspecies, Ovis canadensis californiana and canadensis, are being reintroduced in an effort to
return bighorn sheep to the badlands and grasslands of this region. It is important to note that
some taxonomists believe the evidence to recognize the Audubon bighorn as a subspecies is
very weak (Jones et al. 1983).
Bighorns are highly social animals that usually separate into ram bands, and nursery bands
comprised of ewes, lambs, and subadults. After 2 years of age, young rams leave the nursery
herd to join a ram band. The bands are organized into social hierarchies where rank is
determined by strength and horn size, which are related to age. Adult bighorns reach sexual
maturity at about 2-3 years of age. Breeding season occurs in November and December when
rams aggressively compete for females. Bighorns are promiscuous, but most of the breeding is
performed by dominant rams. Lambing occurs in May and June, usually a single lamb per ewe,
and twins are rare. Ewes and lambs band together in nursery herds.
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. Distribution of
California bighorn sheep on NFS lands in the planning area is limited to the Little Missouri
National Grassland. In 1956, 18 California bighorn sheep from British Columbia were
reintroduced to the North Dakota badlands along Magpie Creek. A number of additional
transplants have occurred since then resulting in a herd of 250 to 270 sheep (Jensen 1992).
Four potential bighorn sheep metapopulations that utilize substantial portions of the Little
Missouri National Grassland have been identified by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department (Jensen 1992). Using a minimum viable population estimate of 125 sheep (Smith et al.
1991) per metapopulation, the Southern Badlands metapopulation comes close to meeting the
minimum. However, additional protected habitat and release areas are needed to supplement
existing herds and to approximate or exceed the minimum viable population in the remaining
metapopulations located north of I-94. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department in
cooperation with the Forest Service has identified those additional portions of the Little
Missouri National Grassland needed to help increase the individual metapopulations and
overall population on the National Grassland and adjoining areas. It’s estimated that the total
H-122
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
sheep population could increase to over 400 animals with the additional releases and protected
habitat on the National Grassland.
It is important to note that the minimum viable population of 125 animals recommended by
Smith et al. 1991) is based on a 95% probability of surviving at least 100 years.
Maps of occupied and potential bighorn sheep habitat maintained by the Forest Service were
reviewed for this evaluation.
Habitat
Bighorn sheep are well-adapted to a wide variety of habitats. In the planning area they use
badlands and other steep grassland topography as their primary escape cover. Sheep in North
Dakota are primarily browsers with buffaloberry being an important diet component (Jones et
al. 1983). They also feed on grasses, sedges and forbs.
Conservation Planning
Jensen (1992) presents a good conservation strategy for this species on the Little Missouri
National Grassland and vicinity.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Sweanor et al. 1994, Sayre 1996 and Feist 1997 were the primary references consulted for
identifying potential effects.
Bighorn sheep are sensitive to disturbance and may become susceptible to disease when
stressed. Management activities that displace or disturb bighorn, especially when lambing, can
negatively affect reproduction. Sayre (1996) concluded that the most significant disturbance to
bighorns in North Dakota was vehicle traffic and activity associated with oil well maintenance.
Bighorn sheep are susceptible to disease spread by domestic sheep and goats. Coyote predation
on lambs may be a problem in reintroduction programs. Fences, if improperly constructed,
could interfere with bighorn movements and could also result in direct mortality. Fire suppression can result in increased juniper cover which reduces habitat suitability for bighorns.
Livestock grazing could either enhance or degrade forage availability and quality for bighorn
sheep, depending primarily on the timing and intensity of the grazing.
Wilderness status would prohibit motorized travel and reduce development and associated
impacts on bighorn sheep. However, if dispersed recreation use increases as a result of
wilderness status, impacts to bighorns associated with human disturbance would likely
increase. Wild river status could result in increased dispersed recreation use which would
increase impacts to bighorn sheep associated with human disturbance.
Cumulative Effects
Oil and gas development activities are occurring on adjoining private lands.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-123
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.
Wilderness and wild river designations could eventually result in wilderness and wild river
status. This could reduce disturbances associated with traffic.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1),GO1.3, GO1.8
SG-D(3,6,12), SG-F(4,26-28), SG-G(2,3), SGI9, SG -M(1,3), SG-Q(1,2,12-14)
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA1.31(10), MA3.51
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A6, GA2-B(1&2), GA3-B1
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix B (LRMP) for big game fence specifications direction
NA
NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
The number and total acreage of 3.51 management areas for bighorn sheep on the Little
Missouri National Grassland varies by alternative as follows:
H-124
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
LMNG
Acres
27,940
118,840
118,720
124,270
118,800
Alternative
1
2
3
4
5
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternative 1
LMNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Although the Southern Badlands metapopulation would likely maintain the species on the
National Grassland and adjoining lands under this alternative, one or more of the northern
metapopulations could be lost without continued supplemental releases.
Alternatives 2-5
LMNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Beneficial effects for bighorn sheep obviously accrue from this management direction, but the
overall determination results from possible impacts from concurrent land uses, including oil
and gas development, mineral development and human disturbance. The allocation of habitat
for the additional proposed release areas for bighorn sheep management and allocation of
substantial areas of bighorn habitat to "backcountry recreation nonmotorized" on the Little
Missouri National Grassland represents a substantial commitment to an intensive bighorn sheep
restoration and management program.
Consultation and Reviews
Merlin (Falco columbarius)
Species Description
Richardson’s merlin (Falco columbarius richardsonii) is the subspecies of this small falcon that
inhabits the sparsely wooded grasslands in the northern Great Plains (Becker and Sieg 1987).
Their breeding range includes western North and South Dakota, northwestern Nebraska and
northern Wyoming. They’re primarily monogomous and raise a single brood annually. They
usually do not build their own nests but instead use old magpie, crow or hawk nests where they
will lay 1 to 8 eggs (mean = 4) (Sodhi et al. 1993). Small birds are their primary prey but they
also consume small mammals, insects and reptiles (Sodhi et al. 1993). Merlins can be found on
the northern plains yearlong although they are considered neotropical migrants.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-125
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The merlin is known
to occur on all units except the Sheyenne National Grassland. Although not confirmed, it is
suspected of occurring on the Grand River/Cedar River National Grasslands. Nesting is known
to occur on the Little Missouri National Grassland and fledglings have been observed on the
Nebraska National Forest (PRRD).
Merlins are wide-spread and breed throughout the northern forests and prairies of North
America, Europe and Asia. Merlin in the western portions of Canada and the Unites States
winter from southern Canada south into South America (Sodhi 1993).
Habitat
Merlins use diverse habitats and prey. This includes urban environments as well as open
country. Preferred habitats in the planning area consists of a mosaic of ponderosa pine stands,
riparian areas and grassland/sagebrush rangelands (Becker and Sieg 1987). The sagebrush and
grassland habitats are preferred hunting areas during the breeding season. Nesting frequently
occurs in deciduous riparian forests or in relatively open ponderosa pine stands on side slopes
along sagebrush or grassland ecotones (Sieg and Becker 1990). Home ranges varied from 13-28
square kilometers in southeastern Montana (Becker and Sieg 1987).
Conservation Planning
Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been prepared for this species.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Intensive grazing by livestock and over-grazing can lead to a decrease in the vegetative
diversity of sagebrush/grassland habitats, with a responding decrease in merlin prey diversity
(Becker and Sieg 1987, Becker 1984). Disturbances involving oil and gas activities, timber
management or other activities can result in nest abandonment. Grasshopper spraying could
reduce insect prey availability for merlins. Timber management can destroy nests and nesting
habitat. Timber management prescriptions that maintain open ponderosa pine stands and
reduce catastrophic fires can help maintain merlin nesting habitat.
Cumulative Effects
All of the activities listed above under direct and indirect effects are likely occurring on private
lands.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.
H-126
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Determining ponderosa pine forests to be within the suitable timber base can result in precommercial thinning and commercial timber sales. Wilderness and wild river designations
could eventually result in wilderness and wild river status. This could likely reduce disturbances associated with traffic.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(5,12, 13), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SG-M(1,3), SG-P(3,8)
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(5,12, 13), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SG-M(1,3), SG-P(3,8)
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(5,12, 13), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SG-M(1,3), SG-P(3,8)
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA1.31(10), MA2.1, MA3.64, MA5.12
Nebraska N.F. Units MA1.31(10), MA2.1, MA3.64, MA5.12
Thunder Basin N.G. MA1.31(10), MA2.1, MA5.12
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA2-B1, GA3-B1
Nebraska N.F. Units GA11-B&C
Thunder Basin N.G. None
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Emphasize low to moderate livestock grazing intensities on sagebrush/grassland habitat
within several miles of active nests (Becker 1984).
b. Timber management prescriptions for ponderosa pine on side slopes should be designed
to protect existing nests, prevent catastrophic stand-replacing fires and maintain open
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-127
stands. Include desired forest vegetation conditions (for open ponderosa pine stands)
as standards and guidelines to Management Area 5.12 or to Geographic Area Descriptions for Oglala and Thunder Basin National Grasslands.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5
All Units Except SNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide".
Consultation and Reviews
Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)
Species Description
The goshawk is the largest member of the North American genus Accipiter. Some remain in
planning area yearlong while others occur primarily as migrants and winter visitants. This
species preys on medium to large sized birds and small mammals, including American robins
(Turdus migratorius), grouse, woodpeckers, tree squirrels, and grouse (Squires and Reynolds
1997). Most nests will contain 2 to 4 eggs.
Squirres and Reynolds (1997), Bock et al. (1994), Reynolds et al. (1992), and The Wildlife Society
(1996) were primary references consulted for additional information and descriptions.
A biological evaluation prepared in 1996 by Forest Service biologists for the Land and Resource
Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest was also a valuable reference for this
species.
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The species is known
to occur, possibly as a breeder, on the Thunder Basin National Grassland and is suspected to
occur as winter migrant on the Nebraska National Forest (PRRD) and Oglala, Buffalo Gap, Fort
Pierre, Grand River/Cedar River, Little Missouri and Sheyenne National Grasslands. However,
no nesting is known to occur on the NFS units in the planning area.
Northern goshawks breed from western and central Alaska and northern Yukon to Labrador
and Newfoundland, south to southern Alaska, central California, southern New Mexico,
western South Dakota, northern Minnesota, and northwestern Connecticut, and in the northern
Appalachian Mountains (DeGraaf 1991).
H-128
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Habitat
The northern goshawk is a forest habitat generalist that uses a wide variety of forest conditions.
Nests in the planning area primarily in mature, dense ponderosa pine with canopy closures of
60 to 85% and at least 120 square feet basal areas (Erickson 1987, Bartelt 1977). Nest trees in the
Black Hills ranged from 8 to 16 inches diameter at breast height. As many as 2 to 4 alternate
nests may be used by pairs and some nests may not be used for several years and then reused.
Although nest sites are usually located in dense forest stands, they also tend to be near a forest
opening or road (Erickson 1987; Speiser and Bosakowski 1987; Bartelt 1977). Bartelt (1977) felt
that increasing the number of small (less than one acre) openings in the forest canopy would
increase the amount of suitable nesting habitat. He also found dense pole or post pine to be
associated with all of his nest sites.
Because nest stands are not static elements, replacement stands managed for good nest site
attributes should be considered in management strategies (Reynolds et al. 1992). Forest
management is a viable tool for goshawk conservation, if key features such as well-canopied
stands of mature trees and mature forest edges are sustained (Hargis et al. 1994). Emphasis
should be on a diversity of seral stages, including mature, and avoidance of large tracts of
homogenous, mid-seral stands. Large clearcuts can be more deleterious than commercial thins,
shelterwood and sanitation cuts (Woodbridge and Detrich 1994).
Goshawks hunt in various habitats including open sagebrush and grasslands, riparian
deciduous forests and coniferous forests. Since goshawks need relatively open understories for
efficient hunting (Speiser and Bosakowske 1987), denser understories can reduce foraging
habitat quality in forested environments.
Conservation Planning
A statewide or regional habitat conservation strategy has not been prepared for this species.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Disturbance during the nesting period can cause nest abandonment (Reynolds et al. 1992;
Bartelt 1977). Reynolds et al. (1992) recommended minimizing human presence until young
leave the area (approximately March 1 through September 30). Timber management could
result in destruction of nests and alteration of foraging habitat and prey availability.
Fire suppression has caused many ponderosa pine stands to become denser with considerably
more trees in the understory. The increased ladder fuels translate into a greater potential for
stand-replacing fires and loss of preferred goshawk nesting habitat. Dense stands also are more
vulnerable to insects and disease, especially mountain pine beetles. Thus, the potential for
sustaining a significant portion of the forest landscape in dense mature ponderosa pine in
tenuous.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-129
Cumulative Effects
The same impacts listed above under Direct and Indirect Effects are probably occurring on
private and state lands.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.
Determining ponderosa pine forests to be within the suitable timber base can result in precommercial thinning and commercial timber sales. Wilderness and wild river designations
could eventually result in wilderness and wild river status. This could likely reduce disturbances associated with traffic.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(5,16), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SG-M(1,3), SG-P(3,8)
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1, MA1.31(10), MA5.12
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. None
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
H-130
NA
NA
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units NA
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
The habitat guidelines presented for this species in the Black Hills National Forest LRMP and
Biological Evaluation should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction:
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5
LMNG, SNG, GRCRNG, FPNG, BGNG, ONG
Determination is "no impact". Breeding does not apparently occur in the vicinity of these NFS
units. Use of these areas by this species is rare and incidental, and it’s highly unlikely that NFS
activities and allocations would negatively impact individuals or their habitat.
Alternatives 1-5
TBNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide".
Although the Thunder Basin National Grassland is within the breeding range of this species,
nesting has not been confirmed and the amount of potential breeding habitat is minimal to
insignificant when considering the amount of potential goshawk habitat within the planning
unit.
Consultation and Reviews
Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)
Species Description
This species, the largest member of the Tetraonidae family, is a sagebrush obligate. Sage grouse
are unique in that they lack a muscular gizzard like other gallinaceous birds and cannot grind
and digest seeds (Wallestad 1975). So they feed exclusively on soft material, mostly sagebrush
(Artemesia) during the winter and a combined diet of sagebrush and various forbs during the
spring and summer. Juveniles initially consume a diet of forbs and invertebrates. Although
sage grouse can make significant seasonal movements, they’re considered nonmigratory in the
planning area. Like other grouse, they utilize communal display grounds called strutting
grounds for courtship and breeding. They have a single nest annually with a clutch of usually
6 to 13 eggs. Some re-nesting may occur if the first nest is destroyed.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-131
It’s possible that the species will soon be separated into 2 separate species, Gunnison sage
grouse (C. minimus) and the northern sage grouse (C. urophasianus).
A biological evaluation prepared by U.S. Forest Service biologists in 1995 for this species was a
primary reference for additional information and descriptions for sage grouse. Other key
references consulted for additional information included Braun et al. (1977) and numerous
abstracts presented at the Western States Sage/Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Workshop held
July 26-28, 1993, in Fort Collins, Colorado and the 7th International Grouse Symposium also
held in Fort Collins, August 20-24, 1996.
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The species occurs
on the Little Missouri, Buffalo Gap (Fall River County) and Thunder Basin National Grasslands.
The potential and occupied habitat on the Little Missouri National Grassland is limited to
approximately 5,500 acres. The number of display grounds is currently thought to be between
20 to 25. Approximately 3,000 acres of the 11,000 potential habitat acres on the Buffalo Gap
National Grassland are occupied and only 1 display ground was located in 1998. Sage grouse
occupy over 500,000 acres on the Thunder Basin National Grassland and between 25 and 30
display grounds have been recently located on this unit. Maps of sage grouse display grounds
and sagebrush habitat maintained by the Forest Service were consulted for this evaluation.
This species historically occurred in at least 14 states and 3 provinces in western North America
(Braun 1993). They are now extirpated from Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Kansas,
Nebraska and British Columbia. Populations in North and South Dakota are probably marginal
as are those in Colorado, California, Utah and Washington. Secure statewide populations now
occur only in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Wyoming, although small population
extinctions are probably occurring in those states (Braun 1993). Long-term trends in 5 states
that monitor sage grouse production indicate that productivity has fallen 26% over the last 10
years (Connelly and Braun 1996).
Habitat
Sagebrush shrubland is the habitat of the sage grouse. Sagebrush is the primary food of sage
grouse during the summer and is almost the exclusive diet during winter. Almost all sage
grouse activity occurs in sagebrush or in meadows or openings adjacent to sagebrush. Because
of this, they are considered habitat specialists. Most nests are found under or adjacent to a
sagebrush canopy. Studies in Wyoming and other states have demonstrated that nesting sage
grouse select for areas with > 20% canopy cover of big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata) and
typically nest where the tallest sagebrush and tallest and densest grass occurs (Heath et al. 1996,
Wakkinen 1992, Webb 1993, Sveum et al. 1998). Having tall and dense residual herbaceous
cover left over from the previous growing and grazing season appears to be a critical habitat
component since nest construction and egg-laying begins in April before spring growth. Young
broods are typically found in areas with less canopy cover and more forbs but move to the
denser sagebrush in the fall. Optimum winter habitat includes areas with the tallest sagebrush
where grouse can still find and forage on sagebrush during periods of deep snow. Sagebrush
height for winter foraging is especially important on the grasslands since the naturally shorter
Wyoming big sagebrush (A. tridentata wyomingensis) is the dominant upland sage, as compared
H-132
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
to the taller mountain big sagebrush (A. tridentata vaseyana) that occurs across much of the sage
grouse habitat occurring in foothills and mountain habitat.
Across much of the mountain range of the sage grouse, species composition and structure of
their sagebrush habitat varies greatly in time and space as a function of climate, geology,
topography, soils and disturbance. The variability of the basin and range landscape enables
sage grouse to be mobile to find preferred seasonal habitat components (Miller and Eddleman
1996). However, the sagebrush habitat for this species on the National Grasslands is much less
varied due to the flat to gently rolling topography and other factors. This may make the species
and it’s habitat on the northern plains more vulnerable to habitat alteration.
Conservation Planning
Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been developed for sage grouse in
the planning area. Petitions to have the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list both species as
threatened under ESA are expected soon.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Spraying sagebrush with herbicides can reduce habitat suitability for sage grouse due to loss of
sagebrush and reduced abundance of preferred forb species. Livestock grazing can cause
unfavorable changes in plant species composition and structure on sagebrush dominated
shrublands. Disturbance can cause disruption of breeding or abandonment of display grounds.
Since grasshoppers and other insects are important foods for sage grouse broods, it is possible
that grasshopper spraying on rangelands could negatively impact sage grouse populations.
Cumulative Effects
The same impacts listed above under Direct and Indirect Effects are probably occurring on
private and state lands.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-133
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(1,2), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1), GO1.8
SG-F(1-4,19,34-42), SG-I(3,4,6), SG-M(1,3)
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(1,2), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1), GO1.8
SG-F(1-4,19,34-42), SG-I(3,4,6), SG-M(1,3)
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(1,2), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1), GO1.8
SG-F(1-4,19,34-42), SG-I(3,4,6), SG-M(1,3)
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA3-A1,GA3-E1
Nebraska N.F. Units GA5-A(1,2),GA5-E1
Thunder Basin N.G. GA1-A1, GA1-E1, GA2-A1, GA2-E1, GA3-A1, GA3-D1, GA4-A1, GA4-D1,
GA5-A1, GA5-E1, GA6-A1, GA6-E1
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. None
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Within 3 years, identify nesting, brooding and wintering habitat for sage grouse and
prioritize for habitat suitability evaluations and habitat enhancement.
b. Within 5 years, identify population goals for the small sage grouse populations for each
National Grassland in cooperation with the State wildlife agencies. Also identify any
linkages with other populations.
H-134
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
c. Adopt, modify as biologically appropriate for the northern plains, and implement the
most recent "Guidelines for Habitat Protection in Sage Grouse Range" developed by the
Western States Sage Grouse Committee.
d. Do not prescribe burn or spray herbicides in nesting and brooding habitat of sage
grouse.
e. This species should be prioritized for preparation of a conservation strategy.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-2
BGNG, LMNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal
listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." The sage grouse populations on both
National Grasslands are dangerously small and the primary concern is viability in the planning
area. Active restoration of native sagebrush and associated forb communities and management
of sage grouse are needed to help maintain or enhance sage grouse habitat and populations on
these NFS units. This includes making necessary adjustments in livestock grazing strategies as
well as other management actions that are not specifically addressed or prioritized under these
alternatives.
This determination could be reduced in severity for Alternative 2 by adopting the sagebrush
and sage grouse management direction provided under Alternatives 3, 4 and 5. However, it is
acknowledged that the sage grouse population on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland may be
so low that it is beyond recovery regardless of conservation measures.
TBNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Sage grouse populations are more widespread on this National Grassland and are probably
linked with other populations.
Alternatives 3-5
BGNG, LMNG, TBNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Active management actions prescribed under these alternatives, if implemented, would result in
better protected and improved habitat and stricter regulation of disturbance-causing activities.
However, it’s acknowledged that it may be too late for the Buffalo Gap National Grassland
population and extirpation of this small population may occur at anytime, regardless of
management efforts.
Greater Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus)
Species Description
Overall, the pinnated grouse (prairie chickens) have done poorly in the path of Euro-American
civilization. Of the 3 subspecies of prairie chickens still in existence, the greater prairie chicken
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-135
(T. c. pinnatus) remains the most abundant. The Atwater prairie chicken (T. c. attwateri) is
classified as endangered under ESA and is near extinction in the wild, and the lesser prairie
chicken (T. c. pallidicinctus) is a candidate for protection under ESA. The heath hen or eastern
pinnated grouse (T. c. cupido) was classified as extinct in 1932. Although locally abundant in a
few places, the greater prairie chicken has also undergone considerable reductions in distribution.
The greater prairie chicken is one of the more colorful and vocal avian residents of the prairie
and grasslands. They’ve also played significant cultural roles. They were a major export item
from these regions to eastern markets during the late 1800s and also helped feed many
pioneering families and railroaders on their journeys west. Many of the native American Indian
dances duplicate the unusual courtship displays of the prairie chicken and other prairie grouse.
Like sharp-tailed grouse and sage grouse, greater prairie chicken establish spring display
grounds for courtship and breeding. The location of some display grounds become traditional
and are used year after year or they may be used intermittently from one year to the next.
Shifts in annual locations of individual display grounds also occur in response to changing
cover conditions and other factors. The number of display grounds also varies with annual
fluctuations in prairie chicken populations. Hens usually nest once annually and clutch sizes
typically range from 9 to 14 eggs but may re-nest if their initial nest is destroyed (Johnsgard
1979). Although prairie chickens can make considerable seasonal movements, they are
considered non-migratory in the planning area. Their primary diet as adults is forb and grass
seeds supplemented occasionally with woody fruits and buds and insects. During winter they
increasingly rely on agricultural grains. However, on the Nebraska National Forest in the
Nebraska sandhills they seem to rely almost exclusively on native foods throughout the year.
Young broods rely strongly on a diet of insects and succulent greens.
Several key references were consulted and reviewed as part of this evaluation. Those publications included Prose (1985), Bjugstad (1987), Schroeder and Robb (1993), Kobriger (1964), and
Bergerud and Gratson (1988). The Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page was
also used to access Integrated Management of the Greater Prairie Chicken and Livestock on the
Sheyenne National Grassland by Svedarsky and Van Amburg (1996)
[http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/sheyenne/sheyenne.htm. version 16Jul97].
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. Greater prairie
chicken occur on the Sheyenne and Fort Pierre National Grasslands and the Nebraska and
Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests.
There’s over 100,000 acres of habitat for greater prairie chicken on the private and federal lands
within the Sheyenne National Grassland of which approximately 50,000 is on federal land.
Recent surveys have indicated approximately 20 active prairie chicken and mixed display
grounds in this area, most of which are on federal land. Annual counts of the number of males
on display grounds have been conducted most years since 1961 (Kobridger et al. 1987). The
number of males counted has fluctuated from a high of 410 (1980) to a low of 69 (1997) and
some of this variation is undoubtedly the result of varying survey methods and intensities.
Recent male counts are below the last 10 and 20 year averages of 173 and 215, respectively (B.
Stotts, official file correspondence). Based on the 1997 and 1998 display ground counts, prairie
H-136
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
chicken currently make up approximately 34% of the prairie grouse population on the National
Grassland.
Approximately 114,000 acres of the Fort Pierre National Grassland is considered greater prairie
chicken habitat. Recent surveys indicate there’s approximately 90 active prairie chicken and
mixed display grounds on or near the National Grassland. The number of males counted on
display grounds in a 10% block sample of this unit over the last ten years has varied from 12 to
the most recent inventory of 244 (1998). Extrapolating the average number of males per display
ground (7.6 per prairie chicken display ground and 3.8 per mixed display ground) to the
estimated number of active display grounds on the National Grassland results in a current
estimate of approximately 600 males for the entire unit. Assuming a 50:50 sex ratio, the
estimated pre-breeding prairie chicken population for the Fort Pierre National Grassland and
some of the adjoining private lands is approximately 1200 birds. This is undoubtedly an
underestimate for the National Grassland and all the intermingled private lands since some
prairie chicken display grounds on private lands were probably missed. Like elsewhere,
annual fluctuations in prairie chicken populations are to be expected and can be considerable,
especially during drought. Long-term population trend and the magnitude of annual fluctuation are more meaningful analyses. Enhanced nesting, brooding and roosting cover can reduce
the magnitude of annual population fluctuations during droughts. Based on the 1997 and 1998
display ground counts, prairie chicken currently make up approximately 78% of the prairie
grouse population on the National Grassland and have substantially increased over the last 5
years. This percentage has varied from 51 to 69% since monitoring began in 1992. Habitat
conditions have been enhanced over the last several years due to very favorable precipitation
and modified range management practices.
There are approximately 4,000 acres of primary habitat for prairie chicken in the larger valleys
of the Nebraska National Forest (Bessey Ranger District). The adjoining hills provide additional
habitat. Not all of the potential habitat is currently occupied by prairie chicken. Recent surveys
identified 9 active display grounds but additional grounds were likely missed. Reliable and
repeated counts of males on display grounds have not been made. No estimates of total
population of prairie chickens can be made since display ground surveys have been incomplete.
Based on the 1996 and 1997 harvests, prairie chicken currently make up approximately 21% of
the prairie grouse population on the National Forest (Len McDaniel, official file
correspondence). This percentage has varied from 0 to 36% since monitoring began in 1980.
There are approximately 31,000 acres of primary habitat in the larger valleys for prairie chicken
on the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest, and the adjoining hills provide additional habitat.
This habitat is essentially unoccupied by prairie chicken. Recent surveys identified 2 active
display grounds but they were present for only 1 year and were not observed subsequently.
It’s possible that one or more display grounds on the National Forest were probably missed.
Since harvests were first monitored in 1979, prairie chickens have made up 2% or less of the
annual prairie grouse population on the National Forest (Len McDaniel, official file
correspondence).
Descriptions of the original range-wide distribution and acquired range of the species are
provided in Schroeder and Robb (1993), and the following information on population trend for
the greater prairie chicken is provided by these authors:
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-137
State or Province
(Original Range)
Arkansas
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Wisconsin
(Acquired Range)
Alberta
Colorado
Manitoba
North Dakota
Ontario
Saskatchewan
Population Trend During Last 25 Years
Extirpated in 1913
No Change
Extirpated in 1972
Extirpated in 1984
Decreased
Extirpated in 1874
Decreased
Decreased
Decreased
Increased
Extirpated in 1934
Decreased
Decreased ?
Extirpated in 1850
Extirpated in 1925
Increased
Extirpated in 1965
No Change
Extirpated in 1970
Decreased
Extirpated in 1975
Extirpated in 1976
The acquired range referred to in the previous table included the states and provinces west and
north of the greater prairie chicken’s original range where the species expanded following the
demise of the great bison herds and the initial plowing of the drier prairies. This range
expansion likely occurred as a result of the increase in mid and tall grass species due to the
reduced bison grazing intensity and the availability of high-energy winter foods in the form of
cultivated crops (Schroeder and Robb 1993).
Habitat
Breeding: Displaying prairie chicken males prefer areas with short and sparse vegetation.
Where available, elevated sites are also frequently used for displaying and courtship activities.
Nesting: Greater prairie chickens on the grasslands in the planning area usually select the tallest
and densest mid and tall grass cover available for nesting. Quality nesting cover in this area is
generally found in areas that are annually grazed by livestock at light grazing intensities or in
areas that have received one or more years of rest from livestock grazing, burning or mowing
(undisturbed habitat). Cover can become too tall and dense in the more productive prairies
east of the planning area, but this is seldom a problem on most sites in the grasslands within
the planning area. Greater prairie chicken productivity is maximized where quality nesting
cover is provided over large areas, rather than as small islands or patches within a moderate or
H-138
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
heavily grazed landscape. Nest densities and overall prairie chicken production in the planning
area decrease as the nesting cover is reduced in height, density and patch size. Most nest sites
are selected and egg-laying initiated before significant spring plant growth so residual cover
from previous growing seasons is critical, especially during drought periods. There is also some
evidence of nest-site fidelity by nesting hens. Providing traditional nesting areas, while recognizing the need for periodic but infrequent disturbance, is probably beneficial in enhancing
prairie chicken production. Hens selecting nest sites also preferred pastures without livestock
present. Although mid to tall, warm-season grass species are more rigid and better withstand
snowpack, plant species composition of herbaceous nesting cover on the public rangelands in
the planning area does not seem overly important. The exception to this generalization is where
shortgrass species like blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) dominate a potential mid or tall grass site
because of extended heavy livestock grazing. In these cases, cover is usually insufficient to
attract, conceal or shelter a nesting hen.
Providing quality nesting cover on uplands rather than in lowlands subject to frequent flooding
is also important. On the Sheyenne National Grassland, important nesting habitat occurs in the
hummocky sandhills habitat association on mid and upland sites and on upland sites in the
deltaic plain habitat association (Manske and Barker 1987). On the mid-grass prairies of the Fort
Pierre National Grassland, nesting occurred primarily on rolling and flat uplands and seldom
along lowland drainages (Rice and Carter 1984). However, unlike sharp-tailed grouse that
frequently nest in the steeper hills, greater prairie chickens in the Nebraska sandhills nest
primarily in the more productive valleys and meadows, including areas approaching a wetlands
classification (Len McDaniel, personal communication, Kobriger 1964).
Brooding: Broods need some disturbed habitats (grazed, mowed, or burned) reasonably close to
the nesting habitat. Broods seem to prefer areas disturbed in previous years and not during the
current year. Quality brood habitat provides a mosaic of structural stages from tall and dense
vegetation patches for shelter and protection to more open vegetation for ease of mobility and
foraging on insects and succulent greens.
Roosting: Prairie chickens roost on the ground in the night. Preferred vegetation structure at
night roosts is mid and tall vegetation typically 2.0 dm VOR or greater. Like sharp-tailed
grouse, greater prairie chickens will use snow burrows for roosting when snow depths are
adequate.
Winter: Most northern plains grasslands typically provide marginal high-energy winter foods
for prairie chickens. Winter grains on private croplands including corn, sorghum and
sunflower are important winter staples, especially during periods of deep snow. However, in
the Nebraska sandhills, winter grains are less critical, and it appears that some prairie chicken
populations generally find sufficient high-energy foods such as rose hips in the native grasslands.
Conservation Planning
Apparently secure prairie chicken populations exist across much of the Nebraska sandhills
including the Nebraska National Forest (Bessey Ranger District). Long-term trends in South
Dakota populations are downward, but the prairie chicken population on the Fort Pierre
National Grassland seems reasonably secure although the effects of future extended droughts
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-139
on this population need to be closely monitored. Additional conservation planning to ensure
viability appears to be currently unnecessary for these units.
Prairie chickens are essentially absent from the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest even
though there’s potential habitat on the unit. There’s also nearby huntable populations. A
comprehensive conservation strategy to promote viable populations on this large public area
has not been developed.
The species is protected yearlong in North Dakota, and a literature review and background
study that addresses prairie chicken on the Sheyenne National Grassland has been recently
prepared. This study includes a set of prairie chicken management recommendations, and
efforts to develop a comprehensive conservation strategy by the Forest Service, North Dakota
Game and Fish Department, and others to implement the recommendations are continuing.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Livestock grazing during droughts can further reduce the quality and quantity of nesting,
brooding and roosting cover thereby exasperating the negative effects of drought on prairie
chicken habitat and populations. Annual livestock grazing at moderate and high grazing intensities can reduce and eliminate quality nesting cover. It can also encourage changes in plant
species composition that reduce the ability of range sites to produce quality nesting cover, even
in the absence of annual livestock grazing. Annual livestock grazing in planned grazing
systems at light grazing intensities can improve the quality of brood habitat. Livestock grazing
systems that combine periodic annual rest (undisturbed habitat) between periods of light to
moderate grazing intensities can improve the quality of nesting and brooding habitat. Livestock
grazing can also influence predator populations, hunting efficiency of predators and ultimately
prairie chicken survival and nest success.
Coyote reductions on the Sheyenne and Fort Pierre National Grasslands to reduce losses to
permitted livestock and livestock on adjoining private lands can indirectly result in increases in
red fox , a more serious threat to prairie chicken.
Continued spread of leafy spurge on the Sheyenne National Grassland can further deteriorate
prairie chicken habitat both displacing native vegetation and increasing competition between
prairie chickens and permitted livestock for a decreasing base of grassland vegetation. On the
other hand, use of herbicides to reduce and control leafy spurge can reduce important forbs and
other plants used by prairie chicken.
Mowing can influence suitability of nesting and brooding habitat either favorably or negatively,
based on timing, extent, location and frequency. Mowing can also help control development of
undesirable woody vegetation in or near brooding, nesting and roosting habitat.
Prescribed burning can influence suitability of nesting and brooding habitat either favorably or
negatively, based on timing, location and extent. Burning can also help control development of
undesirable woody vegetation in or near brooding, nesting and roosting habitat.
Human disturbance can cause disruption of breeding or abandonment of display grounds.
Since grasshoppers and other insects are important foods for prairie chickens and their broods,
it’s possible that grasshopper spraying on rangelands could negatively impact prairie chicken
populations.
H-140
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Gallinaceous birds are vulnerable to grain-based rodenticides. Prairie chickens could be
poisoned by rodenticides being used to reduce or eliminate prairie dog populations.
Expansion of prairie dog colonies could, depending on colony distribution and extent of expansion, create an unfavorable or more favorable balance of nesting, breeding and brooding habitat
for prairie chickens on the Fort Pierre National Grassland.
Cumulative Effects
The same impacts listed above under Direct and Indirect Effects are probably occurring or have
the same or greater likelihood of occurring on private and state lands. In addition, loss of native
grasslands to cultivation continues on private lands. The continued loss of native grasslands on
private land has been substantial in the vicinity of the Sheyenne National Grassland, and much
of the new cropland is being allocated to potato production that provides no value to prairie
chickens.
Most meadows on private sandhill ranches are mowed annually for hay production and the
stubble is then sometimes grazed by livestock. Although this may be beneficial for broods, it
can reduce the amount of quality nesting habitat below critical levels if other quality nesting
cover is not available in adjoining areas.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1), GO1.8
SG-F(1-4,19-21,43-46), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3)
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1), GO1.8
SG-F(1-4,19-21,43-46), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3)
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64, MA3.66
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, 3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA4-A(1,2), GA4-B1, GA4-C1, GA4-E1
Nebraska N.F. Units GA1-A1, GA1-C1, GA1-E1, GA2-A1, GA2-C1, GA2-E1, GA9-A1, GA9-C1, GA9-E1
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-141
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
All recommendations and comments presented on pages 92 through 97 of the report by
Svedarsky and Van Amburg (1996) should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction for the Sheyenne National Grassland. Some but not all of these recommendations are
included in the recommended conservation measures listed below:
a. Evaluate the probable effects of coyote reductions on the Sheyenne National Grassland
to reduce livestock losses on red fox populations. Increases in red fox populations
resulting from reduced coyote populations would likely result in increased prairie
chicken predation and mortality.
b. On the Sheyenne National Grassland, conduct an active lowland burning and mowing
program but leave a third of the lowlands in prairie chicken habitat undisturbed for a
year.
c. Conduct an active program of tree removal (especially eastern red cedar on Samuel R.
McKelvie and Nebraska National Forests) in existing prairie chicken nesting, brooding
and roosting habitat.
d. Do not plant trees in prairie chicken habitat.
e. Provide quality residual nesting cover well distributed on at least 30% of the occupied
and potential prairie chicken nesting habitat. Maximize the size of nesting cover blocks.
f.
In cooperation with the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, develop and implement
a conservation strategy for securing prairie chicken populations on the Samuel R.
McKelvie National Forest. The conservation strategy should prioritize habitats located
in the large broad valleys and flats located along Steer Creek and just south of the
Niobrara River.
g. Conduct and evaluate an aggressive and timely program of burning and spring livestock
grazing to restore native warm-season grasses on midland and upland sites for prairie
chickens on the Sheyenne National Grassland. Some cultivation and native grass
reseeding may be needed for high priority sites.
H-142
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
h. Consult and cooperate with North Dakota Game and Fish Department on opportunities
for establishing strategically located winter feeding areas on the Sheyenne National
Grassland.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-2
SNG, SRMNF
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal
listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." The prairie chicken population on the
Sheyenne National Grassland is dangerously small and the primary concern is viability in the
planning area, not rangewide viability. Also, the prairie chicken population on the Sheyenne
National Grassland is essentially isolated with no linkages to other secure and stable populations. It is also threatened by the continued spread of leafy spurge. These 2 alternatives fail to
prescribe an aggressive and timely program of habitat restoration for this species including
adjustments in mowing, burning and livestock grazing practices to substantially benefit prairie
chickens. Additional priority is also needed to intensify leafy spurge control on the Sheyenne
National Grassland.
There is essentially no prairie chicken population on the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest.
Small groups of prairie chickens periodically try to establish on the unit but they are consistently unsuccessful due to several reasons including a lack of suitable nesting cover. It’s
recognized that this unit is on the western edge of the current prairie chicken distribution, but a
substantial amount of potentially suitable habitat exists on the unit. These 2 alternatives fail to
establish a deliberate and proactive prescription to secure stable and viable prairie chicken
population on this unit.
This determination could be reduced to "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to
result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of
species viability rangewide" for Alternative 2 if all or most of the conservation measures listed
on the previous page were adopted.
Alternatives 3-5
SNG, SRMNF
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
This determination assumes full implementation of the management actions prescribed under
these alternatives and also assumes that all or most of the conservation measures recommended
above is included in the final direction. Otherwise, the most appropriate determination would
likely be the same as that given for Alternatives 1 and 2 above.
Alternatives 1,3,4 and 5
FPNG, NNF (BRD)
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Prairie chicken populations under the current land management programs (Alternative 1) on
both units appear to be secure and viable, at least for the short term. Prairie chickens on both
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-143
units are part of larger populations that extend beyond NFS boundaries. However, prairie
chicken numbers on both units should continue to be monitored to determine their ability to
remain viable and recover after extended droughts that will undoubtedly occur in the future.
Habitat suitability for greater prairie chickens are expected to be enhanced over that occurring
under Alternative 1 due to lighter livestock grazing intensities and more high structure grasslands under Alternatives 3,4 and 5. Prairie dog population expansion levels expected to occur
on the Fort Pierre National Grassland under Alternatives 3,4 and 5 are not expected to significantly decrease overall habitat suitability for prairie chickens over the planning period since
high-structure grasslands on the national grassland are either unsuitable or marginally suitable
for prairie dogs.
Alternative 2
FPNG, NNF (BRD)
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal
listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." The primary concern is viability in the
planning area, not rangewide viability. Under this alternative, emphasis on livestock grazing
would likely result in reduced and insufficient amounts of quality nesting and brooding cover
to maintain prairie chicken populations, especially during droughts.
This determination could be reduced to "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to
result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of
species viability rangewide" if all or most of the conservation measures listed on the previous
page were adopted.
Consultation and Reviews
Len McDaniel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Larry Fredrickson, retired, South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department.
Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
Species Description
This widespread grassland species occurs as a breeding summer migrant in the planning area.
Their prey consists of a wide variety of small birds, small mammals and reptiles. Grasshoppers
also seem to be a preferred prey item of Swainson’s hawks. Most nests are located in trees but
some occur on the ground and on cliffs. Clutch size is typically 2 to 4 eggs.
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. They occur on all
NFS lands within the planning area.
Almost the whole population of Swainson’s hawk migrates annually between breeding areas of
North America and wintering grounds of South America (England et al. 1997). These hawks
breed north to portions of Washington and Oregon east of Cascades, S. Idaho, W. Montana,
southern half of eastern Alberta, west-central and southeast Saskatchewan and southwest
H-144
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Manitoba. They also breed west to central Washington and Oregon, extreme northeast
California, west and south Nevada, north and souteast Arizona and disjunctly in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys of California. Their primary winter range is located on the
pampas of Argentina.
Habitat
Grasslands and shrublands are the preferred habitats of this species. Although most nesting
occurs in scattered trees in these open environments, some nesting also occurs on the ground
and on cliffs.
Conservation Planning
Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been developed for this species in
the planning area.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Power line electrocution can cause raptor mortality. Fences can cause some mortality (Houston
and Schmutz 1995). Disturbances from oil and gas activities can result in nest abandonment.
Cumulative Effects
Conversion of native habitat to croplands and urban development continues on private lands.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(3,5,16), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SG-M(1,3), SG-P(3,8)
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(3,5,16), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SG-M(1,3), SG-P(3,8)
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(3,5,16), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SG-M(1,3), SG-P(3,8)
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64, MA3.66
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-145
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units See desired vegetation matrices for each Geographic Area
Nebraska N.F. Units See desired vegetation matrices for each Geographic Area
Thunder Basin N.G. See desired vegetation matrices for each Geographic Area
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G.
Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Specific determinations are not made for this species since it is not listed under ESA and is not
designated as sensitive by the Forest Service. However, the likely effects under each alternative
are identified and compared.
Alternatives 1-5
All Units
The conservation measures and mitigation listed above should prevent any adverse effects on
populations of Swainson’s hawks that use the National Grasslands and Forests.
Consultation and Reviews
Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis)
Species Description
The ferruginous hawk is one of the largest North American buteos. This widespread grassland
species occurs as a breeding summer migrant in the planning area. Their prey consists of a
wide variety of small birds, small mammals and reptiles. Ferruginous hawks in the planning
area are commonly seen hunting on prairie dog colonies, and black-tailed prairie dogs are
primary prey items where available in the planning area, especially for wintering ferruginous
H-146
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
hawks. Most nests are located in trees but some occur on the ground and on cliffs. Clutch size
is typically 3 to 5 eggs.
A biological evaluation on the effects of grazing permit reissuance recently prepared by Region
2 of the Forest Service was a primary reference for this species.
Distribution and Status
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. This species is
known to occur on all NFS units in the planning area, with the exception of the Sheyenne
National Grassland.
The ferruginous hawk is found chiefly in the semi-arid regions of the Western U.S. and the
southern-most portion of the prairies in the Canadian provinces (Snow 1974).
Habitat
Foraging habitat consists of grasslands and shrublands in the planning area. Ferruginous
hawks do best in those habitats which favor the production of rabbits, prairie dogs, or other
ground squirrels (Call 1979). Although most nesting occurs in scattered trees in these open
environments, some nesting also occurs on the ground and on buttes.
Conservation Planning
Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been developed for this species in
the planning area.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Human disturbance during the breeding season and conversion of grassland habitat to
croplands, are considered to be the two main factors causing the decline of the species (USDI
1982; Kantrud 1981).
Poisoning of prairie dogs reduces prey availability and foraging habitat. Prairie dogs are
popular targets for many recreational shooters. Ferruginous hawks are occasionally shot by
prairie dog shooters. Prairie dog shooting can also indirectly affect availability of prairie dog
colonies as prey species for ferruginous hawks.
Power line electrocution can cause raptor mortality. Fences probably causes some mortality.
Disturbances from oil and gas and other human activities can result in nest abandonment.
Cumulative Effects
Conversion of native habitat to croplands and urban development continues on private lands.
Prairie dog poisoning on private lands continues to reduce prey availability and foraging
habitat.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-147
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Livestock grazing permittees or grazing associations commonly request prairie dog poisoning
on NFS lands to reduce forage consumption and clipping by prairie dogs. This can result in
reduced prey availability and foraging habitat for ferruginous hawks.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in
the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-D(3,6,12), SG-F(1,5,11,16,51-54), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SGM(1,3), SG-P(3,8)
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-D(3,6,12), SG-F(1,5,11,16,51-54), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SGM(1,3), SG-P(3,8)
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-D(3,6,12), SG-F(1,5,11,16,51-54), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SGM(1,3), SG-P(3,8)
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. None
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
H-148
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1-5
LMNG, GR/CRNG, FPNG, BG/OGNG, TBNG, NNF (BRD)
A determination of "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of
viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability
rangewide." Prairie dog management undoubtedly has a substantial influence on ferruginous
hawks on the northern plains. However, because it’s not uncommon to find ferruginous hawks
foraging and nesting on the northern plains in areas that have been void of prairie dogs for an
extended time, prairie dog management is considered to be a factor that, in and of itself, will not
determine the ultimate fate of this species in this region.
Consultation and Reviews
Coarse Filter Analyses
Coarse filter analyses were used to evaluate effects of the planning alternatives on the
remaining plant and animal species in Table H-3. These analyses involved identifying and
evaluating groups of animals and plants with similar habitat or site requirements. This analysis
approach was used for these species because the primary factor influencing how these species
respond to direction in the Land and Resource Management Plans is vegetation structure
and/or vegetation composition. It is believed that other activities and allocations in LRMPs
have little or no influence on these species.
Animals
Grasslands
Several of the remaining bird species identified in Table H-3 are grassland species influenced
primarily by the structure of grassland vegetation. The preferred community types (SG = shortgrass prairie; MG = mixed grass prairie; TG = tall grass prairie) and grassland structure (Low,
Moderate, or High) for these species are shown below:
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-149
SG
Species
dickcissel
short-eared owl
Baird’s sparrow
long-billed curlew
Low
X
X
MG
Moderate
X
X
X
X
High
X
X
X
Low
TG
Moderate
X
X
X
High
X
X
X
Although preferred structural classes are identified above, balanced mosaics of all structural
levels within their home ranges probably provide suitable habitat for these species and a broad
array of other grassland wildlife.
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Livestock grazing is the primary authorized activity that influences grassland structure,
especially on mixed grass and tallgrass prairie. Moderate to heavy livestock grazing intensities generally result in moderate and low grassland structure while periodic annual rest and
light grazing intensities tend to promote high grassland structure. Season (dormant versus
growing season), timing, frequency and duration of grazing also influence grassland structure.
Wildland fires and prescribed burning also influences grassland structure on the National
Grasslands and Forests but on a much smaller scale than livestock grazing. The direct effects of
fire on grassland structure on an individual site is usually short-term. Fire can play a key role in
reducing woody encroachment and structure on grasslands.
Cumulative Effects
Additional threats to these species on private lands is the continuing conversion of native grasslands to cropland and the use of grasslands for hay production.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this animal group are
included in the proposed LRMPs:
H-150
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3)
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3)
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3)
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units See fire, rest and desired vegetation direction for each geographic area
Nebraska N.F. Units See fire, rest and desired vegetation direction for each geographic area
Thunder Basin N.G. See fire, rest and desired vegetation direction for each geographic area
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. None
Determinations and Rationale
The current and desired amounts of low, moderate and high structure grasslands for each
National Grassland and Forest in each alternative are identified in Chapter 3 of the DEIS and are
not repeated here.
Alternatives 1 and 2
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
This determination applies to each of the grassland species identified above and obviously only
to those NFS units where each species occurs.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-151
Alternatives 3-5
Determination is "beneficial impact" because each alternative provides a more balanced mosaic
of grassland structural classes than Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 4 provides the most
balanced mosaic of grassland structure.
Riparian Habitats
The remaining species associated primarily with the woody vegetation in riparian areas are as
follows:
•
Loggerhead shrike
•
Fox sparrow
•
Yellow-billed cuckoo
•
Fringe-tailed myotis
The species associated primarily with the woody vegetation in riparian areas rely heavily on
either the shrub and sapling midstory and/or overstory trees. The key to maintaining these
woodland communities is insuring that both the shrub and tree species are allowed to regenerate and survive. If livestock grazing reduces or prevents development and survival of
midstory plants, riparian conditions deteriorate and eventually a type-conversion from a prairie
woodland to a grassland type occurs along the drainage. In some cases, a shrubland type may
persist for a while after the overstory tree component is lost, but eventually the shrub
community will also likely be lost or severely reduced and degraded.
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Livestock grazing can prevent regeneration of trees and shrubs in riparian areas. Estimates of
the amount of riparian and wooded draw habitat that are not currently regenerating are
presented in Chapter 3 of the DEIS under "Rangeland and Forest Health".
Cumulative Effects
The threats listed above are also occurring on private lands.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this animal group are
included in the proposed LRMPs:
H-152
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-B(3,7,13,14), SG-F(1-3,55), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(5), SG-M(1,3)
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-B(3,7,13,14), SG-F(1-3,55,56), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(5), SG-M(1,3)
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-B(3,7,13,14), SG-F(1-3,55), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(5), SG-M(1,3)
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units
GA-A1, GA4-A1
Nebraska N.F. Units
See desired vegetation direction for each geographic area
Thunder Basin N.G.
See desired vegetation direction for each geographic area
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. None
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Determinations and Rationale
Alternative 1
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide".
This determination applies to each species identified above and obviously only to those NFS
units where each species occurs.
Alternatives 2-5
Determination is "beneficial impact" because management to enhance riparian and wooded
draw regeneration is applied to additional riparian and wooded draw habitat. Under Alternative 1, the desired condition is to have at least 50% of these areas regenerating. Under
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-153
Alternatives 2-5, at least 80% of these areas are to be brought under improved management to
help ensure regeneration.
Wetlands
The remaining species associated primarily with the shoreline and emergent vegetation in
wetlands are as follows:
•
American bittern
•
trumpeter swan
•
black tern
•
least weasel
•
fringe-tailed myotis
•
northern leopard frog
The species associated primarily with wetlands rely heavily on shoreline and emergent vegetation for various life functions. The key to maintaining these wetlands communities is managing
livestock grazing for development of shoreline and emergent cover around some or most of
each natural or constructed wetland. Livestock grazing can eliminate or severely reduce
wetlands vegetation resulting in barren mud shorelines around wetlands and ponds and a lack
of emergent cover.
Table H-3 summarizes the distribution and status of each species in the planning area.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Livestock grazing can remove or severely reduce shoreline and emergent cover around
wetlands and ponds. For the species listed above, this generally has a negative effect.
However, a mosaic of developed shoreline and emergent cover along with some barren banks
and shoreline is probably advantageous for some of the species.
Cumulative Effects
The threats listed above are also occurring on private lands. Conversion of wetlands on private
lands to agricultural and other uses continues.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this animal group are
included in the proposed LRMPs:
H-154
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(3-5), GO1.5(1), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17,55), SG-G(2,3), SG-I5, SG-M(1,3)
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(3-5), GO1.5(1), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17,55,56), SG-G(2,3), SG-I5, SG-M(1,3)
Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(3-5), GO1.5(1), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17,55), SG-G(2,3), SG-I5, SG-M(1,3)
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units See desired vegetation direction for each geographic area
Nebraska N.F. Units See desired vegetation direction for each geographic area
Thunder Basin N.G. See desired vegetation direction for each geographic area
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units None
Thunder Basin N.G. None
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
The following conservation measure should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Proposed unit-wide direction for natural and constructed wetlands simply calls for a
mosaic of shoreline and emergent vegetation conditions across the landscape. This
needs to be modified to call for a "balanced" mosaic of wetlands with developed
shoreline vegetation and emergents and wetland areas with more open shorelines. This
would provide more quantitative direction by directing that the number of wetlands
with developed shoreline and emergent vegetation be approximately equal to the
number of wetlands with barren shorelines and a lack of an emergent zone. In this
manner, wetlands habitat is available for the species listed above that prefer shoreline
and emergent cover and for those other wildlife species that prefer wetlands habitat with
some barren shorelines.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-155
Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1 and 2
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
This determination applies to each species identified above and obviously only to those NFS
units where each species occurs.
Alternatives 3-5
Determination is "beneficial impact" because each alternative provides direction to manage
natural and constructed wetlands for a mosaic of shoreline and emergent vegetation conditions.
Coarse Filter Analyses
Plants
Eastern Prairie Boggy Wetlands
Table H-3 plant species in this group include:
marsh bellflower
crested shield fern
buckbean
slender cottongrass
marsh fern
bog willow
spinulose woodfern
marsh horsetail
delicate sedge
sensitive fern
umbrella flatsedge
Labrador bedstraw
showy lady’s slipper
meadow horsetail
Loesel’s twayblade
shining flatsedge
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area.
This plant group includes Table H-3 plant species found in habitats associated with bogs,
calcareous fens, springs, boggy woodlands, and the green ash/basswood deciduous hardwoods
found predominately within the tallgrass prairie regions of the planning area. All of the species
have known occurrences on the Sheyenne National Grassland and several species occur on the
Samuel R. Mckelvie National Forest in Nebraska. Other units may have potential habitat. This
group contains the largest number of sensitive plant species for the Northern Great Plains
planning area with 16 of the 42 species represented.
Most of the currently known populations of these species are found along the Sheyenne River in
eastern North Dakota. Many of the species are hydrophytic and wetland obligate species with
habitats which are dependent upon the interaction of hydrologic regimes within the riverine
and upland landscape. In addition to the boggy seeps found along this drainage, this guild
includes the river gallery forests of elm and basswood. The majority of the species on the
Sheyenne National Grassland are primarily restricted to a narrow range of habitats, i.e. they
are considered species with either a narrow-range or mid-range of versatility. The list includes
one shrub, eight forbs, several sedges, and numerous fern species.
H-156
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Within the Northern Great Plains planning area, the habitat components captured by this plant
group are uncommon and occupy a very small percentage of the total land base. The large
complex of bogs/fens, flowing springs, and boggy woodlands on the Sheyenne National
Grassland in eastern North Dakota are a landscape feature resulting from upland drainage
patterns into the Sheyenne River. Wetlands which provide habitat on other portions of the
planning area may differ in habitat, soils, and hydrologic regime from those described for the
Sheyenne National Grassland, however these other habitats share the common feature of
containing perennially wet soils within the tallgrass prairie.
At one time the wetlands of the tallgrass prairie were more plentiful, but many wetlands have
been drained for agriculture purposes. Current management practices which may affect plant
community viability include drainage ditches and center-pivot irrigation systems, non-native
plant species, lack of fire, and livestock grazing.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge occur in scattered populations throughout the tallgrass
prairie. Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge, Canada thistle, and purple loosestrife reduce the
quality of sensitive species habitat but at the same time, efforts to control spurge and other
invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to sensitive species. Noxious weed
control could effect the forbs, ferns, and willow species in this plant group. In addition, many
chemicals are restricted for use within riparian areas. Chemical treatment of noxious weeds is
not recommended in the habitats supporting this plant group.
Competition from non-native invasive plants (exotics) can be a threat. Invasive species such as
Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome can compete with native species for habitat, significantly reducing the diversity of native species.
Livestock trampling can be a problem for the sensitive species within this guild. Trampling
may be detrimental to delicate plants such as showy lady’s slipper, sensitive fern, marsh
bellflower, and others. In addition, excessive and repeated soil compaction from trampling may
result in reduced plant vigor.
On the Sheyenne National Grassland, most the habitat where this plant group occurs has been
excluded from grazing allotments through fencing. In allotments where grazing is occurring,
habitat disturbance occurs from trailing and trampling by livestock. These areas are typically
very shaded and livestock use these areas for shade in the heat of the summer, if accessible.
Livestock grazing can prevent sensitive plants from completing their life cycles and producing
seeds or sprores. In addition, excessive and continuous livestock grazing on sensitive plants
can lead to impacts on plant regrowth, thereby reducing the vigor of plants within the population. However, there is typically little livestock forage produced in this habitat. Some of the
species in this plant group that are palatable to cattle include delicate sedge, the two species of
cottongrass, and the two species of flatsedge. Even though these particular species are
considered grasslike, livestock graze on them on a limited basis. Grazing of the flatsedge
species would be detrimental to the species as they are annuals and would not be allowed to
complete their life cycles. Sheep and goats used for leafy spurge control would graze on some
the plant species in this group if they had accessibility to their habitats.
Burning may directly impact sensitive plant species by causing mortality or indirectly impact
these species and communities through effects on the habitat. The riparian zones currently
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-157
supporting this plant group may not have been exposed to as frequent a fire regime as other
parts of the tallgrass prairie.
Recreational river use may increase in these habitats as users explore shorelines from the river.
While these habitats are not conducive to camping due to their wet nature, they are easily
disturbed by trampling and root shearing.
Increased rates of channelization in drainages can result in a lowered water tables. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of some sensitive plant species may place individual or populations of sensitive plant species at risk.
Grasshopper spraying has not been used on the Sheyenne National Grassland for several years.
Any return to pesticide spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations for
some of the species within this guild such as showy lady’s slipper. Information is lacking
about specific pollinators for many sensitive plant species.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with road and recreational trail development could
result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Road management
determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans can have
positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat
fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along
travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management
planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations,
depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of
spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.
Cumulative Effects
Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands and draining
of croplands can be expected to occur on private lands.
Livestock grazing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species
are likely to continue on some private lands.
Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, nonnative plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands
occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and
croplands.
Chemical treatment of noxious weeds on adjacent uplands poses the threat of groundwater
contamination to the surface aquifer that feeds the seepage areas found in this guild. This
could put the ferns, forbs and shrubs found in this plant group at risk.
Drainage ditches on adjacent private land may lower water table levels below the root zone of
some sensitive plant species, putting individuals or populations at risk. In addition, cumulative
effects from altering the hydrologic regime of the area from drainage ditches and irrigation
could induce relative drought on these areas, possibly preventing the plants from completing
their life cycle and/or killing the plants.
Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue,
resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and possible mortality of
sensitive plants and population loss.
H-158
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining federal range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Detrimental grazing activities on private land may increase the importance of the existing
populations of sensitive species on federal land.
Wilderness designations may reduce the opportunity to prescribe burn specifically for
enhancing sensitive plant species habitat.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this plant group are
included in the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6,10,11), SG-J(1-7),
SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2),SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6,10,11), SG-J(1-7),
SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2),SG-Q2
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64, MA3.66
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA4-A1
Nebraska N.F. Units GA2-A1
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
See Appendix N (LRMP) for orchid management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-159
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. The species within this guild should be a priority for protection and management
through a conservation strategy. The conservation strategy should address the
estimated number of individuals and the distribution of reproductive individuals to
ensure the continued existence of the species throughout their existing ranges within the
planning area. In addition, the conservation strategy should address maintaining stable
or increasing populations for this species as well as the methodology for assessing
population trend. The relationship of thse species to vegetation succession under
various disturbance regimes needs to be determined. This analysis could also be incorporated into a conservation strategy.
b. Prioritize noxious weed control activities in habitats supporting this plant group. In
addition, these habitats should be monitored periodically for new starts of noxious
weeds and these areas should also be priority areas for control. Biocontrol of noxious
weeds using goats or sheep should be avoided in these areas.
c. Manage tallgrass prairie habitats to provide for a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance
regimes within the landscape. Especially important may be seral stages which provide a
high component of species diversity. Well distributed plant communities of high species
diversity will be needed to act as seed sources for other areas within the landscape
where diversity may be reduced. Landscapes which do not provide a mosaic of seral
stages and disturbance regimes may result in loss of suitable habitat for sensitive
species.
d. Water developments, oilers and livestock salt and mineral should be not be placed near
or in these habitat types.
e. Habitat supporting this plant group should be protected through additional fence exclosures and/or special area designation. For example this may include exclosures for
Evanson Allotment, Pfingston-Olson Allotment, West "I" Allotment, East "A" Allotment,
and sites in West "A" Allotment which are not within the RNA boundary. In addition
existing fence exclosures should remain in place and be maintained.
f.
Hiking, horseback, ORV, and mountain bike trails in areas adjacent to or within these
habitats should be designated, to prevent habitat damage from dispersed use. In
addition, signing should encourage users to remain on designated trails. Overnight
horse users should use certified weed-free hay in areas adjacent to these habitats.
g. These sites are highly dependent upon maintenance of the hydrologic regime in the
National Grassland and surrounding landscape. The hydrologic conditions for many of
the species in this guild may be especially critical within drought years. Any activities
which would change the hydrologic regime should be closely evaluated for potential
effects on this plant group.
h. Provide direction that lists habitats that support this plant group as a high priority for
enhancement through improved management and close coordination with other
resource uses and activities.
H-160
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Determinations and Rationale
Alternative 1
SNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend towards
federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." This plant group contains the largest
number of sensitive plant species as well as representing habitats of extreme rarity and uniqueness. Many of the species within this group are known from very limited populations and these
sites have a very low tolerance to disturbance. Noxious weeds and introduced plant species are
threats to populations and habitat quality. In addition, control of noxious weeds within this
plant group is constrained by the wetland site conditions. Chemical treatment of noxious
weeds is not recommended for this plant group. Therefore preventing establishment of noxious
weed and introduced species should be a high priority. Recreation and livestock grazing and
trampling threaten populations and habitat in this plant group. In addition, these sites are
highly dependent upon maintenance of the hydrologic regime of the National Grassland and
surrounding landscape.
This determination was based upon the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of introduced
plant species, livestock grazing and trampling, and recreation use which may result in loss of
populations within the planning unit and within the planning area. There should be no
concerns for population viability rangewide, however. The effects analysis recognizes that
some of the sensitive plant species populations within this guild lie within livestock exclosures
and are not accessible to livestock grazing or trampling. For example, all known sites of
buckbean and bog willow are currently in areas excluded from grazing by fencing. Some
populations of other species in this plant group are also currently protected through fencing or
modified grazing strategies on the Sheyenne National Grassland. The analysis for these species
assumes that these exclosures will remain in place and will be maintained.
Under this alternative, no new Research Natural Areas (RNAs) are proposed which would
provide protection for species or habitat found within this plant group. The existing Sheyenne
Springs RNA offers some protection for some of the species and its habitat. Protection for a few
of the species is also provided by the Nature Conservancy’s Pigeon Point Preserve and the ND
State Game and Fish Department Mirror Pool Wildlife Management Area.
Alternative 2
SNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend towards
federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." Alternative 2 proposes increases in
grazing which may not be compatible with maintenance of high quality occupied or unoccupied
habitat or provide sufficient protection for known populations. In addition, with increased use
in livestock grazing comes with a higher risk in the spread and establishment of noxious weeds
and exotic species. Although this alternative proposes a 15% increase in noxious weed control,
many of these wetland sites are not good candidates for chemical weed treatments.
Under this alternative, no new Research Natural Areas (RNAs) are proposed to protect these
species or the associated habitat. The existing Sheyenne Springs RNA offers some protection
for some of the species and its habitat. Protection for a few of the species is also provided by the
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-161
Nature Conservancy’s Pigeon Point Preserve and the ND State Game and Fish Department
Mirror Pool Wildlife Management Area.
Implementation of the following conservation measure plus those recommended under the
Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this plant group would reduce the severity of
this determination for Alternative 2:
The unique habitats in this plant group should be removed from proposed management
area 6.1. Instead, occupied and unoccupied habitat for sensitive species should be
evaluated for Research Natural Area (2.2) or botanical Special Interest Area (2.1) designation. Any balance of habitat not protected through these designations should be placed in
Management Area 3.64, special plant and wildlife habitat. These designations would
recognize the special management needs of these unique and fragile habitats. In addition,
Management Area 3.64 should be expanded to include language specifically for endangered,
threatened, and sensitive plant species, unique plant habitats, and rare plant communities.
Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of may adversely impact
individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a
trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.
Alternative 3
SNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend towards
federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." In addition to the threats discussed
under Alternatives 1 and 2, the proposed wilderness under this alternative could quite possibly
increase and concentrate dispersed recreation use to the point of putting sensitive plant populations in this group at much greater risk. This alternative also proposes some decreases in
grazing which may be compatible with maintenance of high quality occupied or unoccupied
habitat. However, it is not known if goals for grassland structure, rest, noxious weed control,
and vegetation composition will be applied specifically to these unique plant habitats.
Under this alternative, one new Research Natural Area (RNA) is proposed which would
provide protection for species or habitat found within this group. The Oak Hills nominated
RNA contains populations of some of the sensitive species in this group. In addition, the
existing Sheyenne Springs RNA offers some protection for some of the species and its habitat.
Protection for a few of the species is also provided by the Nature Conservancy’s Pigeon Point
Preserve and the ND State Game and Fish Department Mirror Pool Wildlife Management Area.
The following rationale was used to determine the effects of wilderness proposals relative to the
sensitive plant species within the proposed wilderness area. These rationale were developed
after consulting with wilderness coordinators in Region 1 and 2 as well as FS manual (FSM)
direction specifically under 2320 and its subsections.
•
The proposed wilderness under this alternative would be the only tallgrass prairie
wilderness in the nation and would receive a high level of interest from the public.
•
This wilderness would be the only wilderness on National Forest System land in eastern
North Dakota. The Sheyenne National Grassland also represents the largest portion of
public land in eastern North Dakota.
•
The new wilderness would be 60-70 miles from largest urban center in North Dakota,
Fargo, and Moorhead, MN. Another major population center, Minneapolis-St. Paul, is
H-162
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
within a 4-5 hour drive from the proposed wilderness area. Currently, horseback riders
come from other states to ride in the grasslands.
•
Nationally, recreation use on public land continues to increase. The Sheyenne National
Grassland is just now starting to be "discovered". Wilderness designation would
increase the use of the Grassland because it would contain wilderness.
•
The proposal under this alternative is for a small wilderness area of approximately
4000+ acres. County roads currently access this area from several sides. Currently the
primary access point from the county road already has a cattleguard due to the high
amount of traffic. Cattle guards only exist on the district where there are areas of high
recreation use.
•
The main focus of wilderness is to preserve natural values in pristine conditions and
allow the forces of nature to work. However, small wilderness such as that proposed
under this alternative may not be large enough to truly capture natural processes.
•
Wilderness does not automatically provide protection for imperiled species, especially if
those species require periodic habitat manipulation to perpetuate themselves. FSM
2323.31, objectives, states that management of wildlife and fish habitat is to "provide an
environment where the forces of natural selection and survival rather than human
actions determine which and what numbers of wildlife species will exist." However,
another objective is also to "protect wildlife and fish indigenous to the area from human
caused conditions that could lead to Federal listing as threatened and endangered", and
to "provide protection for known populations and aid recovery in areas of previous
habitation, of federally listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats."
However, Forest Service manual direction is silent on protection of threatened and
endangered plant species and Forest Service Sensitive (non federally listed) plant
species.
•
Management for imperiled plant and animal species becomes much more complicated
within wilderness areas. Habitat manipulation for imperiled species will require
extensive analysis and documentation. Public and agency opinion may vary
considerably in determining which activities should be allowed in wilderness areas.
•
Under wilderness, noxious weed control using chemicals may not be permitted to the
extent it is now. Biological control methods would be preferred. Noxious weed
invasion poses a very serious threat to the plant communities of the Sheyenne National
Grassland. In addition, wooded or riparian habitats containing noxious weeds may
only be effectively treated through the use goats or sheep.
•
Livestock grazing is an existing use in wilderness areas. While livestock may benefit
some of the TES species on the Sheyenne National Grassland, others may be adversely
affected. Certain habitats can be fenced for resource protection, FSM 2323.26a.
However, new permanent wire fences are not encouraged (FSM 2324.33c) Jack fences or
other fences more suitable for the wilderness environment should be used.
Populations of the following sensitive plant species in this plant group are found within the
proposed wilderness area:
Thelypteris palustris
Marsh fern
2 populations out of 4 known populations.
Dryopteris cristata
Crested shield fern
1 population out of 6 known populations.
Dryopteris spinulosa
Spinulose wood fern
1 population out of 7 known populations.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-163
In summary, the primary concern for the wilderness proposal under Alternative 3 is the small
size of the area combined with the unique habitat and high number of sensitive plant species
found within the small boundary. Recreational use may not be sufficiently dispersed within
this proposed wilderness to provide protection for habitat and species, and the direct and
indirect effects of recreation, combined with the cumulative effects of other uses, may cause loss
of population viability for several species within this guild for the planning unit and the
planning area.
Implementation of the following conservation measures plus those recommended under the
Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this plant group would reduce the severity of
this determination for this alternative:
a. Occupied and unoccupied habitat for sensitive plant species in this plant group which
are currently proposed for management areas 4.4 (National River System, Recreation
Rivers recommended) should be considered for Research Natural Area (2.2) or botanical
Special Interest Area (2.1) designation in addition to the proposed management area 4.4
designation.s Any balance of habitat not protected through these designations should be
placed in management area 3.64, special plant and wildlife habitat. These designations
would recognize the special management needs of these unique and fragile habitats. In
addition, Forest Plan narrative within management area 3.64 should be expanded to
include language specifically for endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species,
unique plant habitats, and rare plant communities.
b. Occupied and unoccupied habitat for imperiled plant species in this plant group which
are currently proposed for management areas 1.2 (wilderness) should in addition be
considered for Research Natural Area (2.2) or botanical Special Interest Area (2.1)
designation. Any balance of habitat not protected through these designations should be
placed in management area 3.64, special plant and wildlife habitat. These designations
within the wilderness boundary would focus additional protection and recognition upon
the special management needs of these unique and fragile habitats. In addition,
Management Area 3.64 should be expanded to include language specifically for
endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species, unique plant habitats, and rare
plant communities.
Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of may adversely impact
individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a
trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.
Alternative 4
SNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend towards
federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." Alternative 4 proposes some
decrease in grazing which may be compatible with maintenance of high quality occupied or
unoccupied habitat. However, it is not known if goals for grassland structure, vegetation
composition, rest, and noxious weed control will be applied specifically to these unique plant
habitats.
Under this alternative, one new Research Natural Area (RNA) is proposed which would
provide protection for species or habitat found within this plant group. The Oak Hills
nominated RNA contains populations of some sensitive plant species in this guild. In addition,
H-164
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
the existing Sheyenne Springs RNA offers some protection for some of the species and its
habitat. Protection for a few of the species is also provided by the Nature Conservancy’s
Pigeon Point Preserve and the ND State Game and Fish Department Mirror Pool Wildlife
Management Area.
Implementation of the following conservation measure, plus those recommended under the
Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this plant group, would reduce the severity
of this determination for this alternative:
Occupied and unoccupied habitat for sensitive plant species in this plant group which are
currently proposed for management areas 4.32 (dispersed recreation, high use) and 5.12
(general rangelands, range vegetation emphasis) should instead be placed into Research
Natural Area (2.2) or botanical Special Interest Area (2.1) designation. Any balance of
habitat not protected through these designations should be placed in management area 3.64,
special plant and wildlife habitat. These designations would recognize the special
management needs of these unique and fragile habitats. In addition, Forest Plan narrative
within management area 3.64 should be expanded to include language specifically for
endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species, unique plant habitats, and rare plant
communities.
Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of may adversely impact
individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a
trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.
Alternative 5
SNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend towards
federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide. Alternative 5 proposes some decrease
in grazing which may be compatible with maintenance of high quality occupied or unoccupied
habitat. However, it is not known if goals for grassland structure, vegetation composition, rest,
and noxious weed control will be applied specifically to these unique plant habitats.
Under this alternative, no new Research Natural Area (RNA) is proposed which would provide
additional protection for this plant group and associated habitats. The existing Sheyenne
Springs RNA offers some protection for some of the species and its habitat. Protection for a few
of the species is also provided by the Nature Conservancy’s Pigeon Point Preserve and the ND
State Game and Fish Department Mirror Pool Wildlife Management Area.
The rationale used to determine the effects of wilderness proposals under this alternative on
sensitive plant species is the same as that described under the Alternative 3 determination
section.
In summary, the wilderness proposal in Alternative 5 is sufficiently large that recreation should
be fairly well dispersed. Roads and highways intersect most the wilderness area and access
points are numerous. The effects of concentrated wilderness use upon sensitive plant species
and their habitats should be much less than the small wilderness area proposed under Alternative 3. Noxious weed introduction and control may be a problem under wilderness however, at
the location of unique habitats and sensitive plant species populations should be priority areas
for noxious weed control.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-165
Implementation of the following conservation measure plus those recommended under the
Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this guild would reduce the severity of this
determination for this alternative:
a. Occupied and unoccupied habitat for sensitive plant species in this plant group which
are currently proposed for management areas 4.4 (National River System, Recreation
Rivers recommended) should be considered for Research Natural Area (2.2) or botanical
Special Interest Area (2.1) designation in addition to the proposed management area 4.4
designation.s Any balance of habitat not protected through these designations should be
placed in management area 3.64, special plant and wildlife habitat. These designations
would recognize the special management needs of these unique and fragile habitats. In
addition, Forest Plan narrative within management area 3.64 should be expanded to
include language specifically for endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species,
unique plant habitats, and rare plant communities.
b. Occupied and unoccupied habitat for imperiled plant species in this plant group which
are currently proposed for management areas 1.2 (wilderness) should in addition be
considered for Research Natural Area (2.2) or botanical Special Interest Area (2.1)
designation. Any balance of habitat not protected through these designations should be
placed in management area 3.64, special plant and wildlife habitat. These designations
within the wilderness boundary would focus additional protection and recognition upon
the special management needs of these unique and fragile habitats. In addition,
Management Area 3.64 should be expanded to include language specifically for
endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species, unique plant habitats, and rare
plant communities.
Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of may adversely impact
individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a
trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.
Consultation and Review
Kurt Hansen, Range Management Specialist, USDA-Forest Service, Medora Ranger District
Tallgrass Prairie Wetlands
Table H-3 plant species in this group include:
•
Little grapefern
•
Adder’s tongue
•
Small white lady’s slipper
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area.
This plant group includes the habitats associated with lowland swales, wetland depressions,
marshes, and the sedge/willow complexes found predominately within the tallgrass prairie
regions of the planning area. All the currently known populations of Table H-3 species
associated with this group occur in habitats of the Sheyenne National Grassland of eastern
North Dakota. One of the species is also known to occur on the Samuel R. Mckelvie NF in
Nebraska. Potential habitat may also exist on the Nebraska NF, Bessey RD.
H-166
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Two of the species, Adders’s tongue and small white lady’s slipper, are categorized as occurring
in the mid-range of versatility, i.e. they are associated primarily with one habitat type but may
also be found in other habitat types. Little grapefern is considered to be in the narrow-range of
versatility as it is associated with only one habitat type. In addition, the prairie fringed orchid
(Platanthera praeclara), a threatened plant species, also occurs within habitats associated with this
plant group.
Within the Northern Great Plains planning area, the habitat components captured by this plant
group are uncommon and occupy a very small percentage of the total land base. Mesic areas
which provide habitat on other portions of the planning area may differ in habitat, soils, and
hydrologic regime from those described for the Sheyenne National Grassland, however these
other habitats share the common feature of having a perennial moisture regime which may vary
annually or seasonally.
On the Sheyenne National Grassland, the habitats associated with this plant group developed
under the broad landscape processes of the tallgrass prairie however they are also
distinguished by their high groundwater tables. In addition, these areas collect runoff which
often remains for considerable periods of time (Seiler 1980). For example, the lowland swales
found within the Sheyenne tallgrass prairie experience seasonal fluctuations of the water table
as well as widely varying annual fluctuations. During high precipitation climate cycles, the
swales may be inundated with water for most of the growing season, whereas during more
normal years the swales may lose their standing water.
In the tallgrass prairie of North Dakota, the lowland swales are those areas dominated by carex
(Carex lanuginosa) (Seiler 1980). The lowland marshes are dominated by emergent aquatics such
as sedges (Carex spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), spikerushes (Eleocharis
spp.), and cattails (Typha latifolia) although they are also comprised of tall graminoid species
(Gantt 1980). Gantt (1980) notes that early historical records describe bluejoint (Calamagrostis
canadensis) and red top (Agrostis alba) as the primary marsh species. Communities of bluejoint
may have furnished the early settlers with marsh hay.
At one time the marshes and swales of the tallgrass prairie were more plentiful, however much
of the tallgrass prairie has been converted for agriculture purposes. According to Gantt (1980)
the tallgrass prairie as it existed almost 100 years ago is almost totally non-existent today.
Studies of vegetation change by Burgess (1964) and others support this. Current management
practices which may affect community viability include drainage ditches which alter hydrologic
regimes, competition to native flora from non-native plant species, lack of a fire regime, and
grazing.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge occur in scattered populations throughout the tallgrass
prairie. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of sensitive species habitat but at the same time,
efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to
sensitive species. Livestock grazing management, including changes in the type of animal
(sheep/goats), grazing season, and/or intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in some
situations for the control of noxious weeds.
Competition from non-native invasive plants (exotics) can be a significant threat. Invasive
species such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome often form monocultures, significantly
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-167
reducing the diversity of native species. Some types of livestock grazing seem to encourage
spread of these invasive species while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment
and spread.
Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations for the small
white lady’s slipper. Information is lacking about specific pollinators for many sensitive plant
species.
Increased rates of channelization in drainages can result in a lowered water tables. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of some sensitive plant species may place individual plants or populations at risk.
Burning, livestock grazing, and mowing can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant
species, depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive
characteristics of the individual plant species. Properly timed grazing, burning and mowing
may be beneficial in maintaining the quality of native grassland habitats. Lack of disturbance
can cause some sites to convert to shrub habitats dominated by willow species.
Burning may directly impact sensitive plant species by causing mortality or indirectly impact
these species and communities through effects on the habitat. Mowing and summer burning
may prevent a completion of the life cycle for the small white lady’s slipper. Adder’s tongue is
too short structurally to be affected by mowing but would affected by summer burning. Little
grape fern occurs in willow thickets which are not mowed but would be affected by summer
burning. Early spring and late fall burning should have no effect on any of the species and may
be beneficial.
Livestock grazing can prevent sensitive plants from completing their life cycles and producing
seeds or sprores. Excessive and continuous livestock grazing on sensitive plants can lead to
impacts on plant regrowth, thereby reducing the vigor of plants within the population. The
species within this plant group are not considered palatable to cattle but could be grazed by
sheep or goats. Grazing can reduce dead material within plant communities and open up
canopy layers of plants, allowing for the germination and establishment of new plants.
Livestock trampling can be a problem under some circumstances for the sensitive species within
this plant group. Trampling could be detrimental to individual plants because all three species
are delicate fleshy plants. In addition, excessive and repeated soil compaction from trampling
may result in reduced plant vigor.
Repeated mowing may prevent some sensitive plant species from completing their life cycle and
may also reduce carbohydrate reserves. Mowing should have no affect after seed set/spore
dispersal.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with road and trail development could result in
mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Road management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans can have positive or
negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat fragmentation,
road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes,
loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can
have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of
recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of spread of invasive, nonnative plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.
H-168
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Cumulative Effects
Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, nonnative plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands
occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and
croplands. Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands
can be expected to occur on private lands. Livestock grazing and mowing practices that are
unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private
lands.
Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue,
resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible mortality
of sensitive plants and population loss. Drainage ditches on adjacent private land may lower
water table levels below the root zone of some sensitive plant species, putting individuals or
populations at risk. Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect
pollinators for some sensitive plant species.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Wilderness designations resulting from wilderness proposals would reduce the opportunity to
prescribe burn specifically for enhancing sensitive plant species habitat.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this plant group are
included in the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6,10,11), SG-J(1-7),
SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6,10,11), SG-J(1-7),
SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64, MA3.66
Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA4-A1
Nebraska N.F. Units GA2-A1
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-169
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
See Appendix N (LRMP) for orchid management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Manage tallgrass prairie habitats supporting this plant group to provide for a mosaic of
seral stages and disturbance regimes within the landscape. Especially important may be
seral stages which provide a high component of species diversity. Well distributed plant
communities of high species diversity will be needed to act as seed sources for other
areas within the landscape where diversity may be reduced. Landscapes which do not
provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in loss of suitable
habitat for sensitive species.
b. The Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Management Guidelines for the Sheyenne National
Grasslands apply to some areas supporting this plant group and actually enhance
management for these species as well. Where the locations of this group do not overlap
with orchid habitat, ground disturbances should be avoided. As noted under the
direct effects section, timing, intensity and frequency of mowing, burning and livestock
grazing should be timed to prevent mortality of these sensitive species.
c. Provide direction that lists habitats that support these species as a high priority for
enhancement through improved management and close coordination with other
resource uses and activities. Occupied and unoccupied habitat should be priority areas
for noxious weed control and the prevention of exotic plant species introduction and
spread.
d. Manage for well-distributed populations of these species within the planning area to act
as seed sources for other areas within the landscape where the species has been reduced.
Management activities should not occur in any of the known populations of these
species to allow for maintenance of present populations. Landscapes which do not
provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in a loss of suitable
habitat for these sensitive plant species.
H-170
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1, 3, and 5
SNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
This determination is based upon the limited habitat available to these species within the
planning units and planning area. Habitat quality may be affected by grazing intensity, season
of use, livestock distribution, and trampling. Exotic species populations may continue to
expand negatively affecting sensitive plant populations. Alternatives 3 and 5 would provide
for increases in mid to higher seral conditions which should favor some of these species. The
acres of rangeland annually rested from livestock grazing under Alternatives 3 and 5 also more
closely approximate the conditions under which some of the species evolved as compared to
current grazing conditions. In addition, the levels of prescribed fire within alternatives 3 and 5
is a positive move towards restoring the fire regime under which the species evolved. Both
alternatives also provide for no net increase (from current levels) of noxious weeds. The
existence and spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the maintenance of high quality tallgrass prairie habitat.
The habitats associated with this plant group are found only within the tallgrass prairie. It is
estimated that tallgrass prairie has been reduced to less than 1% of its original range. Very little
private, state, or other federal lands exist within the planning unit which would provide
habitats associated with this plant group. In addition, the small fragments of tallgrass prairie
on private land may be unoccupied habitat and seed sources may not be present for
establishment of the species of this plant group. Under the management activities proposed by
these alternatives, and utilizing standard survey and manage procedures for habitat disturbance, known populations should receive adequate protection. Losses may occur within
populations due to increases in noxious weeds (leafy spurge) and other exotic plant species.
However, populations should remain viable throughout the planning unit, planning area, and
rangewide.
Alternative 2
SNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal
listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." This determination was based upon the
limited habitat available to these species within the planning units and planning area. Under
this alternative, the increases in grazing, combined with other cumulative effects, may result in
the loss of known populations for some of the species with the potential to affect population
viability within the planning unit. The acres of rangeland annually rested from livestock
grazing do not approximate the landscape conditions under which some of the species and
habitats evolved. In addition, the levels of prescribed fire do not approximate the fire regime
under which some of the species and habitats evolved. Alternative 2 would provide for
decreases in mid to higher seral conditions which reduces suitable conditions for some of the
species and the habitats upon which they depend. This plant group provides for higher levels
of noxious weed control, however it also provides for increased livestock use with the potential
for increases in the spread and establishment of noxious weeds and exotic species.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-171
The habitats associated with this plant group are found only within the tallgrass prairie. It is
estimated that tallgrass prairie has been reduced to less than 1% of its original range. Very little
private, state, or other federal lands exist within the planning unit which would provide
habitats contained within this guild. In addition, the small fragments of tallgrass prairie on
private land may be unoccupied habitat and seed sources may not be present for establishment
of the species in this plant group. With the cumulative effects of the actions proposed by this
alternative, management activities may result in a loss of quality of habitat within the planning
unit and potential loss of population viability for some of the species in this group.
Implementation of the conservation measures identified in the Conservation Measures and
Mitigation section for this plant group would reduce the severity of this determination. Use of
these conservation measures would result in a determination of "may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to
federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Alternative 4
SNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
The quality of the habitats associated with this plant group should improve under Alternative 4
due to general overall levels of increased species structure and composition. This alternative
would provide for increases in mid to higher seral conditions which should favor some of the
species in this plant group and the habitats upon which they depend. The acres of capable
rangeland annually rested from livestock grazing should also more closely approximate the
conditions under which some of the species in this group evolved as compared to current
grazing conditions. In addition, the levels of prescribed fire within this alternative is a positive
move towards restoring the fire regime under which some of the species evolved. Alternative 4
also provides for a 15% reduction (from current levels) of noxious weeds through numbers of
acres receiving active treatment. The spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary
threats to the maintenance of high quality tallgrass prairie habitat. However, there will still be
possible losses of individual plants to various authorized activities.
Tallgrass Prairie Deciduous Hardwoods
Table H-3 plant species in this guild includes:
dogberry,
foxtail sedge,
leathery grapefern,
oak fern,
broad-leaved goldenrod, lady fern.
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area.
This plant group includes the hardwood forests and woodlands found predominately on the
tallgrass prairie regions of the planning area. All the currently known populations of Table H-3
species in this plant group occur in habitats of the Sheyenne National Grassland of eastern
North Dakota. The communities within this group are characterized by broadleaf deciduous
trees.
H-172
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
This plant group includes the green ash-boxelder community although it also contains other
broadleaf species such as American elm (Ulmus americana) and cottonwood (Populus deltoides).
These communities occur upslope from the river gallery forests and intergrade into savanna
then graminoid communities with increasing distance and elevation above the river valleys
(Gantt 1980). Green ash and boxelder dominates areas where moisture runoff into ravines,
coulees, or draws is sufficient to support woodland vegetation (Seiler 1971).
Within the Northern Great Plains planning area, the habitat components associated with this
plant group are uncommon and occupy a very small percentage of the total land base. Mesic
woodlands and moist areas which provide habitat on other portions of the planning area may
differ in habitat, soils, and hydrologic regime from those described for the Sheyenne National
Grassland, however these other habitats share the common feature of rich loam soils and mesic
conditions which are capable of supporting a wooded habitat dominated by eastern deciduous
hardwood trees such as bur oak and aspen.
Six plant species, including one shrub, one forb, one sedge and three ferns, are found in these
wooded habitats. All six species are categorized as occurring in the mid-range of versatility, i.e.
they are associated primarily with one habitat type but may also be found in other habitat types.
This plant group does not include river gallery forests (elm-basswood community) such as
those found along the Sheyenne River as these habitats are included in the tall grass prairie
boggy wetlands plant group. Many of the same herbaceous forbs which occur in the elmbasswood community are found along the margins of the green ash-boxelder community
although this later community is characterized by an overall greater abundance of grasses and
sedges (Seiler 1971).
Direct and Indirect Effects
Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge occur in scattered populations throughout the tallgrass
prairie. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of sensitive species habitat but at the same time,
efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to
sensitive species. Livestock grazing management, including changes in the type of animal
(sheep/goats), grazing season, and/or intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in some
situations for the control of noxious weeds.
Competition from non-native invasive plants (exotics) can be a significant threat. Invasive
species such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome often form monocultures, significantly
reducing the diversity of native species. Some types of livestock grazing seem to encourage
spread of these invasive species while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment
and spread.
Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations for some of the
species within this group such as goldenrod. Information is lacking about specific pollinators
for many sensitive plant species.
Increased rates of channelization in drainages can result in a lowered water tables. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of some sensitive plant species may place individual plants or populations at risk.
Burning, livestock grazing, and mowing can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant
species, depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-173
characteristics of the individual plant species. Properly timed grazing, burning and mowing
may be beneficial in maintaining the quality of native grassland habitats. Lack of disturbance
can cause some sites to convert to shrub habitats dominated by willow species.
Burning may directly impact sensitive plant species by causing mortality or indirectly impact
these species and communities through effects on the habitat.
Livestock grazing can prevent sensitive plants from completing their life cycles and producing
seeds or sprores. However, there is typically little livestock forage produced in these habitats,
and livestock use these areas mainly for shade. Excessive and continuous livestock grazing on
sensitive plants can lead to impacts on plant regrowth, thereby reducing the vigor of plants
within the population. Some of the species within this plant group may be palatable to cattle as
well as sheep or goats. Grazing can reduce dead material within plant communities and open
up canopy layers of plants, allowing for the germination and establishment of new plants.
Livestock trampling can be a problem under some circumstances for the sensitive species in this
plant group. Trampling could be detrimental to delicate plants such as lady fern, oak fern, and
leathery grapefern. In addition, excessive and repeated soil compaction from trampling may
result in reduced plant vigor.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with road and trail development could result in
mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Road management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans can have positive or
negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat fragmentation,
road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes,
loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can
have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of
recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of spread of invasive, nonnative plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.
Wilderness designations may limit management practices for maintenance of some species.
Cumulative Effects
Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, nonnative plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands
occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and
croplands. Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands
can be expected to occur on private lands. Livestock grazing and mowing practices that are
unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private
lands.
Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue,
resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible mortality
of sensitive plants and population loss. Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce
or threaten insect pollinators for some sensitive plant species. Drainage ditches on adjacent
private land may lower water table levels below the root zone of some sensitive plant species,
putting individuals or populations at risk.
H-174
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Wilderness designations may reduce the opportunity to prescribe burn specifically for
enhancing sensitive plant species habitat.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this plant group are
included in the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-B(3,6,7,9,13,14), SG-F(1-3,17), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(5,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3),
SG-O(1,2),SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64, MA3.66
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA4-A1
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-175
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Provide direction that lists habitats that support this plant group as a high priority for
enhancement through improved management and close coordination with other
resource uses and activities.
b. Manage for well-distributed populations of these species within the planning area to act
as seed sources for other areas within the landscape where the species has been reduced.
Management activities should not occur in any of the known populations of this species
to allow for maintenance of present populations. Landscapes which do not provide a
mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in a loss of suitable habitat for
these sensitive plant species.
Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5
SNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
This determination is based upon the limited habitat available to these species within the
planning units, planning area, and rangewide. Limited livestock grazing occurs within this
plant group. The primary threat from livestock for the species in this group would come from
trampling. The levels of prescribed fire within alternatives 3 and 5 are a positive move towards
restoring the fire regime under which the species and their habitats evolved. Alternative 3 and
5 provide for no net increase (from current levels) of noxious weeds while alternative 2 provides
for a 15% reduction of noxious weeds. The existence and spread of noxious and exotic species
is one of the primary threats to the maintenance of high quality tallgrass prairie habitat.
The habitats associated with this plant group are found only within the tallgrass prairie. It is
estimated that tallgrass prairie has been reduced to less than 1% of its original range. Very little
private, state, or other federal lands exist within the planning unit which would provide
habitats contained within this guild. In addition, the small fragments of tallgrass prairie on
private land may be unoccupied habitat and seed sources may not be present for establishment
of the species of this plant group. Under the management activities proposed by these alternatives, and utilizing standard survey and manage procedures for habitat disturbance, known
populations should receive adequate protection. Losses may occur within populations due to
increases in noxious weeds (leafy spurge) and other exotic plant species. However, populations
should remain viable throughout the planning unit, planning area, and rangewide.
Alternative 4
SNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.
This determination is based upon the limited habitat available to these species within the
planning units, planning area, and rangewide. Limited livestock grazing occurs within this
plant group, however livestock trampling may affect individual plants. Alternative 4 provides
for a 15% reduction (from current levels) of noxious weeds through numbers of acres receiving
active treatment. The spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the
H-176
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
maintenance of high quality tallgrass prairie habitat. This should provide a beneficial effect to
the species of this plant group. In addition, the levels of prescribed fire within this alternative
is a positive move towards restoring the fire regime under which some of the species evolved.
Tallgrass Prairie Choppy Sandhills
Table H-3 plant species in this group include:
•
wahoo spindle-tree
•
beach heather
•
sandgrass
•
frostweed.
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area.
This plant group includes the various components of the choppy sandhills land type found
within the planning area on the Sheyenne National Grassland in eastern North Dakota. This
land type consists of mixed grass prairie intermingled with Bur oak savanna woodlands. The
oak savanna woodland is very predominant in the sandy soils of the Sandhills Region along the
Sheyenne River (Seiler 1971). Sand dunes and sand blowouts are other distinguishing features
within this association. Bur oak seral stages such as aspen communities may also be present.
The sandhills are a unique geologic area formed by the Sheyenne River delta as it flowed into
ancient Lake Agassiz. At one time, glacial Lake Agassiz formed the largest inland fresh water
lake in North America. Where major tributaries entered the lake, deltas were built such as the
Sheyenne River delta. The geologic origins of the sandhills are unique to the planning area as
are the association of habitats found here.
Within the Northern Great Plains planning area, the habitat components captured by this group
are uncommon and occupy a very small percentage of the total land base. Rolling sandy
uplands, including sand dunes, which provide habitat on other portions of the planning area
may differ in habitat types, soils, and moisture regime from those described for the Sheyenne
National Grassland, however these other habitats share the common feature of having sandy
soils.
Four imperiled species occur in this group. Frostweed is found within the mixed grass
component in the upland rolling topography and the bur oak habitat. Sandgrass and beach
heather are found in the sand dunes and sand blowouts of the choppy sandhills. One plant
species in particular, the wahoo spindle tree, is found in the bur oak habitat type of this group.
In addition, several other Table H-3 species are known to occur in the bur oak habitat type
although they may primarily use other habitat types. This would include the lady fern which
has been found in seral aspen communities associated with bur oak savanna. Also, dogberry
has been found under the hardwood canopy of the bur oak.
Much of the choppy sandhills area in North Dakota has been altered extensively since preintensive settlement including past utilization as cropland which later returned to native
grassland (Burgess 1964, Shunk 1917, Seiler 1973, and Gantt 1980). In the sand dune habitats,
the soils have often been stabilized and the sites are affected by grazing and introduced plant
species. The bur oak woodlands in this area of North Dakota have been extensively altered and
reduced from pre-intensive settlement (Burgess 1964). According to Shunk (1917) bur oak
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-177
formerly represented very extensive communities consisting of trees of large size. With the
incoming of settlers and the scarcity of fuel and lumber, the trees were cut and utilized in a very
short time. They were replaced by scrubby groves of oak which often reached only minimal
size before they were also utilized for settlement purposes.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge occur in scattered populations throughout the tallgrass
prairie. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of sensitive species habitat but at the same time,
efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to
sensitive species. Livestock grazing management, including changes in the type of animal
(sheep/goats), grazing season, and/or intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in some
situations for the control of noxious weeds.
Competition from non-native invasive plants (exotics) can be a significant threat. Invasive
species such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome often form monocultures, significantly
reducing the diversity of native species. Some types of livestock grazing seem to encourage
spread of these invasive species while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment
and spread.
Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations for some of the
sensitive species. Information is lacking about specific pollinators for many sensitive plant
species.
Increased rates of channelization in drainages can result in a lowered water tables. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of some sensitive plant species may place individual plants or populations at risk.
Burning, livestock grazing, and mowing can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant
species, depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive
characteristics of the individual plant species. Properly timed grazing, burning, and mowing
may be beneficial in maintaining the quality of native grassland habitats. Lack of disturbance
can cause some sites to convert to shrub habitats or to become dominated by heavy vegetative
cover.
Burning may directly impact sensitive plant species by causing mortality or indirectly impact
these species and communities through effects on the habitat. Mowing and summer burning
may prevent a completion of the life cycle for frostweed. Early spring and late fall burning
should have no effect on any of the species and may be beneficial.
Livestock grazing and fire suppression can contribute to stabilization and increased vegetative
cover on the sandhills, thereby reducing the number and size of blowouts where occupied and
potential habitat exist for several species in this group. This would particularly affect
sandgrass, an annual species associated with primary succession on blowouts. Livestock
grazing can prevent sensitive plants from completing their life cycles and producing seeds.
Excessive and continuous livestock grazing on sensitive plants can lead to impacts on plant
regrowth, thereby reducing the vigor of plants within the population. The species in this plant
group are not considered highly palatable to cattle but could be grazed by sheep or goats.
Grazing can reduce dead material within plant communities and open up canopy layers of
plants, allowing for the germination and establishment of new plants. Livestock grazing can
H-178
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
create conditions favorable for establishment of new plants of sensitive species such as beach
heather and sandgrass that require disturbed areas for germination.
Livestock trampling can be a problem under some circumstances for the sensitive species in this
plant group. Trampling could be detrimental to individual plants. In addition, excessive and
repeated soil compaction from trampling may result in reduced plant vigor.
Repeated mowing may prevent some sensitive plant species from completing their life cycle and
may also reduce carbohydrate reserves. Mowing should have no affect after seed set.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with road and trail development could result in
mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Road management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans can have positive or
negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat fragmentation,
road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes,
loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can
have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of
recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of spread of invasive, nonnative plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.
Cumulative Effects
Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, nonnative plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands
occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and
croplands. Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands can
be expected to occur on private lands.
Livestock grazing and mowing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive
plant species are likely to continue on some private lands. Grazing practices on private land
may not be conducive to sustaining populations. Stabilization of blowouts on private land may
continue to decrease populations on private land.
Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue,
resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible mortality
of sensitive plants and population loss. Drainage ditches on adjacent private land may lower
water table levels below the root zone of some sensitive plant species, putting individuals or
populations at risk. Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect
pollinators for some sensitive plant species.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-179
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this plant group are
included in the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA4-A1
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
NA
NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G.
NA
The following conservation and mitigation measures should be considered for inclusion in the
final planning direction for all units containing this guild:
a. Manage tallgrass prairie habitats supporting these species to provide for a mosaic of
seral stages and disturbance regimes within the landscape. Especially important may be
seral stages which provide a high component of species diversity. Well distributed plant
communities of high species diversity will be needed to act as seed sources for other
areas within the landscape where these species have been reduced. Landscapes which
do not provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in loss of
suitable habitat for sensitive species.
b. Where possible, maintain active blowouts as habitat for several of these species.
H-180
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Determinations and Rationale: Sheyenne National Grassland
Alternative 1
SNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal
listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." Lack of disturbance regimes are resulting in
stabilization of many sand blowouts and sand dunes resulting in a loss of suitable habitat for
some of the species in this plant group. Populations of sandgrass and beach heather may be lost
through the lack of sufficient disturbance regimes to maintain sand blowouts and sand dunes in
an active condition. Both beach heather and sandgrass are known from very limited populations, so loss of habitat may have resulted in loss of population viability throughout the
planning unit and possibly throughout the planning area. Population viability for these species
is not of concern rangewide. The other two species in this plant group would have a "no
impact" call from the actions associated with this alternative.
Alternative 2
SNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
This determination was based upon the limited habitat available to these species within the
planning units, planning area, and rangewide, as well as the limited number of known populations of some of the species in this plant group. Under this alternative, the increases in grazing
may maintain blowout areas and sand dunes in the early seral stage plant communities favored
by some of the species. Alternative 2 would provide for increases in early seral conditions
which increases suitable habitat for some of the sensitive species. However, the levels of
prescribed fire do not approximate the fire regime under which some of the species and habitats
evolved and may affect suitable habitat for frostweed. This alternative provides for higher
levels of noxious weed control, however it also provides for increased livestock use with the
potential for increases in the spread and establishment of noxious weeds and exotic species.
The habitats associated with this plant group are found only within the tallgrass prairie. It is
estimated that tallgrass prairie has been reduced to less than 1% of its original range. Very little
private, state, or other federal lands exist within the planning unit which would provide
habitats for this plant group. In addition, the small fragments of tallgrass prairie on private
land may be unoccupied habitat and seed sources may not be present for establishment of the
species of this guild. With the cumulative effects of the actions proposed by this alternative,
management activities may result in a loss of individuals however population viability should
not be affected in the planning unit, planning area, and rangewide.
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5
SNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
This determination is based upon the limited habitat available to these species within the
planning units, planning area, and rangewide, as well as the limited number of known populations of some of the species in this plant group. Habitat quality may be affected by grazing
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-181
intensity, season of use, livestock distribution, and trampling. The levels of prescribed fire
within alternatives 3 and 5 is a positive move towards restoring the fire regime under which the
species evolved. For example, frostweed seems to be positively correlated to a periodic fire
regime. Both alternatives also provide for no net increase (from current levels) of noxious
weeds. The existence and spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to
the maintenance of high quality tallgrass prairie habitat. Alternatives 3 and 5 would provide
for 10 to 15% early seral conditions which may maintain suitable habitat for some of the
sensitive species in this group if these early seral conditions are applied to sand dunes and sand
blowouts.
The quality of the habitats associated with this guild should also improve under Alternative 4
due to the cumulative effects of the actions associated with this alternative. This alternative
should provide for a mosaic of low, mid, and high seral conditions throughout the tallgrass
prairie, which overall should favor the species in this group. Some of these species (sandgrass,
beach heather) need low to low/mid seral stages around sand dunes for their survival. This
alternative would allow for sufficient early seral stage communities (10%) and under a restorative emphasis, sand dunes and blowouts could be the focus of some of these early seral
communities. The level of prescribed fire within this alternative is a positive move towards
restoring the fire regime under which some of the species evolved. For example, frostweed
seems to be positively correlated to a periodic fire regime. Alternative 4 also provides for a 15%
reduction (from current levels) of noxious weeds through numbers of acres receiving active
treatment. The spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the maintenance of high quality tallgrass prairie habitat.
Western Plains Riparian
Table H-3 plant species in this group include:
•
lanceleaf cottonwood
•
alkali sacaton
•
blue lips
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area.
This plant group occurs across wide variety of wetland/riparian habitat types found within the
semi-arid mixed grass/shortgrass plains of the planning area. All currently known populations
of these species occur on the Little Missouri National Grassland. The habitat types of this
association are areas of added moisture within a semi-arid mixed grass/shortgrass landscape.
For example, they include the riparian cottonwood communities found along perennial and
intermittent streams, sedge/juncus habitats found in conjunction with springs and seeps, saline
subirrigated zones, wooded draws, and wet meadows.
Within the Northern Great Plains planning area, the habitat components associated with this
guild are uncommon and occupy a very small percentage of the total land base. Throughout the
planning area, mesic habitat types may differ in vegetation type, soils, and hydrologic regime
from those described for the Little Missouri National Grassland. However these other habitats
share the common feature of having a seasonally or perennially wet moisture regime within a
semi-arid grassland landscape.
H-182
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
These plant group includes both narrow range and mid-range species. Lanceleaf cottonwood, a
narrow range species restricted to a single habitat type, is known in the planning area only from
riparian zones associated with perennial creeks in western North Dakota. Alkali sacaton and
blue lips are considered as having a mid-range of versatility and are found primarily in one
habitat type but can be found in other habitat types. Alkali sacaton is found within the narrow
subirrigated zone of saline drainageways. Blue lips occurs primarily in niches of low evapotranspiration rates, added moisture conditions, and limited sunlight reflectance in the mixed
grass prairie. Riparian areas, wooded draws, north-facing slopes, and escarpments can also
provide these conditions.
Wetland and riparian areas within the mixed and shortgrass prairies vary from the "green
zones" along rivers and drainageways to flowing springs and seeps. Their habitat types
comprise a very small percentage of the total land base in the semi-arid plains and contain plant
species which are uncommon within the surrounding rolling grasslands and badlands. In
addition, these riparian plant communities were some of the most heavily altered by historic
settlement. Demands for water from settlers and livestock grazing resulted in many plant
communities moving into lowered seral stages and/or reduced native plant species diversity.
Soils were frequently compacted and hydrologic regimes altered. Historic evidence has
suggested that many riparian areas have become drier with a resultant net loss of riparian plant
diversity. Currently many areas of added moisture faced habitat risk from introduced and
noxious plant species.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Competition from non-native invasive plants can be a significant threat. Invasive species such
as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome often form monocultures within riparian habitats,
significantly reducing the diversity of native species. Some types of livestock grazing seem to
encourage spread of these invasive species while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of
encroachment and spread.
Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge and Canadian thistle prefer riparian habitats and areas of
added moisture. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of sensitive species habitat but at the same
time, efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat
to sensitive species. In addition, many chemicals are restricted for use within riparian zones.
Livestock grazing management, including changes in the type of animal (sheep/goats), grazing
season, and/or intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in some situations for the control
of noxious weeds.
Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations. Information is
lacking about specific pollinators for many sensitive plant species.
Properly functioning riparian systems and naturally flowing (non-dammed) drainages can
create conditions favorable for establishment of new populations of sensitive species. Lanceleaf
cottonwood species, in particular, depend upon flooding events, channel meander processes,
and exposed mineral soil for establishment.
Management activities which cause a loss of equilibrium with riparian systems, resulting in
excessive flooding events along drainageways, excessive erosion, sedimentation, and/or
channelization may reduce habitat for sensitive plant species. Excessive removal of vegetation
on uplands can result in rill, sheet, and gully erosion and excessive soil and water runoff.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-183
Increased rates of channelization can result in a lowered water tables. Lanceleaf cottonwood
can be come pedestaled by excessive rates of erosion with riparian channels. Alkali sacaton
populations can be adversely affected by a lowering of the table within their subirrigated
habitat. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of some sensitive plant
species may place individual plants or populations at risk.
Burning, livestock grazing, and mowing can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant
species, depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive
characteristics of the individual plant species.
Burning may directly impact sensitive plant species by causing mortality or indirectly impact
these species and communities through effects on the habitat. Burning may indirectly affect
habitat for blue lips by removing shade and cover, and reducing moisture conditions needed for
a population’s survival.
Livestock grazing within riparian areas can interfere with reproduction of sensitive plant
species such as blue lips and alkali sacaton that reproduce by seed. Excessive livestock grazing
in riparian areas can lead to livestock browsing of lanceleaf cottonwood seedlings and saplings,
thereby reducing the recruitment of younger trees within the population. Grazing can reduce
dead material in plants and open up canopy layers of plants, allowing for the germination and
establishment of new plants. Livestock trampling in riparian areas and repeated visits to these
areas for water can be a problem under some circumstances for some of the sensitive species
within this group. Excessive and repeated soil compaction may result in reduced plant vigor.
Individual plants may be directly affected by trampling.
Repeated mowing may prevent some sensitive plant species from completing their life cycle and
may also reduce carbohydrate reserves.
Development of springs and seeps for livestock water can result in loss of sensitive species
populations and loss of habitat. Many springs have been developed in the past for livestock and
the net loss of these habitat types is very high in many parts of the Grasslands.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with oil, gas, mineral, and other types of development
could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Roads
management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans
can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on
habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species
along travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation
management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of
spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.
Cumulative Effects
Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, nonnative plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands
occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and
croplands. Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands
can be expected to occur on private lands.
H-184
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue,
resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible mortality
of sensitive plants and population loss. Livestock grazing and mowing practices that are
unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private
lands. Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect pollinators for
some sensitive plant species.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this plant group are
included in the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-B(3,6,7,9,13,14), SG-F(1-3,17), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(5,10,11), SG-J(1-7)
SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2),SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A(1,4,5), GA3-A(1,5)
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
NA
NA
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-185
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Conduct an assessment of springs and seeps to determine net loss of these riparian
habitat types since pre-settlement times. Springs are still commonly converted to
livestock watering facilities, resulting in habitat loss for riparian obligate sensitive
species. Consider restoring modified springs and seeps to original conditions.
Considering fencing off springs and seeps to protect riparian species as well as to protect
the site’s hydrologic conditions.
b. Manage for well-distributed populations of these species with high plant species
diversity to act as seed sources for other areas within the landscape where these species
have been reduced. Landscapes which do not provide a mosaic of seral stages and
disturbance regimes may result in loss of suitable habitat for these sensitive plant
species.
c. Provide direction that lists riparian habitats that support this plant group as a high
priority for enhancement through improved management and close coordination with
other resource uses and activities.
d. Consider the use of riparian pastures where these species occur so that livestock grazing
can be closely coordinated with the management of these sensitive plant populations.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1 and 2
LMNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal
listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." The concern is loss of viability on the
LMNG. This determination was based upon the low number of known populations of some of
the sensitive plant species in this group. Under this alternative, the increases in grazing,
combined with other cumulative effects, may result in the loss of known populations for some
of the species. The acres of rangeland annually rested from livestock grazing do not approximate the landscape conditions under which some of the species and habitats evolved. In
addition, the levels of prescribed fire do not approximate the fire regime under which some of
the species and habitats evolved. Alternative 2 would provide for decreases in mid to higher
seral conditions which reduces suitable conditions for some of the species and the habitats upon
which they depend. Alternative 2 provides for higher levels of noxious weed control, however
it also provides for increased livestock use with the potential for increases in the spread and
establishment of noxious weeds and exotic species. Noxious weeds and many exotics prefer
riparian habitats and areas of added moisture. In addition, many chemical treatments are
reduced for use within riparian zones. This plant group is broad in scope and associated with
numerous riparian habitat types. All of the species are known from the Little Missouri
H-186
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
National Grassland where the two units of Theodore Roosevelt National Park may provide
similar habitat conditions. However, these areas may be unoccupied habitat and seed sources
may not be present for some of these species. Under the current level of known populations,
the management activities proposed by this alternative may result in a loss of the known
populations from the planning unit.
Implementation of the recommendations presented under the Conservation Measures and
Mitigation section for this plant group would reduce the severity of this determination for Alternative 2. Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of may adversely
impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor
cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide for Alternative 2.
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5
LMNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
These species need habitat conditions which include both early and mid-high seral conditions
for establishment and survival. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would provide for increases in mid to
higher seral conditions which should favor some of the species. The acres of rangeland
annually rested from livestock grazing under these alternatives also more closely approximate
the conditions under which some of the species evolved as compared to current grazing conditions. In addition, the levels of prescribed fire within alternatives 3, 4, and 5 is a positive move
towards restoring the fire regime under which some of the species evolved. Alternatives 3 and
5 also provide for no net increase (from current levels) of noxious weeds. Alternative 4 provides
for a 15% reduction (from current levels) of noxious weeds through numbers of acres receiving
active treatment. The spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the
maintenance of high quality native grassland riparian habitat.
This plant group is broad in scope and is associated with several riparian habitat types. This
includes riverine habitats as well as springs and seeps, wet meadows, saline subirrigated zones,
and woody draws. These habitat types are widely distributed across private, state, tribal, and
other federal grasslands. All of these species are known from the Little Missouri National
Grassland where the two units of Theodore Roosevelt National Park may provide similar
habitat conditions. However, these riparian habitats comprise a very small part of the total land
base within the planning area. In addition, most riparian areas may be unoccupied habitat and
seed sources may not be present for establishment of the species in this group. Under the
management activities proposed by these alternatives, and utilizing standard survey and
management procedures for habitat disturbance, known populations should receive adequate
protection. However, livestock management techniques which provide specific protection and
habitat improvement goals for riparian areas may also be needed to provide for the viability of
riparian-dependent sensitive plant species.
Scoria Hills
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. Plant species in this
group include limber pine and golden stickleaf.
This plant group includes the scoria hills and scoria knobs which are widely dispersed across
the mixed and shortgrass plains in the western portion of the planning area. The plant
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-187
associations included with these habitats are predominately graminoids such as needlegrass
and wheatgrass with a diverse forb community which is often very different from the forb mix
in the surrounding landscape.
Within the Northern Great Plains planning area, the scoria hill habitat varies from common to
uncommon within the grasslands. Two plant species, including one conifer and a forb, are
found within these scoria sites. Golden stickleaf is categorized as a narrow-range species while
limber pine occurs in the mid-range of versatility, i.e. it is associated primarily with one habitat
type but may also be found in other habitat types. Golden stickleaf is found on scoria breaks
and rocky knobs in the mixed grass plains of western North Dakota. Limber pine is found in
scoria hills and dry hilltops above the Little Missouri River in North Dakota.
These scoria hills and knobs represent microsites within the rolling grasslands and badlands.
Some components of their plant communities may be similar to surrounding communities
however the lithic soil horizon often favors droughty species, early seral species, and occasionally a shrub or tree species which may establish roots into rocky soil profile.
The mixed grass plains surrounding these microsites evolved under a broad scale disturbance
regime of herbivory, fire, and climatic fluctuations. Although Wright and Bailey (1980) describe
climate as the dominant factor controlling the vegetation composition of North American grasslands, fire regimes and herbivory patterns have been the two processes most altered since
settlement of the prairies. Historically, bison grazing was more prevalent within the mixed
grass plains than the tallgrass prairie. The wide-ranging bison herds grazed in a pattern of high
intensity and short duration followed by long periods of rest. In addition, periodic fires shaped
the vegetation landscape and removed both green and dead plant material. In semi-arid
regions, big prairie fires in the past usually occurred during drought years that followed one to
three years of above-average precipitation which provided abundant and continuous fuel
(Wright and Bailey 1980).
Direct and Indirect Effects
Competition from non-native invasive plants can be a threat in reducing the diversity of native
species. Some types of livestock grazing seem to encourage spread of these invasive species
while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment and spread.
Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge and Canadian thistle occur in scattered populations
throughout the mixed grass plains. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of habitat but at the
same time, efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct
threat to sensitive species. Livestock grazing management, including changes in the type of
animal (sheep/goats), grazing season, and/or intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in
some situations for the control of noxious weeds.
Excessive removal of vegetation on uplands can result in rill, sheet, and gully erosion and
excessive soil and water runoff. Increased rates of channelization in drainageways can result in
a lowered water table. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of these
sensitive plant species may place individual plants or populations at risk.
Burning and livestock grazing can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant species,
depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive
characteristics of the individual plant species.
H-188
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Burning may directly impact sensitive plant species by causing mortality or indirectly impact
these species and communities through effects on the habitat. Burning may directly affect
limber pine by causing tree mortality.
Grazing can reduce dead material within plant communities and open up canopy layers of
plants, allowing for the germination and establishment of new plants. Neither of the species is
considered palatable to livestock. Livestock trampling during wet times of year can be a
problem under some circumstances for golden stickleaf. Excessive and repeated soil compaction may result in reduced plant vigor. Individual plants may be directly affected by trampling.
Primary threats to the limber pine population are from porcupine foraging which often kills
individual trees by stripping the trunks of bark. Limber pine is also susceptible to the blister
rust and an outbreak of this disease in this area may seriously impact the pine community. The
alternate host for blister rust, Ribes spp., also occurs in this area.
Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations. This may be of
concern for golden stickleaf where information is lacking about specific pollinators.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with oil, gas, mineral, and other types of development
could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk.
Road management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management
plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending
on habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant
species along travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant
populations, depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities,
rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.
Cumulative Effects
Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, nonnative plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands
occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and
croplands. Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands
can be expected to occur on private lands.
Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue,
resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible mortality
of sensitive plants and population loss. Livestock grazing practices that are unfavorable for the
conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private lands. Insecticide
spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect pollinators for some sensitive
plant species.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-189
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this plant group are
included in the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A(1,4-6), GA2-C1, GA3-A1, GA3-A5, GA3-C1
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
NA
NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Manage mixed grass and shortgrass habitats that support these plant species to provide
for a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes within the landscape. Especially
important may be seral stages which provide a high component of species diversity.
Well distributed plant communities of high species diversity will be needed to act as
seed sources for other areas within the landscape where diversity may be reduced.
Landscapes which do not provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may
result in loss of suitable habitat for sensitive species.
H-190
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
b. Manage for well-distributed populations of these species within the planning area to act
as seed sources for other areas within the landscape where the species has been reduced.
Management activities should not occur in any of the known populations of this species
to allow for maintenance of present populations. Landscapes which do not provide a
mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in a loss of suitable habitat for
these sensitive plant species.
Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
LMNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Under all alternatives, both of the species are protected within the Limber Pine Research
Natural Area established in 1991. In discussing protection for these species, it is recommended
that the management plan for this established RNA will be completed within five years of the
Forest Plan. Annual monitoring of the limber pine population may be needed until the RNA
plan is established to address potential disease and predation problems. The spread of noxious
and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the maintenance of this habitat within the
mixed grass plains. Alternatives 2 and 4 provide for a 15% decrease in noxious weeds while
Alternatives 3 and 5 provide for no net increase (from current levels) of noxious weed. The
acres of rangeland annually rested from livestock grazing under Alternatives 3 and 5 also more
closely approximate the conditions under which some of the species evolved as compared to
current grazing conditions. In addition, the levels of prescribed fire within Alternatives 3 and 5
is a positive move towards restoring the fire regime under which golden stickleaf evolved.
This habitat is widely distributed throughout the Little Missouri National Grassland. In
addition, scoria habitat found on private, state, and other federal land including Theodore
Roosevelt National Park. However, these areas may be unoccupied habitat and seed sources
may not be present for establishment of the species. Under the management activities proposed
by these alternatives and the protection offered known populations through Research Natural
Area status, population viability should be met for these two species.
Buttes
Table H-3 plant species in this group include:
•
nodding buckwheat
•
Torrey’s cryptantha
•
alyssum-leaved phlox
•
Hooker’s townsendia
Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area.
All currently known populations of the forb species in this group occur on the Little Missouri
National Grassland. Nodding buckwheat, Torrey’s cryptantha, and Hooker’s townsendia are
narrow range specialists and are found only within narrow growing parameters associated with
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-191
butte landforms. Alyssum-leaved phlox is also associated with butte landforms but has limited
occurrences in other habitats adjacent to buttes.
Butte landforms occur as isolated and scattered topographic features within the surrounding
landscape of rolling grasslands and badlands. The buttes often contain elements of rare habitat
different from habitat commonly found in the surrounding grasslands. The combination of rare
habitats and uncommon topography contribute to the concentrations of rare species, both plant
and animal, found in conjunction with the buttes. Buttes often provide a diversity of niche
habitat, such as rock cliffs, riparian springs, and rimrock habitat, which is very rare within the
grasslands. In addition, many of the buttes are capped by geologic formations which are very
different from the geologic strata in the surrounding landscape. Many of the buttes in North
Dakota contain representative examples of the Chadron, Brule, and Arikaree Formations which
are more commonly found in Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, and South Dakota (Murphy,
Hoganson, and Forsman 1993). These geologic formations contribute to edaphic conditions
which may be uncommon, contributing to the diversity of plant species and unique plant
communities.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Competition from non-native invasive plants can be a significant threat. Invasive species such
as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome often form monocultures, significantly reducing the
diversity of native species. Some types of livestock grazing seem to encourage spread of these
invasive species while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment and spread.
Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge and Canadian thistle are found in scattered populations
throughout the mixed grass and shortgrass plains. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of
sensitive species habitat but at the same time, efforts to control spurge and other invasive
species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to sensitive species. Livestock grazing
management, including changes in the type of animal (sheep/goats), grazing season, and/or
intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in some situations for the control of noxious
weeds.
Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations. Information is
lacking about specific pollinators for many sensitive plant species.
Excessive removal of vegetation on uplands and buttes can result in rill, sheet, and gully erosion
and excessive soil and water runoff. Increased rates of channelization can result in a lowered
water table. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of some sensitive plant
species may place individual plants or populations at risk.
Burning may directly impact sensitive plant species by causing mortality or indirectly impact
these species and communities through effects on habitat.
Livestock grazing and burning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant species,
depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive
characteristics of the individual plant species.
Livestock grazing can interfere with reproduction of sensitive plant species that reproduce by
seed.
Grazing can reduce dead material in plants and open up canopy layers of plants, allowing for
the germination and establishment of new plants. Repeated grazing may prevent some
H-192
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
sensitive plant species from completing their life cycle and may also reduce carbohydrate
reserves.
Livestock trampling can be a problem under some circumstances for some of the sensitive
species within this guild. Excessive and repeated soil compaction may result in reduced plant
vigor. Individual plants such as Alyssum-leafed phlox, Torrey’s cryptantha, and Hooker’s
townsendia grow in shallow soil on the butte top and may be directly affected by trampling.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with oil, gas, mineral, and other types of development
could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk.
Roads management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management
plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending
on habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant
species along travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant
populations, depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities,
rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.
Cumulative Effects
Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands can be
expected to occur on private lands.
Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue,
resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible mortality
of sensitive plants and population loss.
Livestock grazing and mowing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive
plant species are likely to continue on some private lands.
Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, nonnative plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands
occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and
croplands.
Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect pollinators for some
sensitive plant species.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a
livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.
Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit
to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-193
Conservation Measures and Mitigation
The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this plant group are
included in the proposed LRMPs:
Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8
SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Management Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Geographic Area Direction
Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A(1,4-6), GA2-C1, GA3-A1, GA3-A5, GA3-C1
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives
Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
Appendices
Dakota Prairie Units
Nebraska N.F. Units
Thunder Basin N.G.
See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction
NA
NA
Direction That Varies by Alternative
Dakota Prairie Units None
Nebraska N.F. Units NA
Thunder Basin N.G. NA
The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning
direction:
a. Buttes and other uncommon landforms which contain concentrations of rare elements,
both flora and fauna, and contain unique plant communities should be evaluated for
permanent protection under Research Natural Area (RNA) designation. Buttes which
do not meet RNA criteria should be evaluated for designation as Special Interest Areas
for botany, wildlife, geology, scenic, and/or a combination of resource values.
b. Grazing management practices should be modified around buttes to protect their unique
niche habitat and rare species. Buttes should be managed to maintain and enhance their
habitats with high priority given to noxious weed control and prevention of the
introduction of exotic plant species.
H-194
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
c. Management for buttes and uncommon landforms should emphasize well-distributed
populations of these species with high plant species diversity to act as seed sources for
other areas within the landscape where these species have been reduced. Landscapes
which do not provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in loss
of suitable habitat for these sensitive species.
Preliminary Determinations and Rationale
Alternatives 1 and 2
LMNG
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal
listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." The Little Missouri National Grassland
contains the only federally owned butte escarpments in the planning area which provide habitat
for these species. Also, some of these species are known from extremely limited population
within the planning area. Threats from grazing, trampling, and invasive plant species under
Alternatives 1 and 2 may lead to a loss of these populations on the Little Missouri National
Grassland. All of the species are peripheral species, on the edge of their range, so loss of individuals or populations would not lead to loss of species viability rangewide. Peripheral populations are of value because they are often genetically different from populations which may
occur more within the common range of the species. Also, Alternatives 1 and 2 do not provide
any special protection status, such as Research Natural Area designation for Bullion Butte
which contains the primary habitat for three of the four species in this group.
Implementation of the recommendations presented under the Conservation Measures and
Mitigation section for this plant group would reduce the severity of this determination for Alternative 2. Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of may adversely
impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor
cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide for Alternative 2.
Alternative 3
LMNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of
viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability
rangewide." As noted above, the Little Missouri National Grassland contains the only federally
owned butte escarpments in the planning area which provides habitat for the species in this
group. Also, some of these species are known from extremely limited population within the
planning area. Threats from grazing, trampling, and invasive plant species under Alternative 3
may lead to a loss of individual plants. All of the species are peripheral species, on the edge of
their range, so loss of individuals or populations would not lead to loss of species viability
rangewide. Peripheral populations are of value because they are often genetically different
from populations which may occur more within the common range of the species. Alternative
3 does not provide any special protection status, such as Research Natural Area designation for
Bullion Butte which contains the primary habitat for three of the four species. However,
Bullion Butte escarpment is proposed for management under backcountry recreation,
nonmotorized, which would provide a degree of protection from the introduction of non-native
plant species and from vehicular travel over rare plant populations. Alternative 3 does provide
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-195
Special Interest Area (SIA) designation for Roundtop Butte which provides habitat for the only
known population of nodding buckwheat within the Dakota Prairie Grassland.
Alternative 4
LMNG (Torrey’s Cryptantha, Alyssum-leaved Phlox, Hooker’s Townsendia)
Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal
listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." Bullion Butte, which provides the only
occupied habitat for three of the four species in this plant group, would be proposed for
wilderness designation. Most of these species are known from extremely limited populations
within the planning area. All of the species are ranked as S1 species, meaning they are critically
imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (known from five or fewer occurrences in the
state) or because of some factor in its biology making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from
the state. The habitat upon which they depend is rare within the planning area and planning
unit. Suitable habitat is also rare on adjacent private, state, other federal, or tribal lands. The
habitat upon which these species depend is fragile and has a low tolerance to disturbance.
Conditions associated with this habitat such as drought, wind, and temperature extremes
already place plant populations under high environmental stresses. Some plant populations
associated with this habitat exhibit high ranges of plant mortality from year to year. For some
of these species, evidence would seem to indicate stable or downward trends however, there is
little evidence to support upward trends.
In many areas and under many circumstances, wilderness areas are considered as offering a
degree of protection to the habitats within the wilderness area. However, the number of rare
species and unique habitat found on the Bullion Butte escarpment may not be compatible with
increases in public use under wilderness area designation. As the second highest point in North
Dakota, Bullion Butte escarpment offers high value scenic vistas from the butte’s flat top. The
fragile rimrock habitat on the butte top may become the destination point for recreational users
resulting in significant impact to the limited populations and fragile habitat of rare plants found
there. Public use may change this currently little-used area to a recreation destination for day
hikers and some overnight campers. This may result in increased recreational impacts to rare
plant populations as well as rare butte habitat. In addition, the topography of the proposed
wilderness area suggests that intensified recreational interest is likely to be focused upon certain
areas in particular, including the butte top and rock escarpment. These locations are also the
most fragile and contain the rare plant populations and the unique habitats upon which they
depend. Grazing and livestock trampling to rare species would also continue from the grazing
associated with wilderness area designation.
The following rationale was used to determine the effects of wilderness proposals relative to the
sensitive plant species within the proposed wilderness area. These rationale were developed
after consulting with wilderness coordinators in Region 1 and 2 as well as FS manual (FSM)
direction specifically under 2320 and its subsections.
•
The proposed wilderness contains 8,410 acres, however, due to the topography of the
butte, much of the recreational impact could reasonably be expected to be focused in a
few key areas such as the butte top and rock escarpment. These areas coincide with the
locations of rare plants and unique habitat.
•
This wilderness would be one of the few mixed-grass wilderness areas in the nation.
The wilderness study process of this site alone may result in high visibility and a high
increase in recreation visits to the site. Wilderness interest may be generated among
H-196
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
both wilderness fans as well as from those who are curious to view one of the few
wilderness sites being proposed within the region.
•
The main focus of wilderness is to preserve natural values in pristine conditions and
allow the forces of nature to work. However, the size of this wilderness may not be large
enough to truly capture natural processes. In addition, the processes which may be
needed to maintain species viability for rare plants may be in conflict with processes
needed to meet broad wilderness goals for habitat management.
•
Wilderness does not automatically provide protection for imperiled species, especially if
those species require periodic habitat manipulation to perpetuate themselves. FSM
2323.31, objectives, states that management of wildlife and fish habitat is to "provide an
environment where the forces of natural selection and survival rather than human
actions determine which and what numbers of wildlife species will exist." However,
another objective of wilderness is also to "protect wildlife and fish indigenous to the area
from human caused conditions that could lead to Federal listing as threatened and
endangered", and to "provide protection for known populations and aid recovery in
areas of previous habitation, of federally listed threatened or endangered species and
their habitats." However, Forest Service manual direction is not clear on protection of
threatened and endangered plant species and Forest Service Sensitive (non federallylisted) plant species.
•
Management for imperiled plant and animal species becomes much more complicated
within wilderness areas. Habitat manipulation for TES species will require extensive
analysis and documentation. Public and agency opinion may vary considerably in
determining which activities should be allowed in wilderness areas.
•
Under wilderness, noxious weed control using chemicals may not be permitted to the
extent it is now. Biological control methods would be preferred. Noxious weed
invasion poses a very serious threat to the plant communities of the Little Missouri
National Grassland.
•
Livestock grazing is an existing use in wilderness areas. Livestock trampling is
currently a threat to known sensitive plant species in the area. Certain habitats can be
fenced for resource protection, FSM 2323.26a. However, new permanent wire fences are
not encouraged (FSM 2324.33c). Jack fences or other fences more suitable for the
wilderness environment should be used.
Implementation of the following conservation measure plus those recommended under the
Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this plant group would reduce the severity of
this determination for this alternative:
•
Within Management Area 1.2 (wilderness) proposed under this alternative, additional
specific management protection is recommended for the rare plants species and unique
habitat associated with the butte escarpment. Occupied and unoccupied habitat for the
sensitive plant species in this plant group, as well as unique and fragile habitats, should
be placed into Research Natural Area (2.2) or botanical Special Interest Area (2.1)
designation. These management area designations would be compatible with
Management Area 1.2 and would offer the higher level of protection needed for specific
species and habitat.
•
In addition to (1) above, it is recommended that timely management plans be written for
the 2.2 or 2.1 Management Area designations to ensure that specific measures are
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-197
identified and implemented to meet the needs of these species and habitats. Due to the
public interest level this sensitive area may receive in the short term after the Forest Plan
is signed, it is recommended that an interim plan be written within two years to provide
immediate protection for rare elements with the permanent management plan being
completed within five years.
Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of "may adversely impact
individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a
trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide" for this alternative.
Alternative 4 (Nodding Buckwheat)
LMNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
In North Dakota this species is ranked as S1, meaning it is critically imperiled in the state
because of extreme rarity (known from five or fewer occurrences in the state) or because of some
factor in its biology making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. The habitat
upon which it depends is rare within the planning area and planning unit. Suitable habitat is
also rare on adjacent private, state, other federal, or tribal lands. The habitat upon which this
species depends is fragile and has a low tolerance to disturbance. Alternative 4 provides Special
Interest Area (SIA) designation for Roundtop Butte which provides habitat for the only known
population of nodding buckwheat within the Dakota Prairie Grassland. Forest Plan objectives
provide for management plans to be written for Special Interest Areas within five years of plan
completion.
Alternative 4
LMNG (nodding buckwheat only)
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
Alternative 4 provides Special Interest Area (SIA) designation for Roundtop Butte which
provides habitat for the only known population of nodding buckwheat within the Dakota
Prairie Grassland.
H-198
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Alternative 5
LMNG
Determination is "may adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability
on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."
As noted, the Little Missouri National Grassland contains the only federally owned butte
escarpments in the planning area which provides habitat for the species in this plant group.
Also, some of these species are known from extremely limited population within the planning
area. Many of these buttes may become destination points under an alternative which emphasizes recreational uses, resulting in potential trampling and the introduction of invasive plant
species into these areas. In addition, this alternative does not provide any special protections
status, such as Research Natural Area or Special Interest Area designation for Bullion Butte
which contains the primary habitat for three of the four species. However, Bullion Butte
escarpment is proposed for management under backcountry recreation, nonmotorized, which
would provide a degree of protection from the introduction of non-native plant species and
from vehicular travel over rare plant populations. Neither does this alternative provide Special
Interest Area (SIA) designation for Roundtop Butte which provides habitat for the only known
population of nodding buckwheat within the Dakota Prairie Grassland.
Western Wooded Draw
This plant group includes the habitat types found within the wooded draws in the western part
of the planning area. The wooded draws are predominately green ash/chokecherry/snowberry
habitat types. Only one Table H-3 plant species, blue lips, is identified as occurring in wooded
draws. This species occurs primarily in niches of low evapotranspiration rates, added moisture
conditions, and limited sunlight reflectance in the mixed grass prairie. This species has already
been addressed as part of the western plains riparian plant group.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-199
References
Aldrich, J.W. 1963. "Geographic Orientation of American Tetraonidae." J. Wildl. Manage.
27:529-545.
Ammann, G.A. 1957. The Prairie Grouse of Michigan. Michigan Dept. Conservation, P-R Rep.,
Projects W-5-R, W-37-R and W-70-R.
Archer, S., M.G. Garrett, and J.K. Detling. 1987. "Rates of Vegetation Change Associated with
Prairie Dog Grazing in North American Mixed-grass Prairie." Vegetation 72:159-166.
Arditti, J. 1992. Fundamentals of Orchid Biology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.
691pp.
Armbruster, M.J. 1990. Characterization of Habitat Used by Whooping Cranes During Migration. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biol. Rep. 90(4). 16pp.
Arnett, R.H. 1997. American Insects: A Handbook of the Insects of America North of Mexico.
The Sandhill Crane Press, Inc., Gainesville, Florida. 850pp.
Ashton, D.E., and E. M. Dowd. 1991. Fragile Legacy. Endangered, Threatened and Rare Animals of South Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Report No. 91104. Jamestown, North Dakota: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/sdrare/sdrare.tmn (Version 08DEC97).
Bailey, R. M. and M.O. Allum. 1962. Fishes of South Dakota. Museum of Zoology, Univ. of
Michigan. No. 19.
Baker, M.F. 1953. Prairie Chickens of Kansas. Univ. of Kansas Museum of Nat. History and
State Biol. Survey, Misc. Pub. No. 5.
Barnes, A.M. 1993. "A Review of Plague and its Relevance to Prairie Dog Populations and the
Black-footed Ferret." In: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Management of Prairie Dog
Complexes for the Reintroduction of the Black-footed Ferret. Eds. J.L. Oldemeyer, D.E. Biggins, B.J. Miller, and R. Crete. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. 13. Pages 28-37.
Bartelt, P.E. 1977. "Management of the American goshawk in the Black Hills National Forest."
M.A. Thesis, Univ. of South Dakota, Vermillion.
Baxter, G.T., and J. R. Simon. 1970. Wyoming Fishes. WY Game and Fish Dept., Cheyenne.
63-64pp.
Becker, D.M. 1980. A Survey of Raptors on National Forest Land in Carter County, Montana.
Final Progress Report. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Region. 61 pp.
Becker, D.M. 1984. "Reproductive Ecology and Habitat Utilization of Richardson’s Merlins in
Southeastern Montana." M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula.
Becker, D.M., and C.H. Sieg. 1987. "Home Range and Habitat Utilization of Breeding Male
Merlins, Falco columbarius, in Southeastern Montana." The Canadian Field-Naturalist.
101:398-403.
Bergerud, A.T., and M.W. Gratson, eds. 1988. Adaptive Strategies and Population Ecology of
Northern Grouse. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Boal, C. W. and R. W. Mannan. 1994. "Northern Goshawk Diets in Ponderosa Pine Forests on
the Kaibab Plateau." In: The Northern Goshawk: Ecology and Management, Studies in
Avian Biology, No. 16. Eds. W.M. Block, M.S. Morrison, and M.H. Reiser. Cooper Ornithological Society.
H-200
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Bock, C.E., J.H. Bock, W.R, Kenney, and V.M. Hawthorne. 1984. "Responses of Birds, Rodents,
and Vegetation to Livestock Exclosure in a Semidesert Grassland." J. Range Manage. 37:329242.
Bock, C.E., V.A. Saab, T.D. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1993. Effects of Livestock Grazing Grazing
on Neotropical Migratory Landbirds in Western North America. USDA Forest Service GTR
RM-229. 296-309.
Bowles, M.L. 1983. "The Tallgrass Prairie Orchids, Platanthera leucophaea and Cypripedium
candidum: Some Aspects of Their Status, Biology, and Ecology and Implications Towards
Management." Nat. Areas J. 3:14-37.
Bowles, M.L. and A. Duxbury. 1986. Report on the Status of Platanthera praeclara in Oklahoma,
Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado.
Bowser, G. 1993. Genetic Variation Among Three Prairie Dog Colonies (Cynomys ludovicianus)
on the Great Plains: A Preliminary Report. Unpublished report to the National Park Service.
15pp.
Braun, C.E. 1993. "The Status of Sage Grouse: Are They Endangered, Threatened, or?" Paper
presented at Western States Sage/Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Workshop, July 26-28, Ft.
Collins, Colorado.
Braun, C.E., T. Britt, and R.O. Wallestad. 1977. "Guidelines for Maintenance of Sage Grouse
Habitats." Wildl. Soc. Bull., 5(3):99-106.
Brooks, B.L. and S.A. Temple. 1990. "Dynamics of a Loggerhead Shrike Population in Minnesota." Wilson Bull. 102:441-450.
Bull, E.L. and J.E. Hohmann. 1994. "Breeding Biology of Northern Goshawks in Northeastern
Oregon." In: The Northern Goshawk: Ecology and Management, Studies in Avian Biology,
No. 16. Eds. W.M. Block, M.S. Morrison, and M.H. Reiser, eds. Cooper Ornithological Soc.
Call, M.W. 1979. Habitat Management Guides for Birds of Prey. USDI BLM. Tech. Note TN338. 22 pp.
Challey, J.R. and B.L. Heidel. 1993. "Rediscovery of Carex formosa (Cyperaceae) in North Dakota." Prairie Naturalist : 25(2): June 1993.
Chesser, R.K. 1983. "Genetic Variability Within and Among Populations of the Black-tailed
Prairie Dog." Evolution 37(2):320-331.
Cincotta, R.P. 1985. "Habitat and Dispersal of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs in Badlands National
Park." Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins. 52pp.
Clark, R.J. 1975. "A Field Study of the Short-eared Owl, Asio flammeus, in North America." The
Wildlife Society, Monograph No. 47. 67pp.
Clark, T.W. and M.R. Stomberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University of Kansas, Museum
of Nat. History.
Connelly, J.W., Jr., and C.E. Braun. 1996. "Long-term Changes in Sage Grouse Populations in
the Western United States." Paper presented at 7th International Grouse Symposium,
August 20-24, 1996, Ft. Collins, Colorado.
Coppock, D.L., J.E. Ellis, J.K. Detling, and M.I. Dyer. 1983. "Plant-Herbivore Interactions in a
North American Mixed-grass Prairie: Response of Bison to modification of Vegetation by
Prairie Dogs." Oecologia 56:10-15.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-201
Coppock, D.L., J.K. Detling, J.E. Ellis, and M.I. Dyer. 1983. "Plant-Herbivore Interactions in a
North American Mixed-grass Prairie: Effects of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs on Intraseasonal
Aboveground Plant Biomass and Nutrient Dynamics and Plant Species Diversity". Oecologia
56:1-9.
Coyner, J. 1989. Status Check on Reported Historic Populations of Spiranthes diluvialis. Report
for Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah. 9pp.
Coyner, J. 1990. Population Study of Spiranthes diluvialis. Report for Bureau of Land
Management, Salt Lake City, Utah. 29pp.
Crocker-Bedford, D.C. 1990. "Goshawk Reproduction and Forest Management." Wildl. Soc.
Bull. 18:262-269.
Crocker-Bedford, D.C. and B. Chaney. 1988. "Characteristics of Goshawk Nesting Stands." In:
Proceedings of the Southwest Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop. Eds. R.L.
Glinske, B.G. Pendelton, M.B. Moss, M.N. LeFranc, Jr., B. A. Milsap, and S.W. Hoffman.
National Wildlife Federation Scientific and Technical Series.
Cully, J.F., Jr. 1997. "Growth and Life-history Changes in Gunnison’s Prairie Dogs after a
Plague Epizootic." J. of Mammalogy 78(1):146-157.
Cully, J.F., A.M. Barnes, T.J. Quan, and G. Maupin. 1997. "Dynamics of Plague in a Gunnison’s
Prairie Dog Colony Complex from New Mexico." J. of Wildl. Diseases 33(4):706-719.
Cuthrell, D.L. and D.A. Rider. 1993. Insects Associated with the Western Prairie Fringed
Orchid, Plantanthera praeclara, in the Sheyenne National Grassland. Unpublished Report to
North Dakota Parks and Recreation Board, Bismarck. 42 pp.
Daly J.G. 1992. "Population Reductions and Genetic Variability in Black-tailed Prairie Dogs." J.
Wildl. Manage. 56(2):212-220.
Day, K.S. 1994. "Observations on Mountain Plovers (Charadrius montanus) breeding in Utah."
Southwest. Nat. 39:298-300.
Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, M.P. Nenneman, and B.R.
Euliss. 1999. Effects of Mangement Practices on Grassland birds: Bairds Sparrow. Northern
Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Jamestown, ND. 14pp.
DeGraaf, Richard M; Virgil E. Scott; R. H. Hamre, Liz Ernst; and Standley H. Anderson. 1991.
"Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States - Natural History and Habitat Use." In:
USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 688.
Delehanty, D. J., and D. W.Svedarsky. 1993. "Black Tern Colonization of a Restored Prairie
Wetland in Northwestern Minnesota." Prairie Naturalist 25(3):213-218.
Desmond, M.J. 1991. "Ecological Aspects of Burrowing Owl Nesting Strategies." M.S. Thesis,
University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Desmond, M.J., J.A. Savidge, and T.F. Seibert. 1995. "Spatial Patterns of Burrowing Owl Nests
Within Black-tailed Prairie Dog Towns." Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1375-1379.
Dinan, J. 1993. Nebraska’s Threatened and Endangered Species: Bald Eagle. Nebraska Game
and Parks Commission. 6pp.
Dressler, R. 1981. The Orchids. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 332pp.
Ducey, J. E. 1988. Nebraska Birds: Breeding Status and Distribution. Simmons-Boardman
Books, Omaha, Nebraska.
H-202
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Eng, R.L., J.E. Toepfer, and J.A. Newell. 1988. "Management of Livestock to Improve and Maintain Prairie-chicken Habitat on the Sheyenne National Grasslands." In: Prairie-Chickens on
the Sheyenne National Grasslands. Ed. A.J. Bjugstad. USDA Forest Service, GTR RM-159.
pp. 55-57.
England, A.S., MJ. Bechard, and C.S. Houston. 1997. "Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni)." In:
The Birds of North America, No. 231. Eds. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Academy of
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Erickson, M.G. 1987. "Nest Site Habitat Selection of the Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in the Black
Hills National Forest of South Dakota." M.A. Thesis, Univ. of South Dakota, Vermillion.
Evans, K.E. 1968. Characteristics and Habitat Requirements of the Greater Prairie Chicken and
Sharp-tailed Grouse - A Review of the Literature. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, Colorado. 32 pp.
Fagerstone, K.A. 1981. "A Review of Prairie Dog Diet and Its Variability Among Animals and
Colonies." 5th Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln.
Feist, J.J. 1997. "Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) Ecology and Demography in the North Dakota
Badlands." M.S. Thesis, Univ. of North Dakota, Grand Forks.
Finch, D. M. 1992. Threatened, Endangered and Vulnerable Species of Terrestrial Vertebrates in
the Rocky Mountain Region. U.S. Forest Service Tech. Rpt. RM-215. 38 pp.
Flessner, T.R. and J. Stubbendieck. 1989. "Propagation of Blowout Penstemon." In: Proceedings
of the Eleventh North American Prairie Conference. pp. 237-239.
Franklin, I.R. 1980. "Evolutionary Changes in Small Populations." In: Conservation Biology:
The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Eds. M.E. Soule’ and B.A. Wilcox. Sinauer Associates.
Sunderland, Massachusetts. pp. 135-149
Fritz, M.I. 1997. Survey Report for Two Rare Invertebrate Species: The Tawny Crescent and
Regal Fritillary on the Nebraska National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. Report to Nebraska
National Forest, Chadron, NE., from Nebraska Natural Heritage Program.
Fritz, M.I. 1998. Research on the Effects of Grazing and Mechancical Disturbances on Blowout
Penstemon. Final Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 27pp.
Fritz, M.I., J.P. Hardy, and S. Rolfsmeier. 1992. Inventory of Rare Plant Species in the Pine
Ridge Area of Nebraska. Nebraska Natural Heritage Program, Report to Nebraska National
Forest. 123pp.
Gilmer, D. S. and R. E. Stewart. 1983. "Ferruginous Hawk Populations and Habitat Use in
North Dakota." J. Wild. Manage. 47:146-157.
Goosen, J.P., S. Brechtel, K.D. DeSmet, D. Hjertaas, and C. Werschler. 1992. Canadian Baird’s
Sparrow Recovery Plan. Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife Committee, RENEW
Rpt., Ottawa: Canadian Wildlife Federation. No. 3. 28 pp.
Graham, R.T., R.T. Reynolds, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, and D.A. Boyce. 1994. "Sustaining
Forest Health for the Northern Goshawk: A Question of Scale." In: The Northern Goshawk:
Ecology and Management, Studies in Avian Biology, No. 16. Eds. W. M. Block, M.S. Morrison, and M. H. Reiser. Cooper Ornithological Society.
Graul, W.D. 1975. "Breeding Behavior of the Mountain Plover." Wilson Bull. 87:6-31.
Graul, W.D., and L.E. Webster. 1976. "Breeding Status of the Mountain Plover." Condor 78:265267.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-203
Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas,
Lawrence, Kansas. 1392 pp.
Groves, C.R., and T.W. Clark. 1986. "Determining Minimum Population Size for Recovery of
the Black-footed Ferret." Great Basin Nat. Mem. 8:150-159.
Hall, S.P., and H. E. Legrand, Jr. 1995. Element Stewardship Abstract for Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike. North Carolina Natural Heritage. Raleigh, NC.
Hanski, I. 1997. "Metapopulation Dynamics: From Concepts and Observations to Predictive
Models." In: Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution. Eds. I. Hanski and
M.E. Gilpin. Academic Press, San Diego. pp 69-91.
Hargis, C.D., C. McCarthy, and R. D. Perloff. 1994. "Home Ranges and Habitats of Northern
Goshawks in Eastern California." In: The Northern Goshawk: Ecology and Management,
Studies in Avian Biology, No. 16. Eds. W. M. Block, M.S. Morrison, and M. H. Reiser. Cooper
Ornithological Society.
Harris, R.B., T.W. Clark, and M.L. Shaffer. 1989. "Extinction Probabilities for Isolated Blackfooted Ferret Populations." In: Conservation Biology and the Black-footed Ferret. U.S. Seal,
E.T. Thorne, M.A. Bogan, and S.H. Anderson (eds.). Yale University Press, New Haven. pp.
69-82.
Haug, E.A., B.A. Milsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. The Birds of North America, No. 61. 20pp.
Heath, B.J., R. Straw, S.H. Anderson, and J. Lawson. 1997. Sage Grouse Productivity, Survival,
and Seasonal Habitat Use near Farson, Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department,
P.R. Completion Report. 67pp.
Heidel, B. 1990. Inventory of Rare Plant Species in Theodore Roosevelt National Park, Billings
and McKenzie Counties, ND. North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, Bismarck,
North Dakota.
Higgins, K.F., A.D. Kruse, and J.L. Piehl. 1989. Effects of Fire in the Northern Great Plains. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and Cooperative Extension Service, South Dakota State Univ., EC
761. 48pp.
Hunter, M.L. 1988. "Paleoecology and the Coarse-filter Approach to Maintaining Biological
Diversity." Conserv. Biol. 4:375-384.
Jennings, W.F. 1990. Final Report - Spiranthes diluvialis. Report for The Nature Conservancy
under the Colorado Natural History Small Grants Program. The Nature Conservancy,
Boulder, Colorado. 48pp.
Jensen, W.F. 1992. Evaluation of Potential Bighorn Sheep Release sites on the Little Missouri
National Grassland. Draft unpublished report, North Dakota Game and Fish Department,
Bismarck.
Johnsguard, P.A. 1979. Birds of the Great Plains, Breeding Species and their Distribution. Univ.
of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. 539 pp.
Johnsgard, P.A. and R.E. Wood. 1968. "Distributional Changes and Interaction Between Prairie
chickens and Sharp-tailed Grouse in the Midwest." Wilson Bull. 80:173-188.
Johnston, B.C. June 1987. Plant Associations of Region Two: Potential Plant Communities of
Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas, Fourth Edition. USDA Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Region publication. R2-ECOL-87-2. Range, Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Ecology, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. 429 pp.
H-204
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Johnson, D.H., L.D. Igl, J.A. Dechant, M.L. Sondreal, C.M. Goldade, and B.R. Euliss. 1998.
Effects of Management Practices on Grassland birds: Loggerhead Shrike. Northern Prairie
Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 11 pp.
Johnson, D.H., L.D. Igl, J.A. Dechant, M.L. Sondreal, C.M. Goldade, and B.R. Euliss. 1998.
Effects of Management Practices on Grassland birds: Mountain Plover. Northern Prairie
Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 11 pp.
Johnson, D.H., L.D. Igl, J.A. Dechant, M.L. Sondreal, C.M. Goldade, and B.R. Euliss. 1999.
Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds: Baird’s Sparrow. Northern Prairie
Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 11 pp.
Johnson, M.D., and J. Knue. 1989. Feathers from the Prairie. North Dakota Game and Fish
Dept., Bismarck. 292pp.
Jones, R. E. 1963. "Identification and Analysis of Lesser and Greater Prairie-chicken Habitat."
J. Wildl. Manage. 27: 757-778.
Jones, J.K., D.M. Armstrong, R.S. Hoffmann and C. Jones. 1983. Mammals of the Northern
Great Plains. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 379pp.
Kantrud, H.A., and R.L. Kologski. 1982. Effects of Soils and Grazing on Breeding Birds of
Uncultivated Upland Grasslands of the Northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildl. Res. Rep. 15, Washington, D.C. 33pp.
Kelsch, S. W. 1993. Survey of the Fishes of the Little Missouri River from Marmarth to Medora,
North Dakota, 1993. Dept. of Biology, Univ. of North Dakota, 24 pp.
Kennedy., P.L 1988. "Habitat Characteristics of Cooper’s Hawks and Northern Goshawks
Nesting in New Mexico." In: Proceedings of the Southwest Raptor Management Symposium
and Workshop. Eds. R.L. Glinske, B.G. Pendelton, M.G. Moss, M.N. LeFrac, Jr., B.A. Milsap,
and S.W. Hoffman. National Wildlife Federation Scientific and Technical Series, No. 11.
Kirsch, L.M., A. T. Klett, and H. W. Miller. 1973. "Land Use and Prairie Grouse Population
Relaitonships in North Dakota." J. Wildl. Manage. 37:449-453.
Knopf, F.L. 1993. "Avian Assemblages on Altered Grasslands." In: Studies in Avian Biology.
National Biological Survey, Ft. Collins, Colorado.
Knopf, F.L. 1996. "Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus)." In: The Birds of North America,
No. 211. Eds. A. Poole and F. Gill. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 16pp.
Knopf, F.L., and B.J. Miller. 1994. "Charadrius montanus − Montane, Grassland, or Bare-ground
Plover?" Auk 111:504-506.
Knopf, F.L., and J.R. Rupert. 1995. "Habits and Habitats of Mountain Plovers in California."
Condor 97:743-751.
Knopf, F.L., and J.R. Rupert. 1996. "Reproduction and Movements of Mountain Plovers
Breeding in Colorado." Wilson Bull. 108:28-35.
Knowles, C.J. 1985. "Observations on Prairie Dog Dispersal in Montana." Prairie Nat. 17(1):3339.
Knowles, C.J. 1986. "Some Relationships of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs to Livestock Grazing."
Great Basin Nat. 46:198-203.
Knowles, C.J. and P.R. Knowles. 1984. "Additional Records of Mountain Plovers Using Prairie
Dog Towns in Montana." Prairie Nat. 16:183-186.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-205
Knowles, C.J., C.J. Stoner, and S.P. Gieb. 1982. "Selective Use of Black-tailed Prairie Dog Towns
by Mountain Plovers." Condor 84:71-74.
Knue, J. 1991. Big Game in North Dakota: A Short History. North Dakota Game and Fish
Department, Bismarck.
Konrad, P.M., and D.S. Gilmer. 1984. "Observations on the Nesting Ecology of Burrowing Owls
in Central North Dakota." Prairie Nat. 16(3):129-130.
Lande R. 1995. "Mutation and Conservation." Conservation Biology 9(4):782-791.
Larson, G.E. 1993. Aquatic and Wetland Vascular Plants of the Northern Great Plains. Gen.
Tech. Report RM-238. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 681 pp.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas
of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina Biological Survey, Pub. No. 1980-12.
867pp.
Lellinger, D. 1985. A Field Guide to the Ferns and Fern-allies of the United States and Canada.
Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C. 389 pp.
Lenz, D. 1993. 1991-1992 Inventory of Rare Plant Species in the Little Missouri National Grasslands. North Dakota Natural Heritage Program, North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, Bismarck, North Dakota.
Lewis, J.C. 1995. Whooping Crane. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. The
Birds of North America. No. 153. 28pp.
Lilieholm, R. J., J. N. Long, and S. Patla. 1994. "Assessment of Goshawk Nest Area Habitat
Using Stand Density Index." In: The Northern Goshawk: Ecology and Management. Studies
in Avian Biology, No. 16. Eds. W.M. Block, M.S. Morrison, and M.H. Reiser. Cooper
Ornithological Society.
Lomolino, M.V., J.C. Creighton, G.D. Schnell, and D.L. Certain. 1995. "Ecology and Conservation of the Endangered American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus)." Conservation
Biology 9(3):605-614.
MacCraken, J.G., D. W. Uresk, and R.M. Hansen. 1985. "Burrowing Owl Foods in Conata Basin, South Dakota." Great Basin Nat. 45(2):287-290.
MacCraken, J.G., D.W. Uresk, and R.M. Hansen. 1985. "Vegetation and Soils of Burrowing Owl
Nest Sites in Conata Basin, South Dakota." The Condor. 87:152-154.
Manske, L.L. 1980. "Habitat, Phenology and Growth of Selected Sandhills Range Plants." Ph.D.
Dissertation, North Dakota State University. Fargo.
Manske, L.L., and W.T. Barker. 1988. Habitat Useage by Prairie Grouse on the Sheyenne
National Grasslands. USDA Forest Service, GTR RM-159. 8-20.
Martell, M.S., P.T. Redig, and J. Nibe. 1993. Demography of the Burrowing Owl in Badlands
National Park. Final Report to National Park Service, Contract No. CA-1268-1-9004 9108116.
47pp.
Messmer, T.A. 1990. "Influence of Grazing Treatments on Nongame Birds and Vegetation Structure in South Central North Dakota." PhD Dissertation, North Dakota State University,
Fargo. 147 pp.
H-206
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Minnesota Natural Heritage Program. 1995. Status of Platanthera praeclara in Minnesota with
Results of 1994 Surveys and Monitoring. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Endangered Species, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
Mitchell, C. D. 1995. Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator). In: The Birds of North America, No.
105. Eds. A. Poole and F. Gill. Philidelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington,
D. C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Moffat, M., and N. McPhillips. 1993. Management for Butterlies in the Northern Great Plains:
A Literature Review and Guidebook for Land Managers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Pierre, South Dakota. 19pp.
Morrison, M.L., B.G. Marcot, and R. W. Mannan. 1992. Wildlife-habitat Relationships, Concepts
and Applications. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 364 pp.
Mullen, L D., and A. Kratz. 1995. Biological Evaluation, Sensitive Plants and Wildlife That for
the Most PART are Not Impacted by Domestic Livestock Grazing. USDA Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Region.
Murphy, E.C., J.W. Hoganson, and N.F. Forsman. 1993. The Chadron, Brule, and Arikaree
Formations in North Dakota: The Buttes of Southwestern North Dakota. Report of Investigation No. 96, North Dakota Geological Survey. 144 pp.
Murphy, R.K., K.Wood, C.D. Grondahl, J.G. Sidle, and R.E. Martin. 1998. Status of Burrowing
Owls in North Dakota. Unpublished manuscript.
Nelson, P.W. 1964. "Sheyenne River Valley Forests, North Dakota." M.S. Thesis, North Dakota
State University, Fargo. 148 pp.
Oakleaf, B., B. Lance, S. Ritter and A. Ceroceski. 1992. Wyoming Bird and Mammal Atlas.
Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. 170 pp.
Ode, D. 1987. The Status of Dakota Wild Buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri A. Nels.) in South Dakota. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Report No. 87-8, South Dakota Game, Fish
and Parks Dept.. 48pp.
Olendorff, R.R., A.D. Miller, and R.N. Lehman. 1981. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection
on Power Lines. Raptor Research Foundation, St. Paul, Minnesota. 11pp.
Olson, S.L. 1984. "Density and Distribution, Nest Site Selection, and Activity of the Mountain
Plover on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge." M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. 62pp.
Olson, S.L., and D. Edge. 1985. "Nest site Selection by Mountain Plovers in Northcentral Montana." J. of Range Manage. 38:280-282.
Olson-Edge, S.L., and D. Edge. 1987. "Density and Distribution of the Mountain Plover on the
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge." Prairie Nat. 19:233-238.
Parrish, T.L. 1988. "Mountain Plover Habitat Selection in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming."
M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie.
Peters, R.S., D.M. Waller, B. Noon, S.T.A. Pickett, D. Murphy, J. Cracraft, R. Kiester, W. Kuhlmann, O. Houck, and W.J. Snape III. 1997. "Standard Scientific Procedures for Implementing
Ecosystem Management on Public Lands." In: The Ecological Basis of Conservation: Heterogeneity, Ecosystems, and Biodiversity. Eds. S.T.A. Pickett, R.S. Ostfeld, M. Shachak, and
G.E. Likens. Institute of Ecosystems Study. Chapman and Hall, New York City. pp. 320-336
Peterson, C. R. 1974. A Preliminary Report on the Amphibians and Reptiles of the Black Hills
of South Dakota and Wyoming. Urbana-Champaign: Univ. of Illinois.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-207
Pezzolesi, L.S.W. 1994. "The Western Burrowing Owl: Increasing Prairie Dog Abundance,
Foraging Theory, and Nest Site Fidelity." M.S. Thesis, Texas Tech University. 65pp.
Pflieger, W.L. 1978. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Dept. of Conservation. pp. 138-139.
Prose, B. L. 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Greater Prairie-chicken. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Biol. Rep. 82(10.102).
Reynolds, R.T. 1983. Management of Western Coniferous Forest Habitat for Nesting Accipiter
Hawks. USDA, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, GTR
RM-102.
Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern
Goshawk in Southwestern United States. USDA, Forest Service, GTR RM-217.
Rice, L.A., and A.V. Carter. 1984. Evaluation of South Dakota Grassland Management Practices
as They Affect Prairie Chicken Populations. South Dakota Dept. Game, Fish and Parks PR
Completion Report No. 84-11.25pp.
Richardson, C.T., and C.K. Miller. 1997. "Recommendations for Protecting Raptors from Human Disturbance: A Review." Wildlife Society Bull. 25(3):634-638.
Robel, R.J., C.A. Desjardins, and K.E. Kemp. 1998. "Nutrient and Energetic Characteristics of
Grasshoppers of Different Life Stages." The Prairie Nat. 30(1):37-48.
Royer, R.A. 1988. Butterflies of North Dakota: An Atlas and Guide. Minot State Univ., Minot,
ND. Sci. Monograph No. 1. 192 pp.
Royer, R.A. 1995. A Comprehensive Annotated List of the Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera)
Occurring in the Sheyenne National Grassland: Richland and Ransom Counties, North Dakota. USDI, National Biological Service, Northern Prairie Wildl. Res. Center, Jamestown,
ND. 19 pp.
Royer, R.A. 1995. A Comprehensive Annotated List of the Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera)
Occuring in Little Missouri National Grassland: Billings, Golden Valley, McKenzie and
Slope Counties, North Dakota. USDI, National Biological Service, Northern Prairie Wildl.
Res. Center, Jamestown, ND. 19 pp.
Royer, R.A., and G.M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation Status of the Dakota skipper (Hesperia
dactae) in North and South Dakota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 44 pp.
+ appendices.
Royer, R.A., and G.M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation Status of the Regal Fritillary (Speyeria idalia)
in North and South Dakota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 111 pp.
Sayre, R.W. 1996. "Ecology of Bighorn Sheep in Relation to Habitat and Oil Development in the
Little Missouri Badlands." Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of North Dakota, Grand Forks.
Schassberger, L.A. 1988. Status Review of Astragalus barrii. USDA Forest Service, R1. Custer
National Forest, Montana. Unpublished, Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT.
21 pages, appendices.
Schassberger, L.A. 1990. Report on the Conservation Status of Astragalus barrii, a Candidate
Threatened Species. Unpublished Report for the Montana Natural Heritage Program. 86
pages, appendices, maps.
Schroeder, M.A., and L.A. Robb. 1993. "Greater Prairie Chicken." In: The Birds of North
America, No. 36. Eds. A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill. Philadelphia: The Academy of
Natural Sciences; Washinton D.C: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
H-208
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Semlitsch, R.D., and G.B. Moran. 1984. "Ecology of the Redbelly Snake (Storeria occipitomaculata) Using Mesic Habitats in South Carolina." American Midland Nat. 111(1):33-40.
Shackford, J.S. 1991. "Breeding Ecology of the Mountain Plover in Oklahoma." Bulletin of the
Oklahoma Ornithological Society, 24:9-13
Shaffer, M.L. 1981. "Minimum Viable Population Sizes for Species Conservation." Bioscience
31:131-135.
Sheviak, C.J. 1984. "Spiranthes diluvialis, A New Species from the Western United States." Brittonia 36(1):8-14.
Sieg, C.H. 1991. "Geographic Affinity of Bird Species Associated with Rocky Mountain Juniper
Woodlands and Adjacent Grasslands in Southwestern South Dakota." Prairie Nat. 23: 25-33.
Sieg, C.H. and D.M. Becker. 1990. "Nest-site Habitat Selected by Merlins in Southeastern Montana.: The Condor 92:688-694.
Sieg, C.H. and R.M. King. 1995. "Influence of Environmental Factors and Preliminary
Demographic Analyses of a Threatended Orchid, Platanthera praeclara." Am. Midl. Nat.
134(2):307-323.
Seiler, G. 1971. "Vascular Flora of Richland, Ransom, and Sargent Counties." M.S. Thesis.
North Dakota State Univ, Fargo.
Shunk, R.A. 1917. "Plant Associations of Shenford and Owego Townships, Ransom County,
N.D." M.S. Thesis. Univ. of North Dakota, Grand Forks. 23 pp.
Sipes, S.E., V.J. Tepedino, and W.R. Bowlin. 1993. "The Pollination and Reproductive Ecology
of Spiranthes diluvialis Sheviak (Orchidaceae)." In: Proceedings of the Southwest Rare and
Endangered Plant Conference. Eds. R. Sivinski and K. Lightfoot. Miscellaneous Publication
No. 2. New Mexico Forestry and Conservation Division. Sante Fe, New Mexico. pp. 320-333.
Smith, B., and C. Bradley. 1990. Status Report on Smooth Goosefoot (Chenopodium subglabrum
[S. Wats.] A. Nels.), A Threatened Species in Canada. Submitted to: Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
Smith, T.S., J.T. Flinders and D.S. Winn. 1991. "A Habitat Evaluation Procedure for Rocky
Mountain Bighorn Sheep in the Intermountain West." The Great Basin Nat. 51(3):205-223.
Snow, C. 1974. Habitat Management Series for Unique or Endangered Species. USDI, BLM.
Tech. Note TN-255. 23 pp.
Sodhi, N.S., L.W. Oliphant, P.C. James and I.G. Warkentin. 1993. Merlin. The Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. The Birds of North America, No. 44. 20pp.
Soule’, M.E. 1980. "Thresholds for Survival: Maintaining Fitness and Evolutionary Potential."
In: Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. Eds. M.E. Soule’ and B.A.
Wilcox. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. pp. 151-170
South Dakota Ornithologist’s Union. 1991. The Birds of South Dakota. 2d Ed. Aberdeen, South
Dakota. 411 pp.
Stevens, O.A. 1963. Handbook of North Dakota Plants. North Dakota Institute for Regional
Studies. 324 pp.
Stone, R.D. 1993. Final Report-Ute Ladies’ Tresses. Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake
City, Utah. 27pp.
Stubbendieck, J., J.T. Nichols and C.H. Butterfield. 1989. Nebraska Range and Pasture Forbs
and Shrubs. Nebraska Cooperative Extension E.C. 89-118. 153pp.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-209
Svedarsky, W.D. 1988. "Reproductive Ecology of Female Greater Prairie-chickens in Minnesota." In: Adaptive Strategies and Population Ecology of Northern Grouse, Vol. 1. Eds. A. T.
Bergerud and M. W. Gratson. Univ. Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. pp. 193-239.
Svedarsky, W.D., and G.L. Van Amburg. 1999. Integrated Management of the Greater Prairie
Chicken and Livestock on the Sheyenne National Grassland. Report to the North Dakota
Game and Fish Department and U.S. Forest Service.
Sveum, C.M., W. D. Edge, and J.A. Crawford. 1998. "Nesting Habitat Selection by Sage Grouse
in South-central Washington." J. Range Manage. 51:265-269.
Sweanor, P.Y., M. Gudorf, F.J. Singer, R. Andrascik, W.F. Jensen, C.W. McCarthy, M. Miller, D.
Reed, and R. Schiller. 1994. Bighorn Sheep Habitat Assessment of the Greater Theodore
Roosevelt National Park Area. National Park Service and National Biological Survey
Cooperative Report.
Swengel, A.B. 1996. "Effects of Fire and Hay Management on Abundance of Prairie Butterflies."
Biol. Conservation 76:73-85.
The Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas.
1392pp.
Tietjen, H.P. 1976. "Zinc Phosphide-Its Development as a Control Agent for Black-tailed Prairie
Dogs." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildl. No. 195. 14pp.
Trimble, S.A. 1974. Habitat Management Series for Unique or Endangered Species. USDI,
BLM. Tech. Note TN-271. 41 pp.
Tubbs A.A. 1980. Riparian Bird Communities of the Great Plains. USDA Forest Service General Tech. Rpt. INT-86.
Tyler, J.D. 1968. "Distribution and Vertebrate Associates of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog in
Oklahoma." Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Oklahoma, Norman.
Uresk, D.W., and J.C. Sharps. 1986. "Denning Habitat and Diet of the Swift Fox in Western
South Dakota." Great Basin Nat. 46(2):249-253.
USDA, Forest Service . 1981. Wildlife and Fish Habitat Relationships; Bird Narratives. pp.
B351. Range and Wildlife Management. Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, Co.
USDA Forest Service. 1991. North Dakota Sensitive Plant Field Guide, for the Custer National
Forest, Little Missouri National Grassland, and the Sheyenne National Grassland.
unpublished. maps, photos.
USDA Forest Service. 1995. Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Species in Riparian Areas Grazed by Domestic Livestock. Assessment of the Effects of Livestock Grazing on the Sensitive
Species and Their Habitats Within the Rocky Mountain Region. Rocky Mountain Region,
Forest Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Northern State Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 76 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 73pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan (Rocky
Mountain/Southwest Population). Prepared in cooperation with the American Peregrine
Falcon Recovery Team. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado.
H-210
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, MA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) Recovery Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, Colorado. 40pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Draft Addendum to the Pacific Coast and Rocky
Mountain/Southwest American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plans. Portland, OR. 20 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Status Report on Handsome Sedge (Carex formosa), A
Candidate Endangered Species. Bismarck, ND.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Whooping Crane Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 92pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Ute Ladies’ Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Recovery Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, Colorado. 46pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Platanthera praeclara (Western Prairie Fringed Orchid) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 101pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities under Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington, DC.
Uresk, D.W., J.G. MacCracken, and A.J. Bjugstad. 1981. "Prairie Dog Density and Cattle Grazing Relationships." In: Fifth Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop. Eds. R.M.
Timm and R.J. Johnson. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. pp. 199-201.
Wakkinen, W.L., K.P. Reese, and J.W. Connelly. 1992. "Sage Grouse Nest Locations in Relationship to Leks." J. Wildl. Manage. 56(2):381-383.
Wallestad, R. 1975. Life History and Habitat Requirements of Sage Grouse in Central Montana.
Montana Dept. Fish and Game. 66pp.
Wallis, C.A., and C.R. Wershler. 1981. "Status and Breeding of Mountain Plover." Wilson
Bulletin 88:358-359.
Webb, D.R. 1993. "Sage Grouse Nest Site Characteristics and Microclimate on Grazed Lands in
Wyoming." Paper presented at the Western States Sage/Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse
Workshop, July 26-28, 1993. Ft. Collins, Colorado.
Werdon, 1993. Status Report on Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis gelida) - A Candidate Endangered
Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. Bismarck, ND. 58 pp.
Winter, M. 1994. Habitat Selection of Baird’s Sparrows in the Northern Mixed-grass Prairie.
Diplomarbeit, der Fakultat fur Biologie der Universitat Tubingen. 102 pp plus appendices.
Wright, H.A., and A.W. Bailey. 1980. Fire Ecology and Prescribed Burning in the Great Plains A Research Review. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-77, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. 61 pp.
Yosef, R. 1996. "Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)." In: The Birds of North America, No.
231. Eds. A. Poole and F. Gill. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and the
American Ornithologists’ Union. Washington, D.C.
Yosef, R. and T.C. Grubb, Jr. 1992. "Territory Size Influences Nutritional Condition in
Nonbreeding Loggerhead Shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus): A Ptilochronology Approach."
Conservation Biology. 6(3): 447-449.
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-211
Younk, J. V. and M. J. Bechard. 1994. "Breeding Ecology of the Northern Goshawk in Highelevation Aspen Forests of Northern Nevada." In: The Northern Goshawk: Ecology and
Management. Studies in Avian Biology, No. 16. Eds. W.M. Block, M.S. Morrison, and M.H.
Reiser, eds. Cooper Ornithological Society.
H-212
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
INDEX
CONSERVATION MEASURES AND MITIGATION CODES
DAKOTA PRAIRIE GRASSLAND
Management Direction Code
LRMP Chapter and Section
Unitwide Direction
(Goals & Objectives)
GO1.1(1-3)
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
GO1.2(1,2)
GO1.3(1,2)
GO1.4(1-5)
GO1.5(1)
GO1.7(1-5)
GO1.8
GO1.9
GO1.10
Unitwide Direction
(Standards & Guidelines)
SG-B(3,4,6,7,9,11-14)
SG-D(3,6,12)
SG-F(1-17,19-21,26-28,30-46,49-56)
SG-G(1-3)
SG-I(3-7,9-12)
SG-J(1-7)
SG-M(1,3)
SG-O(1,2)
SG-P(3,8)
SG-Q(1,2,12-14)
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources Water
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources Geology & Minerals
Chapter 1 - Standards and Gudielines - Biological Resources Fish, Wildlife, & Rare Plants
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes Fire
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes Livestock Grazing
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes Noxious & Undesirable Plant Species
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration LandOwnership
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration - Plant
Collecting
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration Special Uses
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration Infrastructure
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-213
Management Direction Code
Geographic Area Direction
GA1-A1
GA1-E1
GA2-A(1,2,4-6)
GA2-B(1,2)
GA2-C1
GA2-D2
GA2-E1
GA3-A(1,2,5)
GA3-B1
GA3-C1
GA3-D1
GA3-E1
GA4-A(1,2)
GA4-B1
GA4-C1
GA4-E1
Management Area Direction
MA1.31 (10)
LRMP Chapter and Section
Chapter 2 - Grand/Cedar Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Grand/Cedar Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 2 - Badlands Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Badlands Geographic Area - Fire
Chapter 2 - Badlands Geographic Area - Rest
Chapter 2 - Badlands Geographic Area - Infrastructure
Chapter 2 - Badlands Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 2 - Rolling Prairie Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Rolling Prairie Geographic Area - Fire
Chapter 2 - Rolling Prairie Geographic Area - Rest
Chapter 2 - Rolling Prairie Geographic Area - Infrastructure
Chapter 2 - Rolling Prairie Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 2 - Sheyenne Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Sheyenne Geographic Area - Fire
Chapter 2 - Sheyenne Geographic Area - Rest
Chapter 2 - Sheyenne Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 3 - Backcountry Recreation Non-motorized - Silviculture
Chapter 3 - Special Interest Areas
Chapter 3 - Research Natural Areas
Chapter 3 - Bighorn Sheep
Chapter 3 - Special Plant and Wildlife Habitat
Chapter 3 - Ecosystem Restoration (Tallgrass Prairie)
Chapter 3 - General Forest and Rangelands: Range Vegetation
Emphasis
MA2.1
MA2.2
MA3.51
MA3.64
MA3.66
MA5.12
Monitoring and Evaluation
Table 4.2
Appendices
Chapter 4 - Management Plan Monitoring Questions
self-explanatory
CONSERVATION MEASURES AND MITIGATION CODES
THUNDER BASIN NATIONAL GRASSLAND
Management Direction Code
Unitwide Direction
(Goals & Objectives)
GO1.1(1-3)
GO1.2(1,2)
GO1.3(1,2)
GO1.4(1-5)
H-214
LRMP Chapter and Section
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Management Direction Code
GO1.5(1)
GO1.7(1-5)
GO1.8
GO1.9
GO1.10
Unitwide Direction
(Standards & Guidelines)
SG-B(3,6,7,9,13,14)
SG-C(1-3,6)
SG-D(3,6,12)
SG-F(1-17,19,31-42,47-55)
SG-G(2,3)
SG-I(3-6,10,11)
SG-J(1-7)
SG-M(1,3)
SG-P(3,8)
SG-Q(2)
Geographic Area Direction
GA1-A1
GA1-B1
GA1-E1
GA2-A1
GA2-B1
GA2-E1
GA3-A1
GA3-B1
GA3-D1
GA4-A1
GA4-B1
GA4-D1
GA5-A1
GA5-B1
LRMP Chapter and Section
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources Water
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources Soils
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources Geology & Minerals
Chapter 1 - Standards and Gudielines - Biological Resources Fish, Wildlife, & Rare Plants
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes
- Fire
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes
- Livestock Grazing
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes
- Noxious & Undesirable Plant Species
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration LandOwnership
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration Special Uses
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration Infrastructure
Chapter 2 - Broken Hills Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Broken Hills Geographic Area - Fire
Chapter 2 - Broken Hills Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 2 - Cellars Rosecrans Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Cellars Rosecrans Geographic Area - Fire
Chapter 2 - Cellars Rosecrans Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 2 - Fairview Clareton Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Fairview Clareton Geographic Area - Fire
Chapter 2 - Fairview Clareton Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 2 - Highlight Bill Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Highlight Bill Geographic Area - Fire
Chapter 2 - Highlight Bill Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 2 - Spring Creek Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Spring Creek Geographic Area - Fire
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-215
Management Direction Code
GA5-E1
GA6-A1
GA6-B1
GA6-E1
Management Area Direction
MA1.31 (10)
LRMP Chapter and Section
Chapter 2 - Spring Creek Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 2 - Upton Osage Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Upton Osage Geographic Area - Fire
Chapter 2 - Upton Osage Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 3 - Backcountry Recreation Non-motorized - Silviculture
Chapter 3 - Special Interest Areas
Chapter 3 - Black-Footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat
Chapter 3 - General Forest and Rangelands: Range Vegetation
Emphasis
MA2.1
MA3.63
MA5.12
Monitoring and Evaluation
Table 4.2
Appendices
Chapter 4 - Management Plan Monitoring Questions
self-explanatory
CONSERVATION MEASURES AND MITIGATION CODES
NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS
Management Direction Code
Unitwide Direction
(Goals & Objectives)
GO1.1(1-3)
GO1.2(1,2)
GO1.3(1,2)
GO1.4(1-5)
GO1.5(1)
GO1.7(1-5)
GO1.8
GO1.9
GO1.10
Unitwide Direction
(Standards & Guidelines)
SG-B(3,4,6,7,9,11-14)
SG-C(1-3,6)
SG-D(3,6,12)
H-216
LRMP Chapter and Section
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable
Ecosystems
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources Water
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources Soils
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources Geology & Minerals
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Management Direction Code
SG-F(1-17,19-21,26-28,30-46,49-56)
SG-G(1-3)
SG-I(3-7,9-12)
SG-J(1-7)
SG-M(1,3)
SG-O(1,2)
SG-P(3,8)
SG-Q(1,2,12-14)
Geographic Area Direction
GA1-A1
GA1-B1
GA1-C1
GA1-E1
GA2-A1
GA2-B1
GA2-C1
GA2-E1
GA3-A1
GA3-D2
GA4-A1
GA4-D2
GA4-E1
GA5-A(1,2)
GA5-E1
GA6-A1
GA6-D2
GA7-A1
GA8-A1
GA8-D2
GA8-E1
GA9-A1
GA9-C1
GA9-E1
GA10-A1
GA10-B1
GA10-E1
LRMP Chapter and Section
Chapter 1 - Standards and Gudielines - Biological Resources Fish, Wildlife, & Rare Plants
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes
- Fire
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes
- Livestock Grazing
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes
- Noxious & Undesirable Plant Species
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration LandOwnership
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration - Plant
Collecting
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration Special Uses
Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration Infrastructure
Chapter 2 - Bessey Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Bessey Geographic Area - Fire
Chapter 2 - Bessey Geographic Area - Rest
Chapter 2 - Bessey Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 2 - McKelvie Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - McKelvie Geographic Area - Fire
Chapter 2 - McKelvie Geographic Area - Rest
Chapter 2 - McKelvie Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 2 - Fall River Northeast Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Fall River Northeast Geographic Area - Infrastructure
Chapter 2 - Fall River Southeast Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Fall River Southeast Geographic Area - Infrastructure
Chapter 2 - Fall River Southeast Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 2 - Fall River West Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Fall River West Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 2 - Wall North Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Wall North Geographic Area - Infrastructure
Chapter 2 - Wall Southeast Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Wall Southwest Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Wall Southwest Geographic Area - Infrastructure
Chapter 2 - Wall Southwest Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 2 - Fort Pierre Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Fort Pierre Geographic Area - Rest
Chapter 2 - Fort Pierre Geographic Area - Wildlife
Chapter 2 - Oglala Geographic Area - Vegetation
Chaper 2 - Oglala Geographic Area - Fire
Chapter 2 - Oglala Geographic Area - Wildlife
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation
H-217
Management Direction Code
GA11-A1
GA11-B
GA11-C1
Management Area Direction
MA1.31 (10)
MA2.1
MA2.2
MA3.51
MA3.63
MA3.64
MA5.12
Monitoring and Evaluation
Table 4.2
Appendices
H-218
LRMP Chapter and Section
Chapter 2 - Pine Ridge Geographic Area - Grassland Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Pine Ridge Geographic Area - Forest Vegetation
Chapter 2 - Pine Ridge Geographic Area - Fire
Chapter 3 - Backcountry Recreation Non-motorized - Silviculture
Chapter 3 - Special Interest Areas
Chapter 3 - Research Natural Areas
Chapter 3 - Bighorn Sheep
Chapter 3 - Black-Footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat
Chapter 3 - Special Plant and Wildlife Habitat
Chapter 3 - General Forest and Rangelands: Range Vegetation
Emphasis
Chapter 4 - Management Plan Monitoring Questions
self-explanatory
Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation