Appendix 28 

APPENDIX 28—BIOLOGICAL OPINION FOR THE 

PINEDALE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Record of Decision and Approved Pinedale Resource Management Plan 
United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Ecological Services 

5353 Yellowstone Road, Suite 308A 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009 

In Reply Refer To: 

ES-6 14 1 1 Nv'.02/WY08F0364 

Memorandum 

To: Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, 

Wyoming 

From: deflGr Field Supe sh and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Field Office, 

/I Cheyenne I 

i* 

i 

w 7p&bzq 

Subject: Biological Opinion for the Pinedale Resource Management Plan 

This correspondence transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or Service) 

programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) in response to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's 

(BLM or Bureau) request for consultation for the impacts from the Bureau's Pinedale Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) (BLM 2008a) and commitment to conservation measures (Proposed 

Action) to federally listed species in Wyoming in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA or Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your September 22, 

2008, request for formal consultation was received September 25. On October 2,2008, the 

Service notified the Bureau that all information necessary to begin consultation had been 

received or was otherwise accessible. 

This correspondence addresses potential effects to the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), Ute 

ladiest-tresses orchid (Spimnthes diluvialis), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), gray wolf (Canis 

lupus), and Colorado River downstream listed fishes and their designated critical habitats from 

all planned programs of the Pinedale RMP as well as the Bureau's commitment to the 

Conservation Measures listed in the Pinedale RMP Biological Assessment (BA) (BLM 2008b) 

and commitments in relevant Programmatic Statewide Species BAS. 

The Bureau's September, 2008, Pinedale RMP BA also addressed potential effects to both the 

grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), and the bald eagle (Hnliaeetus le~rcocephnlus) from implementation 

of the Pinedale RMP. However, on March 29,2007, and August 8,2007, the Service removed 

the grizzly bear and the bald eagle that occur in Wyoming from the list of threatened and 

endangered species, respectively. Grizzly bears in Wyoming are cunently managed by the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, while the bald eagle remains protected under the Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 U.S.C. $$ 668-668d) and the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. $ 703. On May 20,2008, the Service published final regulations that 

created a new permit category (50 CFR§ 22.28) to provide expedited permits under the BGEPA 
to entities authorized to take bald eagles through ESA section 7 Incidental Take Statements. In 

addition to the new permit regulations at 322.28, the Service plans to finalize regulations in the 

future to establish a new permit that will authorize take of bald eagles and golden eagles that is 

associated with, but not the purpose of, an activity (proposed 50 CFR 8 22.26, see 72 FR 31 141, 

June 5,2007). The Service appreciates the Bureau's commitment to continued protection of the 

grizzly bear and bald eagle (BLM 2008b) as well as its commitment to monitor the status of the 

grizzly bear and bald eagle on Bureau-administered lands. Effects to the grizzly bear and bald 

eagle will not be addressed further in this correspondence. 

The planned programs of the Bureau's Pinedale KMP are (i) Air Quality. (2) CuituraI, 

(3) Forestry, (4) Lands and Realty, (5) Livestock Grazing, (6) Minerals, (7) Paleontology and 

Natural History, (8) Recreation and Visitor Services, (9) Soil, (10) Transportation, Access, and 

Travel Management, (1 1) Vegetation, (12) Visual Resources, (13) Watershed and Water Quality, 

(14) Wildland Fire and Fuels, (15) Wildlife and Fish Habitat, and (16) Special Management 

Areas. 

This correspondence includes an informal consultation/conference for "no effect" (NE) and "not 

likely to adversely affect" (NLAA) determinations for effects to listed species and designated 

critical habitats and "not likely to jeopardize" (NJ) determinations for the non-essential, 

experimental population of the gray wolf, and a programmatic BO for potential adverse effects 

from Bureau-authorized activities (Appendices 1,2, and 3) within the Pinedale planning area. 

The Bureau-administered programs with potentially likely adverse effects include the Lands and 

Realty; Livestock Grazing; Minerals; Transportation, Access, and Travel Management, Wildland 

Fire and Fuels; and Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management Programs. This consultation is based 

on our review of your BA (BLM 2008b). A complete decision record of all documents and 

correspondence concerning this consultation are on file in the Wyoming Ecological Services 

Field Office. 

Consultation/Conference History 

The Service and the Bureau began informal consultation/conference on impacts of Bureau 

activities to the black-footed ferret, gray wolf, Ute ladies'-tresses, Colorado River downstream 

listed species in the Pinedale planning area on October 23,2001. Between October 23,2001, 

and September 22, 2008, the Service reviewed multiple drafts of the Pinedale RMP and Pinedale 

RMP BA, as well as, provided statewide species-specific section 7 consultation on individual 

Bureau RMPs (including the existing Pinedale RMP [BLM 19881 throughout Wyoming. The 

Service received all information necessary to begin formal consultation on the proposed Pinedale 

RMP (BLM 2008a) on October 2,2008. 

Informal ConsultationlConference 

In the Pinedale RMP BA, the Bureau made NLAA, NE, and NJ determinations for the effect of 

certain programs on listed species in the Pinedale planning area in Wyoming. These are 

displayed in Table 1. When the Bureau makes a "no effect" determination. concurrence from the 

Service is not required, although we do appreciate receiving the information used to make the 

determination. 

The Pinedale RMP is used by the Bureau to guide and control future actions and set standards, 

upon which future decisions on site-specific activities are based. An RMP only establishes 
general management policy. An RMP is not used to make decisions that commit resources. An 

RMP identifies desired outcomes, also known as "desired future conditions." These outcomes 

are expressed in RMPs as goals, standards, objectives, and allowable uses and actions needed to 

achieve desired outcomes, often referred to as RMP decisions or resource allocations. It is these 

decisions or resource allocations of the Pinedale RMP that the effects determinations in this 

Ii$ormal Consz~ltatio~dConference are based. As such, the Bureau is still obligated to conduct 

section 7 consultation at the project-specific level for all Bureau-authorized activities that "may 

affect" a listed species. 

Since the gray - - wolf in Wyoming (outside of National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges) is 

pan of a non-essential experimental population, for section 7 purposes according to the kct, it is 

treated as a species "proposed for listing." According, the appropriate conference determinations 

for the non-essential, experimental population of the gray wolf are "likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species" or "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 

species." 

Table 1. Listed Species "likely to adversely affect" (LAA), "not likely to adversely affect 

(NLAA)", and "no effect (NE)" determinations made by the Bureau. 

Black-footedferret.. The BA addressed activities that are not likely to adversely affect the blackfooted ferret. The Bureau has based its determinations, in past, on the Service's February 2, 

2004, letter, which informed the Bureau that all black-tailed prairie dog towns and many of the 

white-tailed prairie dog towns in Wyoming are not likely to be inhabited by black-footed ferrets 

(USE;WS 2004a). Additionally, the Bureau's Pinedale Field Office is committed to maintaining 

the integrity of prairie dog complexes in habitat suitable for black-footed ferret reintroduction (if 

such habitat is identified in the Pinedale planning area). Furthermore, the Bureau has committed 

to other conservation measures designed to protect black-footed ferrets and their habitat 

Species/Critical Habitat 

Program 

Air Quality 

Cultural Resources 

Forestry 

Lands and Realty 

Livestock Grazing 

Minerals 

Paleontology and Natural History 

C 

2? 

ti; 

LL 

U 

a, 

C) 

8 'C22 

$ 

3 

NLAA 

NLAA 

NLAA 

NLAA 

NLAA 

NLAA 

NLAA 

rn 

a, 

c 

cn 

ii 

! 

a 

0 

-0 

s 

- 0 

S 

NE 

NE 

NE 

LAA 

LAA 

LAA 

NE 

C X 

ZI 

--I 

m 

-0 

m 

C 

(3: 

N E 

NLAA 

NLAA 

NLAA 

NLAA 

NLAA 

NLAA 

'C 

z 

ZI 

LEJ 

NJ 

NJ 

NJ 

NJ 

NJ 

NJ 

NJ 

cn 

a, 

cn 

cn 

2 

C 

-cn 

a, 

'i5 

- m 

a, 

5 

NLAA 

NLAA 

N E 

NLAA 

LAA 

NLAA 

NLAA 
(Appendix 2). Based on this information, the Service concurs with your determinations that all 

activities described in the Proposed Action are not likely to adversely affect black-footed ferrets. 

Additionally, the Bureau has committed to conservation measures and adopted best management 

practices that will aid in the recovery of this species. This species will not be discussed further 

in this correspondence. 

Colorado River dovvnstream listed species. The Bureau has determined that activities described 

in the Proposed Action, with the exception of certain (1) Lands and Realty, (2) Livestock 

Grazing, (3) Minerals, (4) Transportation, Access, and Travel, (5) Wildland Fire and Fuels, 

and (6,) Wiidiife and Fish Habitat management actions will have no effect on the downstream 

listed species of the Colorado River systems because water depletions are not expected to occur 

in conjunction with those authorized activities. When the Bureau makes a "no effect" 

determination, concurrence from the Service is not required, although we do appreciate receiving 

the information used to make the determination. The six programs identified above may 

adversely affect Colorado River downstream listed species and as such are discussed in the 

following programmatic BO. 

Canada lynx. The Bureau addressed activities that are not likely to adversely affect the Canada 

lynx. The Service concurs with your determinations that activities described in the Proposed 

Action will not likely adversely affect the Canada lynx. The Service's concurrence is based on 

the Bureau's commitment to implementing conservation measures (see Appendix 2) that are 

based on the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000). In particular, 

the Bureau has committed to limiting disturbance within each Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) to 

30 percent of the suitable habitat within that LAU. The Bureau shall also not change more than 

15 percent of lynx habitat within an LAU to an unsuitable condition within a 10-year period. 

Furthermore, the Bureau has committed to maintaining denning habitat in patches generally 

larger than 5 acres, comprising at least 10 percent of lynx habitat. Where less than 10 percent is 

currently present within an LAU, management actions will be deferred that would delay 

development of denning habitat structure. The Bureau has also adopted best management 

practices (see Appendix 3) that will aid in the recovery of this species. Although considered 

unlikely to occur on Bureau-administered lands at a level that will result in adverse effects to the 

Canada lynx, possible, but highly unlikely detrimental impacts to the Canada lynx from 

programs as identified by the Bureau include: (1) the potential for lynx human conflicts, (2) the 

increase in human activity, construction, or development causing disturbance to lynx or 

alterations to denning, foraging or linkage habitat, (3) the increased potential for vehicle 

collision, (4) habitat fragmentation, (5) the decrease in effectiveness of habitat to support lynx 

prey, and (6) the increased access into higher altitude sites by generalist predators such as 

coyotes, wolves, and bobcats, which could compete with lynx. 

The Service is currently revising the critical habitat for the Canada lynx. On February 28,2008, 

the Service proposed to designate approximately 42,753 square miles of habitat in portions of 

northern Maine, northeastern Minnesota, the Northern Rocky Mountains (northwestern Montana 

and northeastern Idaho), the Northern Cascades (north-central IVashington), and the Greater 

Yellowstone Area (southwestern Montana and northwestern Wyoming). However, none of these 

areas are included in the Pinedale RMP planning area and activities within the Pinedale RMP 

planning area are not anticipated to cause adverse modification of Canada lynx proposed critical 

habitat on other lands. According to the Bureau, if the Service does eventually designate critical 

habitat on the Pinedale RMP planning area or if any Bureau-authorized activity under the 
Pinedale RMP may be determined to potentially affect designated critical habitat for the Canada 

lynx, then the Bureau would treat the designated critical habitat with the same lynx conservation 

measures as listed in Appendix 2. 

I 

Gray wolf. The Service concurs with your determination that activities described in the Bureau's 

Pinedale RMP will not jeopardize the continued existence of the gray wolf because (1) the gray 

wolf in the Bureau's Pinedale planning area is part of a non-essential experimental population, 

and by definition, any effects to a non-essential, experimental population of any species will not 

jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and (2) the Bureau has committed to 

zsnservat,ion aeasures and adopted best mam-mPnf b"a-"-As practices (see Appendices 2 md 3) that 

will aid in the recovery of this species. Potential adverse effects to the gray wolf from 

implementation of the Pinedale RMP as described in the BA (BLM 2008b) include (1) shorttern behavioral avoidance of areas and (2) temporal displacement from habitat. 

Ute ladies'-tresses orchid. The BA addressed several activities that will have no effect or are not 

likely to adversely affect the Ute ladies1-tresses orchid. The Service concurs with your 

determinations that activities described in the Proposed Action with the exception of certain 

livestock grazing activities will not likely adversely affect these plants. The livestock grazing 

program may adversely affect the Ute ladiesr-tresses orchid and as such is the subject of the 

attached BO. The Service's concurrence for activities not likely to adversely affect this species is 

based on (1) the fact that there is no known occupied habitat (Ute ladiesr-tresses) managed by the 

Bureau's office in Pinedale, and (2) the commitment by the Bureau to implement conservation 

measures adequate to ensure that if adverse activities with the exception of certain activities of 

the livestock grazing program did occur in the habitat of these listed plants, the effects from 

Bureau activities would be sufficiently minimized by protective buffers, timing restrictions, etc. 

(see Appendix 2). 

PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

DESCRIPTION OF TIIE PROPOSED ACTION 

The proposed action examined is the management of Bureau-administered lands according to the 

revised Pinedale Resource Management Plan (RMP) (BLM 2008a) as well as the Bureau's 

commitment to conservation measures (Appendix 2) listed in the Biological Assessment (BA) 

(BLM 2008b) for this RMP. The objective of the Pinedale RMP is to provide specific 

management direction to prevent or address potential conflicts among oil and gas development, 

recreational activities, livestock management, important wildlife habitat, and other important 

land and resource uses in the Pinedale planning area, as well as to determine the appropriate 

levels and timing of these activities. Decisions made as a result of the ROD for the Pinedale 

RMP will result in amending the existing Pinedale RMP (BLM 1988). 

RMPs are used by the Bureau to guide and control future actions and set standards, upon which 

future decisions on site-specific activities are based. RMPs only establish general management 

policy. RMPs are not used to make decisions that commit resources. RMPs identify desired 

outcomes, also known as "desired future conditions". These outcomes are expressed in RMPs as 

goals, standards, objectives, and allowable uses and actions needed to achieve desired outcomes, 

often referred to as RMP decisions or resource allocations. It is these decisions or resource 
allocations that the effects determinations in this BO are based. As such, the Bureau is still be 

obligated to conduct section 7 consultation at the project-specific level for all Bureau-authorized 

activities that "may affect" a listed species. 

The Pinedale RMP incorporates current laws and regulations and public land resource 

management initiatives to guide long-range land management decisions for public lands and 

resources in Sublette and Lincoln Counties in western Wyoming. The Bureau administers 

922,880 acres of public land surface and 1,199,280 million acres of Federal mineral estate within 

the planning area. The Pinedale RMP does not include land management decisions where land 

surfices and niinerals are both privately owned, or owned by fne State of Wyoming, or iocal 

governments, or those lands that are managed by other Federal agencies. 

This formal consultation only addresses adverse effects to listed species that are likely-to-occur 

as a result of the Pinedale RMP (I) Lands and Realty; (2) Livestock Grazing; (3) Minerals; 

(4) Transportation, Access, and Travel Management, (5) Wildland Fire and Fuels; and 

(6) Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management Programs. Informal consultation on other actions 

identified in the RMP were covered previously in this document. 

The activities of the Pinedale RMP that may affect, and are likely to adversely affect the Ute 

ladies'-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) and the Colorado River downstream listed fishes 

and their designated critical habitats are presented in Table 2 and discussed in detail below. 

Conservation measures were included in the Pinedale BA (BLM 2008b) to address potential 

adverse effects. The Bureau has committed to implementing the conservation measures listed in 

that conservation strategy as part of their proposed action (RMP) (BLM 2008a). Therefore, the 

Service has evaluated the implementation of these conservation measures as part of the proposed 

action. 

Table 2. Listed species "likely to adversely affect" determinations made by the Bureau. 

Lands and Realty. The Bureau's lands and realty program seeks to support multiple-use 

management goals of the Bureau's resource programs; respond to public requests for land use 

authorizations, sales, and exchanges; and acquire and designate ROW access to serve 

administrative and public needs. The Pinedale RMP addresses only those lands within Sublette 

and Lincoln counties that are administered by the Bureau (about 922,880 surface acres and 

1,199,280 acres of Federal mineral estate). 

\ 

Lands and Realty 

Livestock Grazing 

LAA 

LAA 

- - - - - - - 

LAA 
Rights-of-way (ROWs) granted by the Bureau are used for access roads, well pads, pipelines, 

communication sites, ditches and canals, buried telephone lines and fiber optic lines, reservoirs, 

compressor stations and other facilities, and electrical distribution lines (power lines) associated 

with proposed projects andlor activities. In addition, the Bureau authorizes ROWs and leases for 

utility transportation corridors. A ROW is generally issued for a 30-year term and may be 

extended with the right of renewal. 

Land tenure adjustment requests such as disposals of, transfer, or acquisition of public lands are 

also reviewed. Bubiic iands have the potentiai for disposai when they are isolated andior difficult 

to manage. Disposal actions usually occur in response to a public request or application that 

results in a title transfer, wherein the lands leave the public domain. All disposal actions are 

coordinated with adjoining landowners, local governments, and current land users. Acquisition 

of non-Federal lands would be pursued, if needed, to accomplish multiple use management 

objectives. 

Withdrawals are initiated to preserve sensitive environmental values, protect major Federal 

investments in facilities, support national security, and provide for public health and safety. 

They segregate a portion of public lands and suspend certain operations of the public land laws, 

such as desert land entries or mining claims. Land withdrawals can be used to transfer 

jurisdiction to other Federal land-managing agencies. 

In addition, the Lands and Realty program authorizes wind energy development. Wind energy 

development projects are considered on a case-by-case basis. Wind turbines authorized by the 

Bureau are typically up to 180 feet high, with an 80-foot turbine diameter. Each turbine would 

encompass approximately 1.2 acres. Ancillary activities would include meteorological towers, 

roads, and power lines. 

Livestock Grazing. The Bureau's Pinedale RMP BA states that the Wyoming Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management would apply to all 

livestock grazing activities on public lands. Numerous activities make up the Bureau's livestock 

management program, including livestock grazing management, vegetation treatments, and range 

improvements. 

Livestock management includes authorizing livestock grazing; designing and implementing 

grazing systems (Allotment Management Plans [AMP]); converting types of livestock; 

abolishing stock trails and driveways; and adjusting seasons of use, distribution, kind, class, and 

number of livestock. Vegetation treatments for livestock grazing management include the use of 

prescribed fire; chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments; and noxious and invasive weed 

control. Other activities for livestock grazing management include the placement of salt and 

mineral supplements and livestock herding. Range improvements include fence construction, 

maintenance, and modification (e.g., exclosures and cattle guards); water development 

(reservoirs, seeps, springs, pipelines, catchments, and wells); and instream structures. 

Minerals. The Bureau's mineral development program is divided into three categories: 

common variety minerals, leasable minerals, and locatable minerals. 

The planning area contains approximately 1,199,280 acres of Federal mineral estate underlying 

922,880 acres of federally owned surface and 276,400 acres private and State lands. The most 
important potential mineral resources in the Pinedale planning area are hydrocarbon resources 

(BLM 2008a). The long history of natural gas production and developments in the last decade 

document the presence of source rocks, reservoir rocks, and trapping mechanisms that provide a 

significant hydrocarbon resource. Gas from geologic fornations other than coalbeds has the 

greatest development potential; gas from coalbeds, also referred to as coalbed methane (CBM), 

is of lesser importance in the Pinedale planning area. 

Leasable Minerals. Leasable minerals include solid minerals (e.g., coal) and fluid minerals (e.g., 

oil, gas, and coalbed methane gas). 

Leasable Minerals (Solid). There are no known economic coal reserves in the Bureau's Pinedale 

planning area. Decisions on lands acceptable for leasing consideration for coal development 

would be made after an application is received. Leases would be considered, and the coal 

screening process would be conducted on a case-by-case basis as lease applications are received. 

If lease applications are approved, then appropriate mitigation measures are developed. The 

extent of wildlife and fish impacts is currently unknown, but would be determined when the 

lease application is considered. 

Leasable Minerals (Fluid). Mineral leases, other than oil and gas, are subject to the same 

resource constraints established for other surface disturbing and disruptive activities. This 

usually would mean that wildlife and fish would be protected in a like manner. However, each 

lease would have to be reviewed on its own merits to ensure the appropriate protective measures 

were applied. 

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 provides that all public lands are open to oil and gas leasing 

unless specifically designated by public law (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 3 100.0-3). 

To acquire a lease, the public nominates acreage to be included in an oil and gas lease sale. This 

acreage is subdivided into parcels, and the information is sent to the appropriate Bureau field 

office. The field office reviews the parcel for potential conflicts with other resources, and 

appropriate stipulations for protection of wildlife and other sensitive resources are included in 

the lease language. 

Mineral exploration involves opening new areas to geophysicaI exploration, leasing, and 

potentially drilling for oil, gas, CBM, and other leasable minerals. Mineral development 

involves an expansion of the exploration phase with construction and initial reclamation of well 

pads, access roads, reserve pits, windpower associated with leases, and other facilities that may 

include aboveground power lines and buried pipelines. Stipulations included in the lease 

language allow protection by controlled surface use (CSU) restrictions or No Surface Occupancy 

(NSO) restrictions if the resource requires these measures. Partial reclamation is required during 

the production phase, and full restoration is required after the project is abandoned. 

Before seismic activity begins, a Notice of Intent (NOI), which details the location, type of 

activity, and a cultural inventory, must be filed in the Bureau's field office. The Bureau then 

conducts an in-office environmental analysis to determine whether any federally listed species 

would be affected. Recent seismic activity in this area has been three-dimensional (3-D) 

surveys, although two-dimensional (2-D) surveys are occasionally conducted. 

Before drilling activities, an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) and a site-specific 

environmental assessment (EA) must be approved. APDs subject to site-specific conditions of 
approval may be more or less restrictive than lease stipulations. Drilling and producing 

operations are inspected regularly to ensure that conditions of approval are followed. Activities 

that would occur as a result of authorizing APDs include the application of dust control 

measures, restriction of flaring of natural gas, control of light emissions, and construction of 

reservoirs associated with water disposal, compressor stations, product enhancement facilities, 

and disposal facilities. 

Construction and operation of drill sites could result in limited commitment of certain resources. 

After the subsurface resource is extracted and the drill site reclaimed, the surface resource is 

reestablished. Site-specific commitment of resources inciudes the removal of vegetation and 

commitment of land surface to roads and well pads during the time that the subsurface resource 

is being extracted. 

When split estate situations occur, wildlife restrictions for federally listed species are applied to 

the subsurface estate and the surface activities because of the Federal nexus of the actions. In this 

case, Federal minerals underlie a non-Federal surface, and federally listed species are protected 

with wildlife restrictions. Wildlife stipulations for other species not associated with the 

threatened and endangered species program would not apply when a split estate situation occurs 

(Federal mineralsinon-Federal surface) and a proposed project is analyzed. The Bureau develops 

and implements surface disturbance restrictions by incorporation of conditions of approval in the 

site-specific analysis. These restrictions vary depending on the type of resource to be protected. 

Some examples of restrictions include No Surface Occupancy (NSO) restrictions on iloodplains, 

wetlands, and riparian zones, and spatialltiming restrictions adjacent to greater sage-grouse leks 

and raptor nests. 

Locatable Minerals. The Pinedale planning area is open to operation of the public land laws and 

to locatable mineral entry except for 148,510 acres of existing withdrawals. The Bureau has 

management authority over mining claim operations for locatable minerals conducted under the 

General Mining Law of 1872. These operations are managed using the surface regulations in 

43 CE;1I 3809. Activity authorized under the General Mining Law is not subject to many of the 

special stipulations that are used in the common variety and leasable mineral programs to protect 

sensitive resources from surface disturbance caused by mineral development. However, they are 

subject to ESA, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and all applicable State 

requirements. 

Bentonite, uranium, and gypsum are the principal locatable minerals of the Bureau in Wyoming. 

Other locatable metallic minerals include silver, gold, platinum, cobalt, and other precious 

minerals. At present, no active metallic mineral mining occurs on Bureau-managed public lands 

in the planning area except for occasional recreational mining. 

Actions associated with commercial locatable minerals may include surface disturbance for 

mining (e.g., exploration and development), reclamation, and construction of access roads, 

buildings, and utility lines. Small-scale mining must be approved by a plan of operations and 

would require either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement 

(EIS). All lands must be reclaimed after cessation of mining activities. 

Salable 1Winemls. Salable mineral mining is authorized under the Materials Act of 1947, as 

amended, and as such is a discretionary action. Salable minerals include sand, gravel, sandstone, 

shale, limestone, dolomite, and any material considered a common variety mineral. Historically, 
these materials were used for building, resurfacing roads, and decorating landscapes. Today, 

common variety minerals are used mainly for maintaining roads and for activities associated 

with the oil and gas industry. The Bureau provides sand, gravel, and stone from Federal mineral 

deposits as necessary to meet the need for Federal, State, and local road construction and 

maintenance projects in the planning area. These materials may be available by a free use permit 

to State and local governments. 

The demand for sand and gravel has increased in the field office as a result of road construction 

and maintenance. The planning area would be open to mineral material sales with the exception 

of 148.5 10 acres of presently withdrawn lands. 

Before issuing contracts or free use permits for salable minerals, the Bureau conducts appropriate 

environmental assessments. These assessments include special studies or inventories of cultural 

values, federally listed plant and wildlife species, or other resources. Stipulations or conditions 

may be included in the terns of the contract to ensure protection of natural resources found there 

and reclamation of the land following project completion. Site reclamation is required following 

any surface disturbing mining activity for salable minerals. Reclamation of disturbed sites is 

important to ensure that the land can later be used productively for other purposes. Reclamation 

includes removing all surface debris, recontouring, reducing steep slopes, and planting 

vegetation. All reclamation proposals must conform to State agency requirements and must be 

approved by the Bureau. 

Transportation, Access, and Travel Management. As part of the transportation, access and 

management program, the Bureau rehabilitates access roads that are no longer needed, proposes 

access easement acquisitions, and pursues legal access across private and State lands. 

The Bureau designates areas as closed, limited, or open to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. The 

Bureau posts signs, develops maps or brochures, and monitors OHV use. Over-the-snow 

vehicles (snowmobiles) are allowed to go cross-country on snow. OHV use would be limited to 

existing roads and trails, except where other restrictions apply in the Desert General Use area. 

Open OHV use areas would be designated in the Big Piney and LaBarge areas. The Bureau 

would coordinate with local interests to establish an open OHV use area in the Pinedale vicinity, 

after which an operation plan would be developed for use of this area. 

Recreational OHV use would be restricted to existing roads and trails in most areas throughout 

the planning area. The Bureau would regulate OHV use on Federal lands consistent with 

Wyoming's OHV Sticker Program. Using OHVs to reach developed or semi-developed 

camping sites away from roads and trails or to retrieve harvested big game would be allowed. 

Seasonal closures may be applied in crucial wildlife habitats as needed, including over-the-snow 

use. In addition, OHVs are prohibited when their use will cause resource damage. The Bureau 

permits OHV events. 

The Bureau recognizes the use of bicycles and other human-powered, mechanized conveyances 

as appropriate recreational activities. Federal regulations do not specifically address 

management of non-motorized vehicle use. The Bureau in Wyoming has adapted the national 

OHV strategy to meet local needs. Bicycles would be allowed on the Encampment River Trail 

within the WSA until Congress designates that area as wilderness. Wheelchairs would be 

allowed across the entire planning area despite any particular trail's or area's designation of use. 
Wildland Fire and Fuels. The two major categories of activities involved with the Bureau's 

fire and fuels management program are fuels treatments (e.g., biological, chemical, prescribed 

burning, and mechanical treatments) and wildland fire suppression. During fuels treatment 

activities, the Bureau evaluates areas on a case-by-case basis; writes activity plans, which 

encompass any of the above listed treatments; coordinates with all necessary parties; and 

conducts treatment projects. Fuels treatments are used to enhance natural resources in the area. 

Fuels treatments can be used to dispose of slash and residue from timber sales. Fuels treatments 

are sometimes used to reduce the fuel levels before a treatment activity. Most fuels treatments 

are conducted to improve wildlife habitat and grazing operations. 

Wildland fire suppression activities, on the other hand, are performed on an emergency basis. 

Wildland fire suppression activities in the planning area would be based on the Appropriate 

Management Response. The following areas would have a high priority for response to wildland 

fires and for fuels reduction and mitigation: areas of mixed land ownership, urban and industrial 

interfaces, important wildlife habitats, cult~~ral sites, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs), Wilderness Study Area (WSA), and other special management areas. Modified fire 

suppression would benefit various habitats by allowing fire to reduce climax communities and by 

stimulating growth of new vegetation. 

Preplanning for wildland fire suppression takes place in many forms before a fire occurs. 

Wildland fire suppression activities, which vary with the intensity of the wildfire, may involve 

the use of OHVs, hand tools, aviation resources, and heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozers). Fire 

lines are constructed to contain wildland fires. Chemical fire suppression agents (ground- based) 

containing surfactant compounds, ammonium nitrate compounds, and chemical dyes may be 

used if needed. In addition, fire retardant drops containing chemical dyes (aircraft dispersal) are 

used. These drops may affect the aquatic environment if used where the chemicals may enter 

streams. Water is withdrawn from nearby sources to suppress the fire. Nearby sources may 

include streams, lakes, or public water supplies. After the fire is extinguished, the Bureau may 

use rehabilitation techniques to stabilize disturbed or burned areas. Rehabilitation techniques 

may involve planting small trees, grass, forbs, and shrubs to restore the site to its original or a 

compatible vegetative state. The Bureau uses Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) 

for seeding, replanting trees, placing mulch in stream banks, and using controlled grazing with 

fences. Through wildland fire suppression activities, the Bureau seeks to effectively protect life, 

property, and resource values from wildfire. The Bureau uses fire suppression on fires 

endangering human life or fires that come within 1 mile of State or private lands, stmctures, and 

facilities. Acres of wildland fire fluctuate annually. Recent trends throughout the Wyoming 

Bureau-administered lands are similar to trends throughout the west, with larger, catastrophic 

fires in recent years attributed to drought conditions and past fire suppression policies. 

'CVildlife and Fish Habitat. Through wildlife and fisheries habitat management, the Bureau 

maintains and enhances habitat for a diversity of wildlife and fish species and provides habitat 

for threatened, endangered, candidate, proposed, and special status animal and plant species in 

compliance with: the ESA, the Bureau's Manual 6840, and approved recovery plans. The 

Bureau's wiIdlife habitat management program supports population objective levels in the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department strategic plan. 

Wildlife program activities may include inventory and monitoring, habitat improvement projects, 

developing stipulations and protective measures, and predator control in coordination with the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspections Service-Wildlife Services, Animal Damage Control 
(APHIS-WS ADC). Inventory and monitoring, which include habitat assessments and species 

surveys, are conducted to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of timing stipulations, 

reduce conflicts between species and other activities, and provide appropriate mitigation. In 

addition, inventory and monitoring are used to identify and describe habitat requirements and life 

history characteristics of federally-listed species. 

The wildlife program supports other resources, including fire and fuels; forestry; minerals, 

including leasable, locatable, and common variety mineral exploration; recreation; cultural and 

paleontological; and lands and realty program activities. 

Habitat improvement projects include the development of water EOUTC~S, cnnstn-rctinn and 

maintenance of fences, management of other resource activities to conserve forage and protect 

habitat, improvement of forage production and quality of rangelands, and vegetative treatments 

(prescribed fires, mechanical, chemical, biological treatments, cutting, thinning. planting, 

seeding, and pitting). Other wildlife management activities include introducing species, 

developing islands, modifying existing projects, constructing artificial structures, constructing 

guzzlers, implementing road closures (permanent and seasonal), constructing exclosures, and 

using heavy equipment and hand tools. 

In addition. wildlife management activities include improving fisheries and wildlife habitat; 

documenting resource damage; implementing stream improvement practices; chemically 

controlling non-native fish; using electro-shocking for sampling fish communities and population 

studies; constructing instream barriers to protect species from non-native invaders; installing 

revetments and fish passage structures, log over-pours, and gabion baskets; cabling junipers; 

placing large boulders for instream fish habitat; and restoring streams to a state of dynamic 

equilibrium by using restoration techniques. 

STATUS OF THE SPECIES 

Ute Ladies'-tresses Life History 

Very little is known about the life history of Ute ladies'-tresses (USFWS 1995). Much of what is 

presumed about the species' life history is drawn from knowledge of other orchids. Orchids 

generally have very small seeds that require symbiotic associations with mycorrhizal fungi for 

germination. Many species of orchids are saprophytic, underground plants that may persist for 

many years underground before emerging above ground. The mycorrhizal stage is reported to 

last 8 years in S. spiralis and green leaves are first produced up to 11 years after germination in 

that species (Wells 1967). Studies of S. magnicamporum in western Kansas and Nebraska report 

that that species may bloom as rarely as once in 20 years. The mean life expectancy of 

S. spiralis plants studied over a nine year period was calculated to be more than 50 years 

(USFWS 1995). 

Throughout its range, reproduction of the Ute ladiesr-tresses orchid appears to be strictly sexual, 

with bumblebees (Bombus spp.) as the primary pollinators (Arditti 1992, Sheviak 1984). 

Flowers are protandrus (functionally male first and then female). As with other orchid species, 

it is thought that Ute ladies'-tresses does not reach sexual maturity for 5 to 10 years (USFWS 

1995). Each orchid fruit can have several hundred to 10,000 seeds with an average of around 

2,000 (Sipes and Tepedino 1994). These seeds may be dispersed by water (Carroll, pers. comm.) 

or wind (Wells 1967). The flowers, seed heads, and vegetative parts of the Ute ladies1-tresses 
orchid are palatable and can be incidentally eaten by grazing livestock. The possibility that 

grazers could disperse the seeds of this species has not been evaluated. The blooming period is 

from early August to early September, with fruits produced in mid-August to September (Fertig 

2000). Not ail individual mature Ute ladiesf-tresses orchids bloom every year and some may 

remain dormant beneath the ground surface and not show any above ground parts for at least one 

growing season (Arft 1995). 

Populations of Ute ladies'-tresses may do well under a regime of somewhat heavy use, i.e., 

livestock grazing and hay mowing. Grazing may have beneficial effects to the plants, especially 

in early summer prior to flowering or fmt production (Arft 1995. Moseley 1998). Grazing may 

mimic the effects of flooding, fire, or other disturbances in maintaining low vegetative cover or 

reducing weed cover (Moseley 1998). Mowing may be beneficial by reducing competing 

vegetation cover, but can be detrimental if done before fmits ripen or if hay is cut too low (Arft 

1995; Hazlett 1996, 1997). Ute ladies'-tresses does not tolerate dense competition of vegetation, 

although a few populations are found in riparian woodlands. 

The Ute ladies7-tresses orchid inhabits early successional riparian habitats such as moist stream 

beds, wet meadows, point bars, sand bars, abandoned stream channels, and low lying gravelly, 

sandy, or cobbley edges (Fertig et al. 1994, USFWS 1995, Fertig 2000). Ute ladies7-tresses 

appears to have a close affinity with floodplain areas where the water table is near the surface 

throughout the growing season and into early autumn. The species is found in open riparian, 

floodplain areas where the competing vegetation has been removed by livestock grazing, 

mowing or by flooding events approximately one month prior to flowering. Ute ladies'-tresses is 

known to grow in agricultural lands managed for grazing in the winter and hay production in 

spring and summer, where mowing occurs in mid-July (USFWS 1995). The elevational range of 

known Ute ladies7-tresses occurrences for Wyoming populations ranges from 4650-5720 feet 

(Fertig 2000, USFWS unpublished data). 

Ute Ladies'-tresses Population Dynamics 

Ute ladies1-tresses population levels and viability are, at least in part, determined by habitat 

conditions created and maintained by natural water processes. Therefore, the significance of 

population size and distribution within a watershed can, at least partially, be assessed in terms of 

the ability of the watershed factors to perpetuate it. However, the linkages between watershed 

processes, habitat conditions, and Ute ladiesf-tresses population response are complex and not 

completely understood. 

The locations of populations within a watershed vary with the availability of suitable habitat. 

Sizes of populations fluctuate naturally. Some years not a single Ute ladiesf-tresses individual 

appears above ground. The number of flowering adults does not give an accurate picture of 

population size nor tell us anything about population structure. More information is necessary 

regarding population viability (USFWS 1995). 

If estimated population size is based on the number of Ute ladies1-tresses flowering spikes, then 

populations appear to fluctuate dramatically in size from year to year (USFWS 1992). For 

example, the primary site for the Boulder, Colorado population contained 5,435 plants in 1986, 

200 plants in 1987, 131 plants in 1988, 1,137 plants in 1989, 1,894 plants in 1990, and at least 80 

plants in 1991 (USFWS 1992). This variability in apparent population size is consistent with 

other observations made of other orchid species. 
However, Wells (1967) questions that apparent fluctuations in orchid numbers are accurate 

descriptions of the actual dynanlics of the orchid populations. According to Wells (1967), the 

criterion adopted for judging whether the number of orchids at a site has changed or not has been 

the number of flowering spikes displayed at the time of visit, This may be an unsatisfactory 

criterion for measuring a quantitative change in population because, as has been demonstrated, 

plants may spend several years as vegetative rosettes or as underground tubers (as many as 11 

years) with no above-ground parts. Furthermore, according to Wells (1967), the autumn ladies1- 

tresses orchid (S. spiralis) grows mainly in short grassland, which is typically maintained in that 

condition by fome kind of grazing, which carr damage some of the flowering spikes malklng a 

visual estimate of number based on count of flowering spikes unreliable. Arft's (1995) work on 

Ute ladies1-tresses supports this theory as well. 

At the time of listing of Ute ladies1-tresses, most of the species1 historic western populations on 

the Wasatch Front and in the Great Basin were believed to have been extirpated by urbanization. 

Most known populations contained fewer than 1,000 plants when counted in 1990 and 1991. 

Eastern Utah populations were also typically small in size. Local extirpations may have taken 

place in currently unoccupied potential habitat similar to extirpations that occurred along the 

Wasatch Front, the Great Basin, and certain historic populations in Colorado (USFWS 1992). 

In 1992, when the species was listed, the total known population size of Ute ladies1-tresses was 

fewer than 6,000 individuals from 11 known populations in Colorado, Utah, and Nevada 

(USFWS 1992). The January 1'7, 1992, listing of Ute ladies'-tresses resulted in an increase in 

surveys for the species. Since that time, additional populations have been located in Utah, 

Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, Nebraska, Washington, and Wyoming. In 1995, the total 

known population size of Ute ladies'-tresses was approximately 20,500 individuals (USFWS 

1995). Since 1995, another 24 populations have been discovered, including several large 

occurrences along the Green River in Colorado and Utah, the Snake River in Idaho, and Niobrara 

River in Wyoming and Nebraska. Ute ladies'-tresses are now known to occupy 674-783 acres of 

habitat. The highest number of plants recorded in any one year was 38,438 in 1998, based on 

sampling 23 of 55 populations known at that time. Since these populations were not selected 

randomly, no useful extrapolations can be made to estimate rangewide numbers based on annual 

counts (Fertig et al. 2005). 

Ute Ladies9-tresses Status and Distribution 

On January 17, 1992, the Service listed Ute ladies'-tresses as threatened in its entire range under 

the Act (57 FR 2053). The Ute ladies'-tresses was first described as a species in 1984 by 

Dr. Charles J. Sheviak from a population discovered near Golden, Colorado (Sheviak 1984). At 

the time of its listing, Ute ladies'-tresses was known from 11 populations occurring in Colorado, 

Utah, and Nevada. Critical habitat has not been designated at this time. To date, no recovery 

plan has been approved for this species. However, a draft recovery plan has been written 

(USFWS 1995). 

Ute ladies'-tresses was first discovered in Wyoming by the University of Wyoming, Rocky 

Mountain Herbarium in 1993. Formal surveys for Ute ladies1-tresses then began in Wyoming in 

1994, one year after B. Ernie Nelson, manager of the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, discovered 

the state's first population in Coshen County. Nelson along with other researchers conducted 

general floristic surveys in southeast Wyoming, the Green River Basin, and Laramie Basin from 
1994-1999, finding an additional new colony along Antelope Creek in Converse County in 1994 

(Hartman and Nelson 1994). 

Hartman and Nelson (1994) found that populations discovered in Wyoming occurred on terraces, 

low slopes, and oxbows adjacent to small streams on sandy to coarse gravelly alluvium or 

alkaline clays in wet meadow communities (Nelson and Hartman 1995). Based on short-term 

obsewation data, the populations that they found were thought to be stable or increasing. The 

sites were on lands managed for livestock grazing or hay production. Current land uses at the 

time appeared compatible with the habitat needs of Ute ladiest-tresses orchid populations. The 

timing of grazing and mowing was thought to be critical for successful seed production (Fertig 

2000). 

Surveys since 1992 have expanded the number of vegetation and hydrology types occupied by 

Ute ladies'-tresses to include seasonally flooded river terraces, subinigated or spring-fed 

abandoned stream channels and valleys, and lakeshores. In addition, 26 populations have been 

discovered along irrigation canals, berms, levees, irrigated meadows, excavated gravel pits, 

roadside barrow pits, reservoirs, and other modified wetlands. New surveys have also expanded 

the elevational range of the species from 720-1830 feet (220-558 meters) in Washington to 7,000 

feet (2134 meters) in northern Utah (Fertig et al. 2005). 

Various environmental consulting firms (e.g., ERO Resources 1994) have searched for 

S. diluvialis across Wyoming since 1994. The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) 

surveyed public lands in Jackson Hole and the Iower Green River Basin in 1999, but did not find 

any new S. diluvialis sites. Staff of WYNDD also conducted unsuccessful searches in the 

Powder River Basin, National Elk Refuge, and F.E. Warren Air Force Base from 1995- 1997. 

Because of the plant's irregular flowering pattern, sites that have been surveyed in the past could 

still harbor populations (Fertig 2000). 

Since their discovery in Wyoming, Ute ladies'-tresses populations have been located in Goshen, 

Converse, Laramie, and Niobrara counties of southeastern Wyoming. The Ute ladies'-tresses 

orchid is currently known in Wyoming from five populations: a small population along a 

tributary to Antelope Creek (a tributary to the Cheyenne River) in northwest Converse County; a 

population along Bear Creek in southwestern Goshen County; a population along the Niobrara 

River near McMaster's Reservoir in southeastern Niobrara County; a population along Sprager 

Creek in Laramie County, and a recently discovered population along Horse Creek in Laramie 

County. These populations are monitored on a limited basis and appear to be stable (USFWS 

2002). 

To date, no populations have been discovered on land administered by the Bureau in the Pinedale 

planning area (BLM 2005). However, surveys have yet to be conducted on all potential existing 

orchid habitat on Bureau-administered lands within the Pinedale planning area. The annual 

variability of Ute ladies'-tresses emergence and flowering, makes it difficult to effectively locate 

populations and inventory them. Future surveys in the Pinedale planning area may find 

populations of Ute ladies'-tresses on Bureau-administered surface andlor split-estate lands on 

potential habitat along streams, rivers, and riparian areas with sandy or loamy clay soils. 
Ute Ladies9-tresses Threats 

In 1992, the Service identified habitat loss and alteration (through urbanization, water 

development, residential development, conversion of open space to parks, agricultural activities); 

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; excessive 

livestock grazing (although mild to moderate grazing may be beneficial); inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; and other factors including localized catastrophic events, competition 

with invasive plant species, and indiscriminate use of herbicides as the primary threats to the 

long term conservation of this species. These activities historically have likely been a primary 

cause of the fragmentation of pop~rlatinns now cllnent!y ohser\jed. Feytig et SL. (2005) identified 

additional threats including ecological succession, road and other construction, recreation, 

flooding, hayinglmowing, natural herbivory, loss of pollinators, and drought. There is increasing 

pressure for urban, residential, and recreational development in these wetland and riparian areas, 

especially along the Front Range of Colorado and the Wasatch Front in Utah. As these areas are 

typically in private ownership, and the projects are often privately funded, there is very little 

regulatory protection for the orchid there, even though it is a federally-listed species. 

Incompatible agricultural or other land management practices could also threaten the Ute ladies'- 

tresses orchid. The orchid is quite tolerant of grazing and other forms of land and vegetation 

disturbance. However, continuous grazing during the flowering season, severe trampling and 

soil compaction, untimely herbicide applications, proliferation of aggressive native and exotic 

plant species indicative of site degradation, and practices that result in habitat alteration from 

grasslforblsedge to shrubltree dominance, can result in loss of vigor and eventual demise of the 

orchid andlor orchid pollinators. Many riparian and other wetland and wetland/upland habitats 

suffer from these impacts, as well. 

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) "warming of the 

climate system is unequivocal, as it is now evident from observations of increases in global air 

and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea 

level." In general, a trend of warming in the mountains of western North America is expected to 

decrease snowpack, hasten spring runoff, and reduce summer flows (FCC 2007). While this 

change could affect the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid or its habitat, to date, a negative impact has not 

been documented. A significant degree of uncertainty exists as to how projected climate 

changes, alone and in concert with other threats, will affect the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid or its 

habitat over the foreseeable future. 

Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very 

likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in 

at least the past 1,300 years (IPCC 2007). It is very likely that over the past 50 years: cold days, 

cold nights, and frosts have become less frequent over most land areas, and hot days and hot 

nights have become more frequent (IPCC 2007). It is likely that: heat waves have become more 

frequent over most land areas, and the frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over 

most areas (IPGC 2007). It is difficult to ascertain what impact these changes have had on the 

Ute ladies'-tresses orchid. 

The IPCC (2007) predicts that changes in the global climate system during the 21st century are 

very likely to be larger than those observed during the 20th century. For the next two decades, a 

warming of about 0.2 "C (0.4 OF) per decade is projected (IPCC 2007). Afterward, temperature 

projections increasingly depend on specific emission scenarios (IPCC 2007). Various emissions 
scenarios suggest that by the end of the 21" century, average global temperatures are expected to 

increase 0.6 to 4.0 OC (1.1 to 7.2 OF) with the greatest warming expected over land (IPCC 2007). 

Localized projections suggest the West may experience among the greatest temperature increase 

of any area in the lower 48 States (PCC 2007). The IFCC says it is very likely that hot 

extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation will increase in frequency (IPCC 2007). There 

also is high confidence that many semi-arid areas like the western United States will suffer a 

decrease in water resources due to climate change (PCC 2007). 

Conflicts between human needs for water and maintenance of existing wetland and riparian 

habitats could be heightened. Wh~le fewer cold days and nights could result in increased 

vegetative yield in colder environments, increased summer heat may increase the frequency and 

intensity of wildfires, and areas affected by drought may increase (IPCC 2007). Overall, it 

appears reasonable to assume that the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid or its habitat may be affected 

negatively by climate change, and that changes in stream flows and resultant effects on riparian 

habitats may be a key factor. However, we believe the best available scientific and commercial 

data are insufficient to indicate the degree to which these factors will affect the long-term 

conservation status of the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid or its habitat. 

Other alterations of stream hydrology could also threaten Ute ladiesT-tresses. The orchid is 

supported by moist soil throughout the growing season, and by wet habitats that are dominated 

by grasslforblsedge communities. During the past 150 years, and continuing today, water 

developments, diversions, stream channel alterations for flood control or other purposes 

(including oil and gas development and mining), and changes in hydrograph have altered 

hydrology, floodplain geomorphology, and vegetation composition and trends. Wile in some 

streams and reaches this may have provided improved conditions for the orchid, in many cases it 

has resulted in the loss of suitable habitat and likely fragmentation or loss of the orchid within 

watersheds (USFWS 2004~). Although some Bureau-authorized activities may affect stream 

hydrology, the Bureau in the Pinedale planning area is committed to not authorizing activities 

that might affect the hydrology of occupied Ute ladiest-tresses habitat (Appendix 2). 

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 

Regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR 402.02) define the environmental baseline as the past 

and present impacts of all Federal, state, or private actions and other human activities in the 

action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed state or Federal projects in the action area 

that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or 

private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation process. 

The action area is defined at 50 CFR 402 to mean "all areas to be affected directly or indirectly 

by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action." For the 

purposes of this consultation, the Service defines the action area as all lands within the Pinedale 

planning area in Wyoming that could potentially be impacted by decisions made in the Pinedale 

RMP (BLM 2008a) to include approximately 922,880 acres of public land surface and 1,199,280 

million acres of Federal mineral estate within the planning area (Federal subsurfacelnon-Federal 

surface) and downstream aquatic environments of the Colorado River system. 

Historic activities within or adjacent to the action area include residential, urban, commercial, 

industrial, and agricultural development; road construction; development for recreational use; 
mining; oil and gas development and its associated infrastructure; airport construction; ski area 

development; levee construction and maintenance; and dam construction. 

Ute Ladies"-tresses Environmental Baseline 

Ute ladies'-tress may occur on floodplain areas in the Pinedale planning area. These areas are 

located where the water table is near the surface throughout the Ute ladies1-tresses growing 

season. The past and present impacts to Ute ladies1-tresses in the action area may have included 

increases, and decreases, in habitat suitability due to irrigation developments and other humancaused changes to stream hydrology. Hitman-caused changes to streaxn hydm!~gy have t~key! 

the form of channelization of streams, construction and use of irrigation canals, water 

impoundment (pond) construction, increased water discharges to surface waters. and water 

depletions from surface waters. These activities occur across the Pinedale planning area. 

hvasive plant species do occupy much of the planning area with resulting herbicide control by 

private citizens, industry, andlor the County Weed and Pest Districts. It is not known if any 

invasive plants may be adversely affecting Ute ladies1-tresses within the action area. 

Grazing, haying and mowing activities are normally undertaken by private land owners as part of 

their agricultural operations. Grazing activities on Bureau-administered lands are authorized by 

the Bureau through a permitting process. These activities may be beneficial to Ute ladies1-tresses 

plants through the maintenance of habitat or they may be detrimental in that these activities if not 

timed properly may reduce the reproductive success of individual Ute ladies1-tresses plants. 

Another impact to Ute ladies1-tresses plants in the action area may be herbivory by wildlife. 

Herbivory of the flowering spikes of S. diluvialis by voles (Arft 1994), deer (Fertig 2000), and 

moose (Moseley 1998) has been documented at some locations. Wells (1967) documented 

significant flowering stalk herbivory of the autumn ladies1-tresses orchid (S. spiralis) by rabbits. 

Arft (1994) speculated that vole herbivory could be the greatest single threat to the long-term 

survival of Ute ladies1-tresses at one study site. It is plausible that similar damage to Ute ladies1- 

tresses plants in the action area could be attributed to wildlife as well. 

Numerous other existing actions including construction of electricity transmission lines, mining 

operations, and erection of telecommunication towers are present in the action area. These have 

been considered as part of the environmental baseline for this action. 

Status of the Cte Ladies1-tresses Within the Action Area 

Ute ladies'-tresses is currently not known to occur within the Pinedale planning area. The 

nearest population to the Pinedale planning area is located in Idaho approximately 100 miles to 

the west downstream from the Pallisades Reservoir. 

Grazing activities may positively benefit Ute ladies'-tresses by reducing competing vegetation; 

however, if not timed properly, they can reduce the reproductive success of individual Ute 

ladies'-tresses plants. Wildlife herbivory of the flowering spikes of Ute ladies'-tresses orchids 

by voles (Arft 1994), deer (Fertig 2000), and moose (Moseley 1998) does occur at some 

locations across the species' range. Wells (1967) documented significant flowering stalk 

herbivory of the autumn ladies1-tresses orchid by rabbits. 
Eight formal section 7 consultations have been completed that analyzed potential adverse effects 

to Ute ladies'-tresses orchids in Wyoming. Four of these were programmatic in nature. Of the 

four that were progrmmatic in nature, three of these analyzed potential adverse effects to Ute 

ladies'-tresses for livestock grazing in specific Bureau planning areas. Those consultations were 

prepared for the Bureau's Newcastle planning area (ES-6-WY-04-F025; October 5,2004), 

Rawlins planning area (ES-6-WY-06-F002; January 16,2002), and Casper planning area (ES-6- 

WY-06-FO309; November 2,2007). None of those planning areas lies adjacent to the Pinedale 

planning area. Of the remaining programmatic formal consultation covered Bureau activities 

statewide across all Bureau planning areas in Wyoming (ES-6-WY-06-F003; April 5,2007). 

The remaining consultations are site-specific, in nature. Two of these analyzed potential adverse 

effects associated with coalbed natural gas development in the Powder River Basin (W4287, 

March 9,2001; ES-6-WY-02-F006, December 2002) of Wyoming. The remaining two formal 

section 7 consultations analyzed surface disturbance in Ute ladies'-tresses habitat associated with 

pipeline construction (WY2567, July 16, 1999) and railroad expansion (ES-6-WY-01-F008, 

October 26,2001), respectively. 

The Bureau supports efforts to locate the orchid on Bureau-administered or nearby state or 

private lands (Hazlett 1995, 1997, 1999). Surveys have been conducted in what appeared to be 

suitable habitat in some parts of the action area, but no Ute ladiest-tresses have been found to 

date. Future surveys may reveal that additional populations occupy Bureau-administered surface 

lands, or on private lands where the Bureau may have discretionary authority of grazing 

management in the action area. 

Within the Pinedale planning area, potentially suitable habitat exists along creeks, streams, and 

riparian areas that may support Ute ladies'-tresses. Locations where population of Ute ladies'- 

tresses may be discovered in the Pinedale planning area include, but are not limited to, moist 

meadows along streams. Surveys have not located populations in Sublette and Lincoln counties 

of Wyoming. 

Factors Affecting the Ute Ladies'-tresses Within the Action Area 

Factors that could affect this orchid in the action area include irrigation developments and other 

human-caused changes to stream hydrology, introduction of invasive species, herbicide use, 

haying, mowing, or livestock grazing (USFWS 1995). 

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Direct effects are effects that result directly or immediately from the proposed action on the 

species. For example, actions that would immediately remove or destroy habitat or displace the 

species from its habitat or an area would be considered direct effects. Indirect effects are effects 

that are caused by, or result from, the proposed action and occur later in time after the proposed 

action is completed, e.g., grazing over the life of the RMP (10-15 years) may maintain habitat for 

listed plants that may occupy the area 15 years from present. Effects of the action under 

consultation are analyzed together with the effects of the action that are interrelated to, or 

interdependent with, that action. An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the proposed 

action and depends on the proposed action for its justification. An interdependent activity is an 
activity that has no independent utility apart from the action under consultation. The effects 

discussed below are interrelated to the proposed action. No interdependent activities to the 

proposed action, as described above, have been identified in this consultation. 

The Proposed Action is the management of the Pinedale planning area in Wyoming for up to 20 

years. Given the length of the proposed action and the difficulty in distinguishing direct from 

indirect effects, the two types of effects are not differentiated here, but instead are discussed 

jointly. 

Effects on Ute Ladies4-tresses 

The Bureau's Pinedale RMP describes activities in the Livestock Crazing program that may 

affect and are likely to adversely affect the Ute ladiest-tresses orchid. These effects are (1) the 

trampling or destruction of the inflorescences (flowering spikes) of individual Ute ladiest-tresses 

plants by livestock grazing, and (2) any manipulation of the timing or intensity or cessation of 

grazing of the habitat of this plant. 

Analysis for Effects of the Action on Ute Ladies'-tresses 

Analysis for effects of Livestock Grazing Management on Ute ladies'-tresses. Habitat alterations 

resulting from agricultural use (grazing) may be beneficial, neutral, and/or detrimental to Ute 

ladiest-tresses orchid depending on when it occurs (McClaren and Sundt 1992, USFWS 1995). 

The Ute ladiest-tresses orchid is edible to livestock and depressed inflorescence (flowering spike) 

and fruit production has been observed at sites that are grazed in late summer (Arft 1995). 

However, populations are still capable of reproduction in the presence of long-term grazing, but 

may experience short-term impacts (Arft 1995). 

Livestock management activities have variable effects on Ute ladiesr-tresses. Grazing livestock 

could reduce competition with other grasses and forbs thereby allowing Ute ladiest-tresses to 

take advantage of sunlight, water, and nutrients that might otherwise be deprived of the plant. 

In a 4-year study of a separate species of ladies1-tresses orchid (S. spiralis) in Great Britain, 

Wells (1967) discussed damage done by herbivores to that species (autumn ladiest-tresses). 

Wells (1967) found that herbivores did very little damage to the leaves of that species even under 

years of heavy grazing by sheep. Wells (1967) speculated that this unusually small amount of 

damage indicated how well-adapted ladiest-tresses orchids are to an open habitat, in which the 

turf is kept short by grazing animals. 

In contrast, according to Wells (1967) damage to the flowering spike of some of those plants was 

observed in every year of the 4-year study. The number of plants with damage to the flowering 

spike varied in each year according to the type and intensity of grazing during the period of 

flowering. Wells (1967) reports that when sheep were removed in early June, less than 1 percent 

of the flowering spikes were recorded as damaged that year. 

It can be presumed that similar damage could occur to Ute ladies'-tresses as it was recorded to 

occur to the autumn ladiest-tresses in Great Britain. The Bureau office in Pinedale does permit 

sheep and cattle grazing on the surface lands that they administer. Therefore, the livestock 

grazing program administered by the Bureau may influence the reproductive potential of any 

given Ute ladiest-tresses plant. Seed number is not thought to be limiting to populations of 
S. diluvinlis as flowering spikes have the potential to produce 5 to 30 fruits per flowering spike 

and each fruit can contain between 100 to 10,000 seeds (Sipes and Tepedino 1994). Therefore, 

even under heavy grazing pressure as described by Wells (1967), a small population of 

S. dillivialis has the potential to produce tens of thousands of seeds. 

Arft (1994) studied the effects of cattle grazing on Ute ladies1-tresses orchids. The data 

suggested that the large fluctuations in population size reported in monitoring counts may 

actually be fluctuations in number of flowering individuals, with many individual plants 

remaining vegetative (non-flowering) or subterranean. During Arft's (1994) study, the 

prnpoflic?n nf flowering individuals fluctuated greatly between survey years, indicating - flowering 

plants alone may not be a good indicator of population size. 

It is plausible that livestock could also incidentally ingest Ute Ladiest-tresses seed heads and act 

as seed dispersal mechanisms to introduce the seeds to unoccupied areas and actually improve 

the reproductive fitness of any given plant although Wells (1967) did not mention any such 

documented occurrences in his study of the autumn ladiest-tresses. In that study, most of the 

damage done by cattle in his study was due to trampling and treading on the flowering spikes. 

No other documentation has been found in the literature relative to the topic of livestock acting 

as a potential seed disperser of Ute ladies' tresses orchids. 

It is currently accepted that grazing activities generally benefit the habitat necessary for Ute 

ladies'-tresses populations if these activities are timed to occur up to one month prior to 

flowering. Fencing, changes in livestock seasons of use or type of livestock, and riparian 

improvement projects may be used to protect the flowering spikes of individual plants from 

crushing or removal. 

The Bureau intends to continue grazing activities and surveys for Ute ladies'-tresses and if 

populations are discovered, grazing activities will be managed to maintain Ute ladies'-tresses 

populations (BLM 2005). The Bureau in Pinedale has committed to conservation measures to 

protect Ute ladies'-tresses (Appendix 2). The use of these conservation measures will reduce or 

eliminate the effects by ensuring that (1) populations are discovered prior to any surface 

disturbing activities, (2) surface disturbances do not take place in occupied habitat, (3) invasive 

plant species infestations are controlled in a manner conducive to the survival of Ute ladiesttresses, (4) the hydrologic regime of the plant's habitat is maintained and studied, and (5) grazing 

activities are conducted in a manner that will maintain the habitat of the species while 

minimizing any removal of the plant's flowering spikes (BLM 2005). 

Summary of Effects on Ute Ladies'-tresses 

Grazing. Ute ladiest-tresses populations in Wyoming are typically found in areas where 

livestock grazing has maintained the habitat in areas where competing vegetation has been 

removed and there is a fair amount of bare ground surface (Fertig 2004) characteristic of an area 

that has been partially grazed regularly. However, activities authorized in the livestock grazing 

program may damage individual plants. The degree to which the plants can sustain damage and 

not be "adversely affected" is currently unknown, but it is suspected that the activities authorized 

in the livestock grazing program may affect individual Ute ladies1-tresses orchid's reproductive 

success. The Bureau has made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for the 

potential effect that Bureau-authorized livestock grazing activities may have on Ute ladiesftresses that may exist on Bureau-administered surface acreage in the Pinedale planning area. 
Minimization of Effects to the Species 

To minimize the effects to listed species, the Bureau will implement the conservation measures 

listed in Appendix 2. For all listed species, the Bureau will ensure that surveys are conducted in 

suitable habitat prior to implementation of potentially disturbing project activities. The Bureau's 

implementation of the conservation measures of Appendix 2 will reduce human and project 

disturbance to riparian areas for the protection of individual Ute ladies'-tresses orchids. The 

Bureau's implementation of the conservation measures will also minimize the potential for 

inadvertent spraying of herbicides or introdilctinn of rmxiorrs WPP~S izto the habitats cf federally 

listed plants of the Pinedale planning area. The Bureau's application and enforcement of buffer 

restrictions for spraying of insecticides near listed plants will help ensure that populations of 

necessary insect pollinators of listed plants will be maintained. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects include the effects of future state, tribal, local, or private actions that are 

reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future 

Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section 

because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. 

Non-Federal activities that may cumulatively affect Ute ladies1-tresses across the Pinedale 

planning area include oil and gas (including coalbed natural gas) development, uranium mining, 

sand, gravel, and scoria mining, road and railroad construction, and rural and urban housing 

development, hard rock mining (including coal, trona, and phosphates), subdivision development 

along rivers, recreation along rivers and river corridors (including camping, rafting, hunting, and 

golf course development), municipal solid waste landfill expansions, housing developments, 

stockyard operations for livestock grazing, and farming near and within riparian corridors. Other 

potential effects from non-Federal actions in the planning area could include increases in 

urbanization (although this is not thought to be a significant impact in the planning area at this 

time). 

Impacts to Ute ladies1-tresses orchids could result from livestock operations on private lands in 

the Bureau's planning areas in Wyoming. These impacts could be beneficial (maintaining habitat 

through grazing), or detrimental (limiting individual orchid reproductive fitness by removal of 

fruiting parts through trampling or ingestion). The nature of the impacts from livestock 

operations is likely to be fairly similar across land ownerships (BLM 2005). 

Mowing and haying on private and state lands could be beneficial to Ute ladiest-tresses 

populations. However, these activities could also be detrimental if done before fruits have 

ripened, or if the height of hay cutting is too low. In many current management situations, the 

timing of mowing is related to growth conditions of the hay crop and weather patterns rather than 

the biological needs of these threatened plants. 

Finally, the data are not adequate to determine the distribution and abundance of all Ute ladies'- 

tresses populations and suitable habitats on private or state-owned lands in the Bureau's planning 

areas. Of the roughly 922,880 acres within the Pinedale planning area, most are available to 

livestock operations. The Bureau in Pinedale also oversees the use of approximately 1.2 million 
subsurface acres within the planning. The exact cumulative effects of the Ute ladies'-tresses 

orchid are not known at this time due to a lack of specific information on future, state, local, or 

private actions in the Pinedale planning area over the life of the RMP. 

CONCLUSION 

After reviewing the current status of the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid; the environmental baseline 

for the action area; the effects of the Pinedale Resource Management Plan; and the cumulative 

effects, it is the Service's hinlngical opinion that the direct and indirect effects of the 

implementation of the Pinedale Resource Management Plan, as proposed, are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid. No critical habitat has been 

designated for the Ute ladies7-tresses; therefore, none will be affected. 

The Service has reached this conclusion by considering the following. 

Ute Ladies' -tresses 

I. It appears that this species is more widespread and numerous than was previously known. 

At the time of listing, the total known Ute ladiest-tresses population numbered 

approximately 6,000 individuals. Extensive census efforts between 1991-1995 revealed 

that known population size was approximately 20,500 individuals. Since 1995, several 

new populations have been located adjacent to the action area, one of which contained 

several thousand individuals. Between 1992-1999, the total known population of the Ute 

ladiest-tresses orchid observed across its range reached over 60,000 individuals (USFWS 

2004~). It is expected that new populations will continue to be discovered as not all 

potential habitat has been surveyed. As a response to the plant's more widespread 

distribution, the Service has undertaken a 5-year status review and has begun preparing a 

12 month finding on a petition to delist the species (USFWS 2004b). 

2. The Bureau is not proposing to implement any significant changes to the management of 

any Ute ladiest-tresses potential habitat that may cause detrimental impacts to any 

populations. 

3. The Bureau is committed to implementing protective measures (Appendix 2) to minimize 

potential impacts to Ute ladiest-tresses. 

4. Although individuals can be adversely impacted by livestock grazing activities 

(trampling, ingestion, etc.), the population seems to withstand some grazing pressure and 

may actually rely on these activities for maintenance of their habitat. 
ACTIONS AFFECTING COLORADO RIVER FLOW-S 

Formal consultation is required for projects that may lead to depletions of water to the Colorado 

River system. A Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin (Recovery Program) was initiated on January 22, 1988. The Recovery 

Program was intended to be the reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid jeopardy to the 

endangered fish by depletions from the Upper Colorado River. The Recovery Program provides 

a programmatic, streamlined process for section 7 consultation under the Act to expedite section 

7 compliance on water projects in the Colorado River Basin. According to the Pinedale RMP 

BA (BLM 2008b). the Bureau will participate in this Pmgrgm fer gctivities that wl!! 

deplete water from this river system (See Appendix 2). Participation in this recovery program 

provides section 7 compliance under the Act for the vast majority of new and existing water 

projects in this basin. Depletion consultations under section 7 are tiered to an existing Biological 

Opinion on the Recovery Program, facilitating the streamlined consultation process for all such 

future depletion consultations. 

Federal agency actions resulting in water depletions to the Colorado River system may affect the 

bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila 

cypha), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and their designated critical habitat downstream 

in the Colorado River system. While the proposed Pinedale RMP does not authorize sitespecific or project-level actions leading to depletions in the Colorado River Basin, it identifies 

1,377 existing projects that result in minor depletions (<I00 a-f) to the Colorado River Basin 

(Table 3 of BLM 2008b). Future maintenance or expansion of these projects will require section 

7 consultation for effects of depletions to downstream federally listed fishes of the Colorado 

River and their designated critical habitat. 

The Pinedale RMP Revision also identifies several potential new projects that would result in 

minor depletions (<I00 a-f) to the Colorado River (Table 4 of BLM 2008b), including: water 

development (5.3 a-f/project) and well construction activities (4.64 a-f/project). The proposed 

Pinedale RMP does not authorize these projects. Implementation of these projects, or any other 

projects leading to depletions to the Colorado River, will require individual or separate section 7 

consultation at the project level for effects of depletions to downstream federally listed fishes and 

their designated critical habitat. 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 

Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(0)(2) of the Act generally do not apply to listed plant 

species. However, limited protection of listed plants from take is provided to the extent that the 

Act prohibits the removal and reduction to possession of Federally listed plants. 

CONSERVATION RECOMLWNDATIONS 

Section 7(a)(l) of Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes 

of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened 

species. Conservation recommendations (CR) are discretionary agency activities to minimize or 

avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement 

recovery plans, or to develop information. The recommendations provided here relate only to 
the proposed action and do not necessarily represent complete fulfillment of the agency's section 

7(a)(l) responsibility for these species. 

CRI. The Service recommends that the Bureau follow all best management practices as 

identified in the Bureau's Pinedale RMP Biological Assessment (BLM 2008b) 

and the Bureau's Statewide Programmatic Ute ladies'-tresses Biological 

Assessment (BLM 2005). 

CR2. In known occupied Ute ladiesf-tresses habitat, the Service recommends that the 

Bureau use management actions that are compatible with protection a~d 

conservation of pollinators of this species. 

CR3. The Service recommends that the Bureau monitor and manage invasive species 

so these do not impact the Ute ladies1-tresses orchid or its habitat. 

CR4. The Service recommends that the Bureau not authorize herbicide use in known or 

occupied Ute ladiest-tresses habitat without prior review by Service biologists. 

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or 

benefiting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation 

of any conservation recommendations. 

RE-INITIATION NOTICE 

This concludes formal consultation on the Pinedale Resource Management Plan Revision as 

outlined in your March 17,2005 request for formal consultation. As provided in 50 CF'R 402.16, 

re-initiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement 

or control over the action has been maintained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or 

extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action 

that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this 

opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the 

listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is 

listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the 

amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing take must cease pending 

re-initiation. 

Thank you for your assistance in the conservation of this endangered, threatened, and candidate 

species. In future communications regarding this Biological Opinion, please refer to consultation 

number ES-6-WY-08-F0033. If we may be of further assistance, please contact Alex Schubert 

of my staff at (307) 772-2374, ext. 238. 

cc: BLM, Endangered Species Coordinator, State Office, Cheyenne, WY (C. Keefe) 

FWS, Endangered Species, Lakewood, CO (B. Fehey) 

WCFD, Statewide Habitat Protection Coordinator, Cheyenne, WY (V. Stelter) 

WGFD, Non-Game Coordinator, Lander, WY (B. Oakleaf) 
Arditti, J. 1992. Fundamentals of orchid biology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 691 pp. 

Arft, A. M. 1994. The genetics, ecology, and conservation management of the rare orchid 

Spiranthes diluvialis (Orchidaceae). Aquilegia (Newsletter of the Colorado Native Plant 

Society 18(2): 1,4-5 (March/April 1994). 

- - - - - - - . 1995. The genetics, ecology, and conservation management of the rare orchid, 

Spirnnthes diiuvialis Shevi&. North American Native Orchid Jnuma! 1(2): 117-129. 

Carroll, J. 2004. Personal communication. U.S. Bureau of Land Management Threatened and 

Endangered Species Coordinator. 

ERO Resources. 1994. Spiranthes diluvialis - Survey Report Union Pacific Bridge Crossings - 

Goshen and Laramie Counties, Wyoming. Report prepared for Boyle Engineering 

Corporation. ERO Resources, Denver, Colorado. August 1994. 4 pp. + Appendices. 

Fertig, W. C. 2000. Status Review of the Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) in 

Wyoming. Prepared for the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wyoming Game and Fish Department by Wyoming 

natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 17 pp. 

- - - - - - - . 2004. Personal Communication. 

------- , C. Refsdal, and J. Whipple. 1994. Wyoming Rare Plant Field Guide. Wyoming Rare 

Plant Technical Committee. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

------- , R. Black, and P. Wolken. 2005. Rangewide Status Review of Ute Ladies1-Tresses 

(Spiraathes diluvialus). Prepared for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Central 

Utah Water Conservancy District. 101 pp. 

Hartman, R. L. and B. E. Nelson. 1994. Final Report on Field Inventory for Ute ladies1-tresses 

(Spiranthes diluvialis) in Eastern Wyoming and a Detailed Discussion of a New Locality. 

Rocky Mountain Herbarium, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 3 pp. + 

Attachment. 

Hazlett, D. L. 1995. A 1995 Search for Spiranthes diluvialis in SE Wyoming. Preliminary 

Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office. Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. October 1995. 

------- . 1996. The Discovery of Spiranthes diluvialis, Along the Niobrara River in Wyoming 

and Nebraska, Final Report to Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office. 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. 16 pp. 

------- . 1997. A 1997 search for Spirant/zes diluvialis in southeastern Wyoming and western 

Nebraska. Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office. 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. October 1997. 12 pp. 
------- . 1999. A 1999 survey of 25 parcels of BLM land for Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies1- 

tresses orchid) and Gauru .a~eotne~~icanus ssp, colomdensis (Colorado butterfly plant). 

Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. September 1999. 19 pp. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis 

Report. Summary for Policy Makers. This summary, approved in detail at IPCC Plenary 

XXVII (Valencia, Spain, 12-1 7 November 2007). 22 pp. 

McClaren, M. P. and P. C. Sundt. 1992. Population dynamics of the rare orchid Spir~inthes 

delitescens. Southwestern Naturalist 37(3):299-333. 

Moseley, R. K. 1998. Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) in Idaho: 1998 status report. 

Report prepared by the Idaho conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game, Boise, Idaho. 

Nelson, B. E. and R. L. Hartman. 1995. Report on field inventory for Ute lady's tresses 

Spiranthes diluvialis) in southeastern Wyoming and southeastern Nebraska. Report 

prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne. 

December 3 1, 1995. Cooperative Agreement No. 5-3 1982. 

Sheviak, C. J. 1984. Spirarzthes diluvialis (Orchidaceae), a new species from the western United 

States. Brittonia 36(1):8-14. 

Sipes, S. D. and V. J. Tepedino. 1994. Unpublished data presented at Ute ladies1-tresses 

information exchange meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah. 

U. S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1988. Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan for the Pinedale Resource Area. Pinedale Resource Area. 

Pinedale Resource District. Pinedale, Wyoming. December 1988. 

-----em . 2005. Statewide Programmatic Biological Assessment: Ute ladies1-tresses (Spiranthes 

diluvialis). Cheyenne Bureau of Land Management Office. October 2005. 47 pp. 

------- . 2008a. Final Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Pinedale Field Office. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Pinedale, Wyoming. 

- - - - - - - . 2008b. Biological Assessment for the Pinedale Resource Management Plan. Pinedale 

Field Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Endangered and threatened Wildlife and 

Plants: Final Rule to List the Plant Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies'-tresses) as a 

Threatened Species. Federal Register 57(12):2048-2054. 

------- . 1995. Draft Ute ladies1-tresses (Spirantfzes diluvialis) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 46 pp. 
- - - - - - - . 2002. Final Biological and Conference Opinion for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas 

Project, Campbell, Converse, Johnson, and Sheridan Counties, Wyoming (Formal 

Consultation No. ES-6-W-02-F006). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Correspondence 

dated December 1 7,2002. 

- - - - - - - . 2004a. Block clearance letter (ES-6141 l/BFFTWY7746) indicating that black-footed 

ferret surveys are no longer required in all black-tailed prairie dog colonies statewide or 

in white-tailed prairie dog towns except those noted in an attachment. Febsuary 2,2004. 

Wyoming Field Office. 

------- . 2004b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition to Delist the Ute Ladies1-Tresses Orchid and Initiation of a 5-Year Review. 

Federal Register 69(196):60605-60607. 

- - - - - - - . 2004c. Ute ladiest-tresses orchid BiologyEcology Summary - August 2004. Prepared 

by Dr. Lucy Jordan, Recovery Team Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 6 pp. 

Wells, T. C. E. 1967. Changes in a population of Spiranthes spiralis (I) Chevall. at Knocking 

Hoe National Nature Reserve, Bedfordshire, 1962-65. Journal of Ecology 55:83-99. 
APPENDIX 1 - DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES FOR THI3 

PINEDALE Rh4P 

These U.S. Bureau of Land Management (Bureau or BLM) program descriptions are 

summarized from the Pinedale Final Resource Management Plan (RMP) (BLM 2008a) 

and Biological Assessment (BA) (BLM 2008b). It is expected that the activities 

described here will be implemented in the Pinedale planning area over the life of the 

approved Pinedale RMP (1 0- IS years). 

Air Quality. The Bureau's air quality management objectives are to maintain or enhance 

air quality and minimize emissions that could result in atmospheric deposition (acid rain), 

violations of air quality standards, or reduced visibility. Laws controlling air pollutants 

in the United States are the Clean Air Act of 1970 and its amendments, and the 1999 

Regional Haze Regulations. The concentrations of air contaminants in the planning area 

need to be within limits of Wyoming ambient air quality standards (WAAQS) and 

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). WAAQS and NAAQS are legally 

enforceable standards for particulate matter (PMIO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), ozone, 

sulfur dioxide (S02), and carbon monoxide (CO). 

In addition to complying with NAAQS and WAAQS, major new sources of pollutants or 

modifications to sources must comply with the New Source Performance Standards and 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). The PSD increments measure PM10, 

S02, and N02. The PSD program is used to measure air quality to ensure that areas with 

clean air do not significantly deteriorate while a margin for industrial growth is 

maintained. 

A qualitative emission comparison approach was selected for analysis of impacts to air 

quality. This approach was used because (1) no specific data were available on future 

projects, (2) limited time was available to complete the analysis, (3) quantitative analysis 

will be required as development projects are defined in the future, and (4) Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD) will require 

demonstration of compliance with Federal and State air quality regulations and standards 

for any future development projects. Given the uncertainties concerning the number, 

nature, and specific location of future emission sources and activities, the emission 

comparison approach provides a sound basis to compare the potential impacts under the 

various alternatives. A more detailed justification and a detailed list of all assumptions 

used in this impact assessment are presented in the Air Quality Technical Support 

Document (AQTSD). 

Wildland fires and prescribed burns would result in emissions of particulates and 

polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), as well as reduced visibility. Vehicular activity 

would also produce emissions that would degrade air quality. Permitted stationary 

sources of air emissions would continue to contribute to cumulative impacts to regional 

air quality. 

Given the low ambient concentrations that exist in the Pinedale area for some of the 

pollutants, it is expected that the increase in emissions, under any of the alternatives, of 

carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (S02), and particulate 
matter (PM10, and PM2.5) would not cause any exceedance of State or Federal ambient 

air quality standards. Because it is unknown whether a quantitative relationship exists 

between expected air emissions and the subsequent potential impacts to the air quality 

values of ambient criteria pollutant concentration, visibility, atmospheric deposition, or 

ozone, conclusions cannot be drawn concerning potential impacts to these air quality 

values from the various alternatives. 

Cultural Resources. Under this program, the Bureau performs a variety of activities to 

preserve, protect, and restore cultural and historical resources. The prehistoric and 

historic resources, primarily archaeological sites, date from 11,500 years before present 

(B.P.) to the 1950s. Native American resources include prehistoric and historic 

archaeological sites with particular characteristics, as well as locations historically andlor 

presently considered sacred by Native American groups. 

During inventory activities, the Bureau inventories, categorizes, and preserves cultural 

resources; conducts field activities; performs excavations; maps and collects surface 

materials; researches records; and photographs sites and cultural resources. Temporary 

campgrounds may be authorized for these activities. Inventory data collection activities 

are used for documentation and development of mitigation plans before other resource 

program surface disturbing activities begin. Inventory activities commonly entail the use 

of hand tools. Data recovery activities occasionally entail the use of power tools and 

heavy equipment. The Bureau's cultural resource land management activities involve 

managing sites for scientific, public, and sociocult~~ral use; developing interpretive sites; 

restricting certain land uses; closing certain areas to exploration; prohibiting some surface 

disturbing activities; and preparing interpretive materials. The Bureau also seeks listing 

of eligible sites on the National Register of Historic Places, installs protective fencing of 

trail segments and other cultural resources, stabilizes deteriorating buildings and 

resources, acquires access to sites when necessary, performs data recovery excavations, 

pursues withdrawal of areas from exploration and development of locatable minerals, 

designates avoidance areas, pursues cooperative agreements, and identifies and interprets 

historic trails. 

The Bureau performs cultural resource inventories normally in response to other surface 

disturbing activities. Inventories include transects set 30 meters (100 feet) apart from 

each other. 

Forestry. The Bureau's forestry program includes various activities, most of which 

involve timber harvesting. Other activities involve managing the forest for other uses 

including recreation, livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and prescribed burning. During 

forestry activities for timber production in the preharvest phase, The Bureau allows the 

cutting and removal of diseased trees and disease treatment by spraying. The Bureau 

allows precommercial thinning, chaining, and shearing. During actual harvesting 

activities, the Bureau allows timber harvesting; permits clear-cuts (e.g., stand 

replacements), permits selective cutting, ensures slash disposal occurs, and allows 

commercial thinning, logging, and skidder-type yarding and cable yarding. The Bureau 

permits the construction of roads and landings for use in timber harvesting operations. 
Slash is to be lopped and scattered, roller chopped, or burned. The Bureau also permits 

helicopter logging. Noncommercial timber harvest involves the collection and cutting of 

firewood, Christmas trees, posts, poles, and wildlings. During restoration efforts 

following timber harvesting, the Bureau ensures site regeneration (natural), artificial 

regeneration (planting harvested areas, including new seedlings), and stand replacements; 

fences regenerated areas; and conducts rehabilitation surveys. 

Lands and Realty. Under the lands and realty program, the Bureau seeks to support 

multiple-use management goals of the bureau's resource programs; respond to public 

requests for land use authorizations, sales, and exchanges; and acquire and designate 

right-of-way (ROW) access to serve administrative and public needs. The Pinedale RMP 

addresses only those lands within Sublette and Lincoln counties that are administered by 

the Bureau (about 922,880 surface acres and 1,199,280 acres of Federal mineral estate). 

ROWs granted by the Bureau are used for access roads, well pads, pipelines, 

communication sites, ditches and canals, buried telephone lines and fiber optic lines, 

reservoirs, compressor stations and other facilities, and electrical distribution lines (power 

lines) associated with proposed projects andor activities. In addition, the Bureau 

authorizes ROWs and leases for utility transportation corridors. A ROW is generally 

issued for a 30-year term and may be extended with the right of renewal. 

Land tenure adjustment requests such as disposals of, transfer, or acquisition of public 

lands are also reviewed. Public lands have potential for disposal when they are isolated 

and/or difficult to manage. Disposal actions usualIy occur in response to a public request 

or application that results in a title transfer, wherein the lands leave the public domain. 

All disposal actions are coordinated with adjoining landowners, local governments, and 

current land users. Acquisition of non-Federal lands would be pursued, if needed, to 

accomplish multiple use management objectives. 

Withdrawals are initiated to preserve sensitive environmental values, protect major 

Federal investments in facilities, support national security, and provide for public health 

and safety. They segregate a portion of public lands and suspend certain operations of 

the public land laws, such as desert land entries or mining claims. Land withdrawals can 

be used to transfer jurisdiction to other Federal land-managing agencies. 

In addition, the Lands and Realty program authorizes wind energy development. Wind 

energy development projects are considered on a case-by-case basis. Wind turbines 

authorized by the Bureau are typically up to 180 feet high, with an 80-foot turbine 

diameter. Each turbine would encompass approximately 1.2 acres. Ancillary uses would 

include meteorological towers, roads, and power lines. 

Livestock Grazing. The Bureau's Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Crazing Management would apply to all livestock grazing 

activities on public lands. Numerous activities make up the Bureau's livestock 

management program, including livestock grazing management, vegetation treatments, 

and range improvements. 
Livestock management includes authorizing livestock grazing; designing and 

implementing grazing systems (Allotmnt Management Plan [AMP]); converting types 

of livestock; abolishing stock trails and driveways; and adjusting season of use, 

distribution, kind, class, and number of livestock. Vegetation treatments for livestock 

grazing management include the use of prescribed fire; chemical, mechanical, and 

biological treatments; and noxious and invasive weed control. Other activities for 

livestock grazing management include the placement of salt and mineral supplements and 

Iivestock herding. Mange improvements incl~ide fence mnstructinn, *laint~t?_ancrt, =d 

modification (e.g., exclosures and cattle guards); water development (reservoirs, seeps, 

springs, pipelines, catchments, and wells); and instream structures. 

Minerals. The Bureau's mineral development program is divided into three categories: 

common variety minerals, leasable minerals, and locatable minerals. 

The planning area contains approximately 1,199,280 acres of Federal mineral estate 

underlying 922,880 acres of federally owned surface and 276,400 acres private and State 

lands. The most important potential mineral resources in the Pinedale planning area are 

hydrocarbon resources (BLM 2008a). The long history of natural gas production and 

developments in the last decade document the presence of source rocks, reservoir rocks, 

and trapping mechanisms that provide a significant hydrocarbon resource. Gas from 

geologic formations other than coalbeds has the greatest development potential; gas from 

coalbeds, also referred to as coalbed methane (CBM), is of lesser importance in the 

Pinedale planning area. 

Leasable Minerals. Leasable minerals include solid minerals (e.g., coal) and fluid 

minerals (e.g., oil, gas, and coalbed methane gas). 

Leasable Minerals (Solid). There are no known economic coal reserves in the Pinedale 

planning area. Decisions on lands acceptable for leasing consideration for coal 

development would be made after an application is received. Leases would be 

considered, and the coal screening process would be conducted on a case-by-case basis as 

lease applications are received. If lease applications were approved, the appropriate 

mitigation measures would be developed. The extent of wildlife and fish impacts is 

unknown and would be determined when the lease application is considered. 

Leasable Minerals (Fluid). Mineral leases, other than oil and gas, are subject to the same 

resource constraints established for other surface disturbing and disruptive activities. 

This usually would mean that wildlife and fish would be protected in a like manner. 

However, each lease would have to be reviewed on its own merits to ensure the 

appropriate protective measures were applied. 

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 provides that all public lands are open to oil and gas 

leasing unless specifically designated by public law (43 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] 3 100.0-3). To acquire a lease, the public nominates acreage to be included in an 

oil and gas lease sale. This acreage is subdivided into parcels, and the information is sent 
to the appropriate Bureau field office. The field office reviews the parcel for potential 

conflicts with other resources, and appropriate stipulations for protection of wildlife and 

other sensitive resources are included in the lease language. 

Mineral exploration involves opening new areas to geophysical exploration, leasing, and 

potentially drilling for oil, gas, coalbed methane (CBM), and other leasable minerals. 

Mineral development involves an expansion of the exploration phase with construction 

and initial reclamation of well pads, access roads, reserve pits, windpower associated 

with leases, and other facilities that may include aboveground power iines and buried 

pipelines. Stipulations included in the lease language allow protection by controlled 

surface use (CSU) restrictions or No Surface Occupancy (NSO) restrictions if the 

resource requires these measures. Partial reclamation is required during the production 

phase, and full restoration is required after the project is abandoned. 

Before seismic activity begins, a Notice of Intent (NOT), which details the location, type 

of activity, and a cultural inventory, must be filed in the appropriate Bureau field office. 

The Bureau conducts an in-office environmental analysis to determine whether any 

federally listed species would be affected. Recent seismic activity in this area has been 

three-dimensional (3-D) surveys, although two-dimensional (2-0) surveys are 

occasionally conducted. 

Before drilling activities, an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) and a site-specific 

environmental assessment (EA) must be approved. APDs subject to site-specific 

conditions of approval may be more or less restrictive than lease stipulations. Drilling 

and producing operations are inspected regularly to ensure that conditions of approval are 

followed. Activities that would occur as a result of authorizing APDs include the 

application of dust control measures, restriction of flaring of natural gas, control of light 

emissions, and construction of reservoirs associated with water disposal, compressor 

stations, product enhancement facilities, and disposal facilities. 

Construction and operation of drill sites could result in limited commitment of certain 

resources. After the subsurface resource is produced and the drill site reclaimed, the 

surface resource is reestablished to a condition that may be better than the original. Sitespecific commitment of resources includes the removal of vegetation and commitment of 

land surface to roads and well pads during the time that the subsurface resource is being 

recovered. 

When split estate situations occur, wildlife restrictions for federally listed species are 

applied to the subsurface estate and the surface activities because of the Federal nexus of 

the actions. In this case, Federal minerals underlie a non-Federal surface, and federally 

isted species are protected with wildlife restrictions. Wildlife stipulations for other 

species not associated with the Threatened and Endangered species program would not 

apply when a split estate situation occurs (Federal minerals/non-Federal surface) and a 

proposed project is analyzed. 
The Bureau develops and implements surface disturbance restrictions by incorporation of 

conditions of approval in the site-specific analysis. These restrictions vary depending on 

the type of resource to be protected. Some examples of restrictions include NSO on 

floodplains, wetlands, and riparian zones, and spatialftiming restrictions adjacent to 

greater sage-grouse leks and raptor nests. 

Locatable Minerals. The Pinedale planning area is open to operation of the public land 

laws and to locatable mineral entry except for 148,510 acres of existing withdrawals. 

The Bureau has management ai~thnrity nver mining claim- operatinns fclr InratzbIe 

minerals conducted under the General Mining Law of 1872. These operations are 

managed using the surface regulations in 43 CFR 3809. Activity authorized under the 

General Mining Law is not subject to many of the special stipulations that are used in the 

common variety and leasable mineral programs to protect sensitive resources from 

surface disturbance caused by mineral development. However, they are subject to ESA, 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and all applicable State requirements. 

Bentonite, uranium, and gypsum are the principal locatable minerals of the Bureau in 

Wyoming. Other locatable metallic minerals include silver, gold, platinum, cobalt, and 

other precious minerals. At present, no active metallic mineral mining occurs on Bureaumanaged public lands in the planning area except for occasional recreational mining. 

Actions associated with commercial locatable minerals may include surface disturbance 

for mining (e.g., exploration and development), reclamation, and construction of access 

roads, buildings, and utility lines. Small-scale mining must be approved by a plan of 

operations and would require either an environmental assessment (EA) or an 

environmental impact statement (EIS). All lands must be reclaimed after expiration of 

mining. 

Salable Minerals. Salable mineral mining is authorized under the Materials Act of 1947, 

as amended, and as such is a discretionary action. Salable minerals include sand, gravel, 

sandstone, shale, limestone, dolomite, and any material considered a common variety. 

Historically, these materials were used for building, road surfaces, and decorative stone. 

Today, common variety minerals are used mainly for maintaining roads and for activities 

associated with the oil and gas industry. The Bureau provides sand, gravel, and stone 

from Federal mineral deposits as necessary to meet the need for Federal, State, and local 

road construction and maintenance projects in the planning area. These materials may be 

available by a free use permit to State and local governments. 

The demand for sand and gravel has increased in the field office as a result of road 

construction and maintenance. The planning area would be open to mineral material 

sales with the exception of 148,510 acres of presently withdrawn lands. 

Before issuing contracts or free use permits for salable minerals, the Bureau conducts 

appropriate environmental assessments. These assessments include special studies or 

inventories of cultural values, federally listed plant and wildlife species, or other 

resources. Stip~~lations or conditions may be included in the terms of the contract to 
ensure protection of the natural resource found there and reclamation of the land 

following project completion. Site reclamation is required following any surface 

dismrbing mining activity for salable minerals. Reclamation of disturbed sites is 

important to ensure that the land can later be used productively for other purposes. 

Reclamation includes removing all surface debris, recontouring, reducing steep slopes, 

and planting vegetation. All reclamation proposals must conform to State agency 

requirements and must be approved by the Bureau. 

Pa1esntnlogy and Natural History. Under this proogranrl, the Bureau perfosms various 

activities to preserve, protect, and restore paleontological resources. During inventory 

activities, the Bureau inventories, categorizes, and preserves paleontological resources; 

conducts field activities; performs excavations; maps and collects surface materials; 

researches records; and photographs sites and paleontological resources. Inventory data 

collection activities are used for documentation and development of mitigation plans 

before other resource program surface disturbing activities. Inventory activities 

commonly entail the use of hand tools, power tools, or heavy machinery. These activities 

require an Environmental Assessment (EA). The Bureau's paleontological resource land 

management activities involve managing sites for scientific and public use, developing 

interpretive sites, restricting certain land uses, closing certain areas to exploration, 

prohibiting some surface disturbing activities, stabilizing erosion (e.g., burying exposed 

sites), preparing interpretive materials, and allowing the collection of certain invertebrate 

fossils. The Bureau also seeks listing of eligible sites on the National Register of Historic 

Places. The Bureau pursues withdrawal of areas from exploration and development of 

locatable minerals, designates avoidance areas, pursues cooperative agreements, and 

identifies and interprets paleontological sites. 

Recreation and Visitor Services. Recreation management activities include allowing 

and improving recreational access, building and maintaining developed recreation sites, 

developing recreation trails, ensuring public safety, protecting the resources, and 

assessing impacts of recreation use on the environment. Recreational activities on 

Bureau-administered lands include hiking, hunting, mountain biking, floating, fishing, 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) use (including snowmobiles), horseback riding, backpacking, 

rock hounding, and camping. Large recreational events may be issued 

Speciul Recreation Permits. The Bureau authorizes commercial recreation uses. 

Recreation site development includes facilities for camping, fishing, and floating, as well 

as associated signing, road development, and maintenance (of developed and 

undeveloped recreation sites). It also includes development of public water sources for 

recreation facilities. Recreation program management includes monitoring OHV use and 

high-use areas and contacting visitors in the field. The Bureau places signs, identifies 

hazards, constructs and uses roads for recreation activities, restricts recreational uses 

where adverse impacts have occurred, and conducts inventories of recreation resources. 

The recreation program monitors recreational use, develops management plans, and 

evaluates recreational potential for future planning and development. There is the 

potential for recreational activities to occur year-round in most of the planning area, 
although some parcels would receive minimal use during the winter as a result of poor 

access and adverse weather conditions. 

Special Recreation Management Areas. The objectives of the Special Recreation 

Management Areas (SRMA) program is to ensure continued public use and enjoyment of 

recreation activities while protecting and enhancing natural and cultural values, 

improving opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation, and improving visitor 

services related to safety, information, interpretation, and facility development and 

maintenance. SRbIAs in the planning area would include those at Scab Creek, Ci~ilim 

Conservation Corps (CCC) Ponds, ~oulder Lake, Upper Green River, Green River, and 

New Fork River. 

Soil. The Bureau performs various activities designed to preserve and protect soil, Some 

of these activities are identifying heavy sediment loads, monitoring and minimizing soil 

erosion, and evaluating and restricting surface development activities. These activities 

occasionally involve fieldwork and the use of heavy equipment and hand tools. 

Activities associated with soil resources may also include reclamation of abandoned 

mines and open shafts, removal of waste rock in floodplains or streams, or cleanup of 

tailings. Soil sampling and surface soil erosion studies may also be conducted. These 

soil resource-related activities in the planning area are mainly in support of other 

programs. 

Transportation, Access, and Travel Management. Under this program, the Bureau 

rehabilitates access roads that are no longer needed, proposes access easement 

acquisitions, and pursues legal access across private and State lands. 

The Bureau implements management in areas designated as closed, limited, or open to 

OHV use. The Bureau posts signs, develops maps or brochures, and monitors OHV use. 

Over-the-snow vehicles (snowmobiles) are allowed to go cross-country on snow. OHV 

use would be limited to existing roads and trails, except where other restrictions apply in 

the Desert General Use area. Open OHV use areas would be designated in the Big Piney 

and LaBarge areas. The Bureau would coordinate with local interests to establish an 

open OHV use area in the Pinedale vicinity, following which an operation plan would be 

developed for use of this area. 

Recreational OHV use would be restricted to existing roads and trails in most areas 

throughout the planning area. The Bureau would regulate OHV use on Federal lands 

consistent with Wyoming's Sticker Program. Using OHVs to reach developed or semideveloped camping sites away from roads and trails or to retrieve harvested big game 

would be allowed. Seasonal closures may be applied in crucial wildlife habitats as 

needed, including over-the-snow use. In addition, OHVs are prohibited when their use 

will cause resource damage. The Bureau permits OHV events. 

The Bureau recognizes the use of bicycles and other human-powered, mechanized 

conveyances as appropriate recreational activities. Federal regulations do not specifically 
address management of non-motorized vehicle use. The Bureau in Wyoming has adapted 

the national OHV strategy to meet local needs. Bicycles would be allowed on the 

Encampment River Trail within the wilderness strudy area (WSA) until the Congress 

designates that area as wilderness. Wheelchairs would be allowed across the entire 

planning area despite any particular trail's or area's designation of use. 

Vegetation. Vegetation objectives for the Bureau are to maintain or improve the 

diversity of plant communities to support multiple uses such as livestock grazing, wildlife 

habitat, timber production. watershed protection, visual resources, reduction in the spread 

of noxious and invasive weeds, and the protection of important habitats for special status 

plant species. Projects that may affect federally listed plants or animals would be 

postponed or modified to protect the presence of these species, and consultation with the 

Service will be initiated. 

As part of the vegetation management program, Bureau conducts prescribed burns as 

well as sprays and applications of light and heavy mechanical treatments; uses speciesspecific insects and livestock grazing; implements weed control programs; and plants 

vegetation. Light mechanical control includes cutting and thinning with hand tools. 

Heavy mechanical control includes brush beating, cutting, and thinning with machinery. 

Noxious and invasive weeds are located in the Pinedale planning area. Noxious weeds 

are listed by the State, whereas invasive weed species are listed by the Bureau (BLM 

2008a). Three types of noxious or invasive weed control measures are used by the 

Bureau on public lands: chemical, biological, and mechanical. Weed control is 

performed in cooperation with the counties of Sublette and Lincoln Weed and Pest 

Districts; permittees; grantors; lessees; and private landowners. Only federally approved 

pesticides and biological controls are used, and all label directions are followed. If 

herbicides are proposed for use, minimum toxicities would be used with appropriate 

buffer zones along streams, rivers, lakes, riparian areas, and ephemeral and intermittent 

streams. 

Chemical controls include growth regulators, contact herbicides, and inhibitors. A 

majority of rangeland applications are applied with backpack sprayers; other treatments 

are applied using aircraft. Chemical treatments to ROWS and oil- and gas-related 

facilities are applied using vehicle-mounted sprayers and aircraft. Biological controls 

include using microbiotic organisms (fungus and rusts) and insects (beetles, midges, and 

wasps) and are applied by hand. Ungulates (goats and livestock) used to control weeds 

are herded. Mechanical control is normally achieved through hand pulling and digging, 

which is not as intrusive as mowing or other machine use. 

Visual Resources. Through the visual resources management (VRM) program. the 

Bureau maintains or improves scenic values and visual quality, and it establishes VRM 

priorities in conjunction with other resource values. A visual resource inventory and 

classification process is a qualitative analysis performed throughout the planning area. A 

visual resource inventory provides a tool that portrays the relative visual quality of a 

landscape and a management tool that delineates visual protection standards, by which 
surface disturbing activities may occur. This process also establishes guidelines for the 

rehabilitation of existing projects, facilities, and disturbanlces. 

Class I areas preserve the existing character of the landscape, provide for natural 

ecological changes only, and allow very limited management activity. The level of 

change in the characteristic landscape should be extremely low, must not attract attention, 

and should include primitive areas, WSAs, some natural areas, some WSRs, and similar 

areas, in which landscape modification activities should be restricted. 

To retain the characteristics of a Class I1 rating, management actions or authorizations 

could occur only if they are properly mitigated. These mitigations must prevent 

development from attracting the attention of the casual observer. They must adhere to 

the following limits: the existing character of the landscape should be retained, the level 

of change in the characteristic landscape should be low, management activities may be 

seen by, but should not attract the attention of, the casual observer, and any changes 

should repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the 

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. If a proposal cannot be 

adequately mitigated to retain the character of the landscape, modifications to the 

proposal are required. 

Class I11 areas partially retain the existing character of the landscape and are areas, in 

which changes in the basic elements (e.g., form, line, color, or texture) caused by a 

management activity should not dominate the view of the casual observer and where 

changes should remain subordinate to the visual strength of the existing character. 

In Class IV areas, management activities may dominate the view, and changes may 

subordinate the original composition and character; however, such changes should reflect 

what could be a natural occurrence in the characteristic landscape. 

Watershed and Water Quality (Surface and Groundwater). Under this program, the 

Bureau performs various activities designed to preserve and protect soil, water, and 

watershed quality. Some of these activities are implementing watershed plans, 

identifying heavy sediment loads, monitoring and minimizing soil erosion, evaluating and 

restricting surface development activities, and monitoring water quality. These activities 

occasionally involve fieldwork and the use of heavy equipment and hand tools. 

The Bureau's Watershed Management activities include evaluating proposed projects, 

applying soil management practices, applying seasonal closures, monitoring public 

drinking water, and completing groundwater studies. Some of these field activities 

involve the use of heavy machinery and hand tools. Field activities may involve 

developing riparian and wetland exclosures; constructing stream crossings that allow 

appropriate sediment and flow passage; practicing stream improvement methods, such as 

increasing sinuosity in channels by using hand tools to construct natural structures that 

include rock or other natural materials; constructing artificial instream structures 

(impoundments) using heavy equipment, steel, geotextile fabrics, and other materials; 

cutting, planting, and seeding to restore function in riparian and wetland areas; 
implementing pitting; and maintaining water-spreader dikes. Other activities may 

involve imposing restrictions on activities and projects such as mineral exploration and 

development, pipelines, power lines, roads, recreation sites, fences, and wells. 

Through water resource management, the Bureau seeks to maintain or improve surface 

and groundwater quality consistent with existing and anticipated uses and applicable 

State and Federal water quality standards, provide for the availability of water to facilitate 

authorized uses, and minimize harmful consequences of erosion and surface runoff. 

Water resources are also to be protected or enhanced through site-specific mitigation 

guidelines. 

During watershed management activities, the Bureau develops pollution prevention 

plans, ensures that rights to water-related projects are filed, delineates no-chemical-use 

buffer zones, designs activities to promote reduction of channel erosion, restricts surface 

disturbance near water sources and sensitive soils, and improves, maintains, and restores 

damaged wetlands or riparian areas by restoring hydrologic function. The Bureau 

provides not only technical expertise on other activities such as livestock ponds and 

waterfowl monitoring activities, but also impact analyses of oil and gas development or 

any surface disturbance projects. 

The Bureau prohibits surface discharge of produced water in the Colorado River Basin. 

Surface disturbance is limited in watersheds, and new permanent structures are 

prohibited. 

Wildland Fire and Fuels. The two major categories of activities involved with the 

Bureau's fire and fuels management program are fuels treatments (e.g., biological, 

chemical, prescribed burning, and mechanical treatments) and wildland fire suppression. 

During fuels treatment activities, the Bureau evaluates areas on a case-by-case basis; 

writes activity plans, which encompass any of the above listed treatments; coordinates 

with all necessary parties; and conducts treatment projects. Fuels treatments are used to 

enhance natural resources in the area. Fuels treatments can be used to dispose of slash 

and residue from timber sales. Fuels treatments are sometimes used to reduce the fuel 

levels before a treatment activity. Most fuels treatments are conducted to improve 

wildlife habitat and grazing operations. 

Wildland fire suppression activities, on the other hand, are performed on an emergency 

basis. Wildland fire suppression activities in the planning area would be based on the 

Appropriate Management Response. The following areas would have a high priority for 

response to fires and for fuels reduction and mitigation: areas of mixed land 

ownership, urban and industrial interfaces, important wildlife habitats, cultural sites, 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), WSA, and other special management 

areas. This modified fire suppression would benefit various habitats by allowing fire to 

reduce climax communities and by spurring growth of new vegetation. 

Preplanning for wildland fire suppression takes place in many forms before a fire occurs. 

Wildland fire suppression activities, which vary with the intensity of the wildfire, may 
involve the use of OHVs, hand tools, aviation resources, and heavy equipment (e.g., 

bulldozers). Fire lines are constructed to contain wildland fires. Chemical fire 

suppression agents (ground based) containing surfactant compounds, ammonium nitrate 

compounds, and chemical dyes may be used if needed. In addition, fire retardant drops 

containing chemical dyes (aircraft dispersal) are used. These drops may affect the 

aquatic environment if used where the chemicals may enter the streams. Water is 

withdrawn from nearby sources to suppress the fire. Nearby sources may include 

streams, lakes, or public water supplies. After the fire is extinguished, the Bureau may 

use rehabilitation techniques to stabiiize disturbed or burned areas. Rehahilitatinn 

techniques may involve planting small trees, grass, forbs, and shrubs to restore the site to 

its original or a compatible vegetative state. The Bureau uses Burned Area Emergency 

Rehabilitation (BAER) for seeding, replanting trees, placing mulch in stream banks, and 

using controlled grazing with fences. 

Through wildland fire suppression activities, the Bureau seeks to effectively protect life, 

property, and resource values from wildfire. The Bureau uses fire suppression on fires 

endangering human life or fires that come within 1 mile of State or private lands, 

structures, and facilities. Acres of wildland fire fluctuate annually. Recent trends 

throughout the Wyoming Bureau are similar to trends throughout the west, with larger, 

catastrophic fires in recent years attributed to drought conditions and past fire suppression 

policies. 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat. Through wildlife and fisheries habitat management, the 

Bureau maintains and enhances habitat for a diversity of wildlife and fish species and 

provides habitat for threatened, endangered, candidate, proposed, and special status 

animal and plant species in compliance with the ESA, the Bureau's Manual 6840, and 

approved recovery plans. The Bureau's wildlife habitat management program supports 

population objective levels in the Wyoming Game and Fish Department strategic plan. 

Wildlife program activities may include inventory and monitoring, habitat improvement 

projects, developing stipulations and protective measures, and predator control in 

coordination with Animal and Plant Health Inspections Service-Wildlife Services, 

Animal Damage Control (APHIS-WS ADC). Inventory and monitoring, which include 

habitat assessments and species surveys, are conducted to assess the effectiveness of the 

implementation of timing stipulations, reduce conflicts between species and other 

activities, and provide appropriate mitigation. In addition, inventory and monitoring are 

used to identify and describe habitat requirements and life history characteristics of 

federally listed species. 

The wildlife program supports other resources, including fire and fuels; forestry; 

minerals, including leasable, locatable, and common variety mineral exploration; 

recreation; cultural and paleontological; and lands and realty programs activities. 

Habitat improvement projects include the development of water sources, construction and 

maintenance of fences, management of other resource activities to conserve forage and 

protect habitat, improvement of forage production and quality of rangelands, and 
vegetative treatments (prescribed fires, mechanical, chemical, biological treatments, 

cutting, thinning, planting, seeding, and pitting). Other wildlife management activities 

include introducing species, developing islands, modifying existing projects, constructing 

artificial structures, constructing guzzlers, implementing road closures (permanent and 

seasonal), constructing exclosures, and using heavy equipment and hand tools. 

In addition, wildlife management activities include improving fisheries and wildlife 

habitat; documenting resource damage; implementing stream improvement practices; 

chemically controlling non-native fish; using electro-shocking for sampling Fish 

communities and population studies; constructing instream barriers to protect species 

from non-native invaders; installing revetments and fish passage structures, log overpours, and gabion baskets; cabling junipers; placing large boulders for instream fish 

habitat; and restoring streams to a state of dynamic equilibrium by using restoration 

techniques. 

Special Management Areas. Under the special management areas program, the Bureau 

closes areas, in which accelerated erosion is occurring, implements logging and heavy 

equipment use restrictions, applies restrictions on ground-disturbing activities, develops 

recreational trails, protects artifacts and cultural deposits from weathering and vandalism, 

and pursues land exchanges. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs) contain one or more resources that require special management and protection 

for maintaining the value of the resource and the area. Areas designated as ACECs may 

contain such resources as rare or sensitive archaeological resources; habitat for 

endangered, sensitive, or threatened species; or rare geologic features. ACEC 

designations indicate areas, for which special management attention is necessary for 

protecting and preventing irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, and scenic 

values; for fish or wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes; or for 

protecting human life and safety from natural hazards. Management is considered special 

if it is unique to the area and includes terms and conditions specifically designed to 

protect the values within the ACEC. 

Wilderness Study Areas. The purpose of the interim policy for WSAs is to retain their 

suitability for congressional designation as wilderness. Discretionary uses within or 

adjacent to the Scab Creek and Lake hlountain WSAs are reviewed to ensure that they do 

not impair wilderness values. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Bureau, under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, studied 

segments of streams throughout the Pinedale planning area to determine their eligibility 

and suitability for designation as wild and scenic rivers (WSRs). The East Fork, Green 

River, Scab Creek, and Silver Creek River units were found to be eligible and suitable for 

WSR designation. The Bureau would manage those segments to retain the wild and 

scenic values until the Congress considers the rivers for possible designation as WSRs. 
APPENDIX 1 - REFERENCES 

------- . 2008a. Final Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Pinedale Field Office. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Pinedale, 

Wyoming. 

------- . 2008b. Biological Assessment for the Pinedale Resource Management Plan. 

Pinedale Field Office. 
APPENDIX 2 - CONSERVATION NIEASURES FOR THE PINEDALE RESOURCE 

MAVAGEnNT PLAN 

These conservation measures are taken from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's (Bureau or 

BLM) Pinedale Resource Management Plan (RMP) (BLM 2008a) Biological Assessment (BA) 

(BLM 2008b). Implementation of the following conservation measures are intended to 

minimize, or eliminate, adverse impacts to Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, Proposed, and 

recently de-listed species that are likely to result from implementation of the management 

actions provided in the Pinedale planning area. The Bureau has been active in, and is committed 

to playing a key role in. the conservation of these species. 

it is the Service's understanding that the Bureau has committed to implementing the following 

conservation measures. The conservation measures that follow will reduce potential effects to 

these species and their habitats and highlight the steps the Bureau can take to work towards their 

recovery and/or conservation. The Bureau has committed to implementing the following 

conservation measures within the Pinedale planning area where there is potential for these 

species to occur. The Bureau has stated that these conservation measures are binding measures 

that the Bureau will implement to facilitate the conservation of these species. 

SPECIES-SPECIFIC CONSERVATION iMEASURl3S 

Implementing the following species-specific conservation strategies is intended to minimize 

adverse impacts that are likely to result from implementing the management actions provided in 

the RMP. Specific to each species, this section discusses conservation measures committed to by 

the Bureau. In the event new populations of the species are discovered, the Bureau has stated 

that these conservation measures will apply until such time that further investigation and 

subsequent consultation with the Service result in more appropriate management prescriptions. 

Bald eagle 

1. When project proposals are received, the Bureau should initiate coordination with the 

Service at the earliest possible date so that the Service can advise on project design. This 

should minimize the need to redesign projects at a later date to include bald eagle 

conservation measures, determined as appropriate by the Service. 

2. Appropriately timed surveys in bald eagle habitats should be conducted prior to any 

activities and subsequent authorization that may disturb bald eagles or their habitats. A 

qualified biologist (not limited by job title) would be approved by the Bureau to 

conduct such bald eagle surveys. All nest surveys should be conducted using 

procedures that minimize the potential for adverse effects to nesting raptors. 

3. In the event species occurrence is verified, the proponent may be required to modify 

operational plans, at the discretion of the authorized officer, to include the appropriate 

measures for minimization of effects to the bald eagle and its habitats. 

4. Each year the Bureau should verify the status of known bald eagle nests, communal 

winter roosts, and concentration areas on lands administered by the Bureau. As a 

matter of maintaining inventory information, the Bureau should coordinate annually 
with the Service, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and other 

appropriate entities to determine the status of known and new bald eagle nests, 

communal winter roosts, and other concentration areas. Known bald eagle nests, 

communal winter roosts, and concentration areas will be assumed active if status has 

not been verified. 

5. Activities and habitat alterations that may disturb bald eagles will be restricted within 

suitable habitats that occur within bald eagle buffer zones. 

Zone 1 ($12 mile, approximately 1 Febsuary to 15 August) is intended to protect active and 

aiternative nests. For active nests, minimal human activity levels are allowed during the 

period of first occupancy to two weeks after fledging. 

Zone 2 (95 mile - I mile from the nest) is intended to protect bald eagle primary use areas 

and permits light human activity levels. 

Zone 3 is designated to protect foraging/concentration areas year-round Zone 3 would 

include one of two larger areas, depending on habitat types: (a) 2.5 miles extending in all 

directions from the nest or (b) ?4 mile from the streambank of all streams within 2.5 miles 

of the nest. Site-specific habitat types and foraging areas will be evaluated to determine 

which Zone 3 buffer applies. Zone delineation depends on habitat types. Exceptions 

maybe made after consultation with the Service. 

6. Activities that may disturb bald eagles will be restricted within 1 mile of known 

communal winter roosts during the period of November 1 - April 1. No grounddisturbing activities will be permitted within 0.5 mile of active roost sites year round. 

7. Bureau-administered lands that are within 1 mile of an integral part of bald eagle 

habitats including nests, communal winter roosts, and foraging/concentration areas 

should not be exchanged or sold. 

8. Power lines should be built to standards identified by the Avian Power Line 

Interaction Committee (APLIC 1996,2006). 

9. Proponents of Bureau-authorized actions should be advised that roadside carrion can 

attract foraging bald eagles and potentially increase the risk of vehicle collisions with 

bald eagles feeding on carrion. When large carrion occurs on the road, appropriate 

officials should be notified for necessary removal. 

10. The Bureau sho~~ld coordinate with the Animal and Plant Health Inspections ServiceWildlife Services, Animal Damage Control (APHIS-WS ADC) Division to minimize 

potential impacts to the bald eagle and its habitats from pestlpredator control programs 

that may be included in the local animal darnage control plan. The Service should also be 

included in this coordination. 

1 1. Proposed and future water projects should not be designed to discharge into drainages 

or reservoirs occurring within 500 feet of county roads and highways. This measure is 

intended to minimize vehicle collisions with wildlife, using the water source and 

subsequent eagle-vehicle collisions. 
12. The Bureau should provide educational information to project proponents and the general 

public pertaining to the following topics: appropriate vehicle speeds and the associated 

benefit of reduced vehicle collisions with wildlife; use of lead shot (particularly over 

waterbodies); use of lead fishing weights; and general ecological awareness of habitat 

disturbance. 

13. In the event a dead or injured bald eagle is observed, the Service's Wyoming Field 

Office (307-772-2374) and the Service's Law Enforcement Office (307-261-6365) 

should be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. 

14. The Bureau should coordinate with other agencies and private landowners to identify 

voluntary opportunities to modify current land stewardship practices that may impact the 

bald eagle and its habitats. 

15. The Bureau should monitor and restrict, when and where necessary, authorized or 

casual use activities that may impact bald eagles or their habitats, including, but not 

limited to, recreational mining and oil and gas activities. 

16. The Bureau should periodically review existing water quality records (e.g., Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality [WDEQ], Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

(WGFD), U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], etc.) from monitoring stations on, or near, 

important bald eagle habitats (i.e., nests, roosts, concentration areas) on public land for 

any conditions that could potentially adversely affect the species. If water quality 

problems are identified, the Bureau should contact the appropriate jurisdictional entity to 

cooperatively monitor the condition andlor take corrective action. 

17. Projects with the potential to disturb bald eagles should be implemented in the least 

amount of time and during periods least likely to affect the bald eagle. 

18. Projects with the potential to disturb bald eagles or their habitats should be 

monitored, and the monitoring results should be considered in the design and 

implementation of future projects. 

Black-footed ferret 

1. When project proposals are received for areas that still require black-footed ferret surveys 

(i.e., non-block-cleared [see Map 3 of the black-footed ferret biological assessment 

{BLM 2005)l or the Service's block clearance letter of February 2, 2004 [USFWS 

20041) and meet potential habitat criteria as defined by the Service's guidelines (USFWS 

1989), the Bureau shall initiate coordination with the Service at the earliest possible date 

so that the Service can provide input. This should minimize the need to redesign projects 

at a later date to include black-footed ferret conservation measures, determined as 

appropriate by the Service. 

2. In areas identified in conservation measure number one above (non-block-cleared areas), 

if suitable prairie dog town/compIex avoidance is not possible, surveys of 

townslcomplexes for black-footed ferrets shall be conducted in accordance with current 

Service guidelines and recommendations. This information shall be provided to the 

Bureau and the Service in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973 (Act), as amended (50 CE;R 3402.10 and 13), and the Interagency Cooperation 

Regulations. 

3. Observations of black-footed ferrets, their sign, or carcasses on a project area and the 

location of the suspected observation, however obtained, shall be reported within 24 

hours to the appropriate local Bureau wildlife biologist and Field Supervisor of the 

Service's office in Cheyenne, Wyoming, (307) 772-2374. Observations will include a 

description including what was seen, time, date, exact location, suspected cause of death, 

and observer's name and telephone number. Carcasses or other "suspected" ferret 

remains shall be collected by Service or Rirreau emplnyees, my! depnrited with the 

Service's Wyoming Field Office or the Service's law enforcement office. This type of 

specimen collection is authorized as described in 50 CFR 17.21(c)(3-4). It is imperative 

that any fresh black-footed ferret carcass be salvaged and immediately transported to the 

Service so that the carcass would not be scavenged and as much pertinent information 

concerning the cause of death is gathered, including photographs, so that an accurate 

depiction of the fatality would be documented. 

4. Discovery of a live black-footed ferret outside of the Experiment Non-essential 

population areas in Wyoming would have profound importance to the species' recovery. 

Reporting of such a discovery by staff, contractors, permittees, etc. will be fully 

encouraged by Bureau Staff and Management. 

If black-footed ferrets or their sign are found on public lands outside of the Non-essential 

Experimental population areas in Wyoming, all previously authorized surface disturbing 

activities (or actions on any future application that may directly, indirectly, or 

cumulatively affect the colony/complex ongoing) in the complex, in which black-footed 

ferrets are found shall temporarily cease until further direction is developed by a task 

force consisting of the Bureau Field Office Manager, the Service's Wyoming Field 

Office Supervisor, the WGFD Non-game Coordinator, and other potentially affected 

parties. This task force will be formed within 48 hours of the find to determine 

appropriate conservation~protection actions. The Bureau shall coordinate with these 

affected parties to ensure that ferret surveys or appropriate actions are conducted as 

deemed necessary. The Bureau will also re-initiate section 7 consultation with the 

Service. An emergency road closure limiting access to the site would be enacted by the 

Bureau within 48 hours of the find to protect the newly discovered black-footed ferrets. 

This emergency road closure would be for all non-paved roads within at least one mile of 

the find. On a case-by-case basis and with approval of the Service, certain surface 

disturbing activities within the town or complex may be allowed to continue. 

6. Information on ferret identification shall be provided and posted in common areas and 

circulated in a memorandum among all employees and service providers. This 

information shall illustrate the black-footed ferret and its sign; describe morphology, 

tracks, scat, skull, habitat characteristics, behavior, and current status; and the 

relationship between project development and possible impacts to black-footed ferrets, 

especially regarding canine distemper and recreational shooting. 

7. New prairie dog towns shall be allowed to become established on public lands in ail 

circumstances where they would not interfere with other previously established activities. 
8. The Bureau shall work with the Service and the WGFD to identify and select Special 

Management Areas for potential reintroduction sites for black-footed ferrets. These areas 

will be selected based upon a number of factors including the Bureau's ability to protect 

and manage them, their size (5,000 to 10,000 acre sites, optimally), and potential utility 

to black-footed ferrets. Because of the need to manage reintroduction sites (of prairie 

dog complexes) on a landscape scale, and because plague is a significant, but 

unpredictable, event, Special Management Areas may be selected that are currently 

"plagued out", but may recover in time. Complexes can be selected from, but not 

necessarily restricted to, those shown in block cleared areas (see Map 3 of BLM 2005). 

Protective masares will be drawn up for these Special Management Areas, and may 

include being withdrawn from leasing and protected from commercial development (i.e., 

land disposal through Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) actions, etc.). Examples 

of protective measures that will be included in these Special Management Areas are: 

a. The Bureau shall work with respective state Game and Fish agencies and Services 

offices to ensure that enough reintroduction sites are maintained to successfully 

recover the black-footed ferret. If areas available for reintroduction are removed 

through the Bureau's authorized actions below a threshold level, so that the blackfooted ferret can no longer be recovered, then those actions reducing availability 

of reintroduction sites will be modified or discontinued until the black-footed 

ferret has been recovered. 

b. The Bureau shall monitor and post restrictions, if necessary, on recreational 

opportunities and other uses on Bureau-administered lands within 1 mile of 

formally proposed and active reintroduction sites for black-footed ferrets. 

c. The Bureau and operators shall conduct educational outreach to employees 

regarding the nature, hosts, and symptoms of canine distemper and its effects on 

black-footed ferrets, focusing attention on why employees should not have pets on 

work sites during or after hours. The Bureau shall encourage operators to develop 

policies to prohibit dogs from operation sites or require current distemper 

vaccinations within black-footed ferret reintroduction areas. It is recommended 

that vaccinated puppies shall not be allowed until one month after their final 

distemper vaccination due to potential effects of the modified live virus vaccine. 

9. All white-tailed prairie dog townsfcomplexes greater than 200 acres in size and blacktailed prairie dog towns/complexes greater than 80 acres shall be assessed and mapped 

for any projects that are proposed within such areas, and associated burrow densities on 

potentially affected towns shall be determined, when necessary, pursuant to Service and 

Bureau-approved techniques to determine whether the criteria established for ferret 

occupancy in the Service's guidelines (USFWS 1989) for black-footed ferrets are met. 

Canada lynx 

1. Within a Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU), the Bureau shall ensure lynx habitat and nonhabitat, including denning habitat, foraging habitat, and topographic features important 

for lynx movement are mapped. The Bureau or the project proponent shall identify 

whether all lynx habitat within an LAU is in suitable or unsuitable condition. This will 

involve interagency coordination where LAUs cross administrative boundaries. 
The Bureau shall limit disturbance within each LAU to 30 percent of the suitable habitat 

within the LAU. If 30 percent of the habitat within an LAU is currently in unsuitable 

condition, no further reduction of suitable conditions shall occur as a result of 

management activities. The Bureau shall map oil and gas production and transmission 

facilities, mining activities and facilities, dams, timber harvest, and agricultural lands on 

public lands and evaluate projects on adjacent private lands to assess cumulative effects. 

This will involve interagency coordination, primarily with the U.S. Forest Service, where 

LAUs cross administrative boundaries. 

The Bureau's management actions shall not change more that 15 percent of lynx habitat 

within an LAU to an unsuitable condition within a 10-year period. This will involve 

interagency coordination where LAUs cross administrative boundaries. 

The Bureau shall maintain denning habitat in patches generally larger than 5 acres and 

comprising at least 10 percent of lynx habitat. Where less that 10 percent is currently 

present within an LAU, the Bureau will defer any management actions that would delay 

development of denning habitat structure. This will involve interagency coordination 

where LAUs cross administrative boundaries. 

The Bureau shall ensure that key linkage areas that may be important in providing 

landscape connectivity within and between geographic areas across all ownerships are 

identified using the best available science. 

The Bureau shall ensure that habitat connectivity within and between LAUs is 

maintained. 

The Bureau shall document lynx observations (tracks, sightings, along with date, 

location, and habitat), provide these to the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, and 

request from it an annual update on all sightings for review in each Bureau planning area. 

Following a disturbance (blowdown, fire, and insects) that could contribute to lynx 

denning habitat, the Bureau shall allow no salvage harvest when the affected area is 

smaller than 5 acres. Some exceptions apply, as specified in the LCAS timber 

management project planning standards. 

The Bureau shall only allow pre-commercial thinning when stands no longer provide 

snowshoe hare habitat. 

In aspen stands, the Bureau shall ensure that harvest prescriptions favoring the 

regeneration of aspen apply. 

The Bureau shall ensure that improvement harvests (commercial thinning, selection, etc.) 

are designed to retain and improve recruitment of an understory of small-diameter 

conifers and shrubs preferred by hares. 

In the event of a large wildfire, the Bureau shall ensure that a post-disturbance 

assessment is conducted prior to salvage harvest, particularly in stands that were formerly 

in late successional stages, to evaluate potential for lynx denning and foraging habitat. 
The Bureau shall ensure that construction of temporary roads and fire lines are miilimized 

to the extent possible during fire suppression activities and shall ensure revegetation of 

chose that are necessary. Construction on ridges and saddles shall be avoided if possible. 

The Bureau shall allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes 

and snowmobile play areas in LAUs unless the designation serves to consolidate 

unregulated use and improves lynx habitat through a net reduction of compacted snow 

areas. This is intended to apply to dispersed recreation, rather than existing ski areas. 

Winter logging activity is not subiect to this restriction. 

In lynx habitat within an LAU, the Bureau shall ensure that Federal actions do not 

degrade or compromise landscape connectivity or linkage areas when planning and 

operating new or expanded recreation developments. 

The Bureau shall ensure that trails, roads, and lift termini are designed to direct winter 

use away from diurnal security habitat. 

To protect the integrity of lynx habitat, the Bureau shall ensure that (as new information 

becomes available) winter recreational special use permits (outside of permitted ski 

areas) promoting snow compacting activities in lynx habitat are evaluated and amended 

as needed. 

The Bureau shall ensure that livestock use in openings created by fire or timber harvest 

that would delay successful regeneration of the shrub and tree components is not allowed. 

This regeneration may take 3 years or longer and will depend on site-specific conditions. 

The Bureau shall ensure that grazing in aspen stands is managed to ensure sprouting and 

sprout survival sufficient to perpetuate the long-term viability of the clones. 

Within lynx habitat, the Bureau shall ensure that livestock grazing in riparian areas and 

willow patches is managed to maintain or achieve mid-sera1 or higher condition to 

provide cover and forage for prey species. 

On projects where over-snow access is required, the Bureau shall ensure use is restricted 

to designated routes. 

Predator control activities, including trapping or poisoning on domestic livestock 

allotments on Federal lands within lynx habitat, shall be conducted by Wildlife Services 

personnel in accordance with Service recommendations established through a formal 

section 7 consultation process. 

The Bureau shall ensure that the potential importance of shrub-steppe habitats in the lynx 

habitat matrix and in providing landscape connectivity between blocks of lynx habitat is 

evaluated and considered as integral to overall lynx habitat where appropriate. Livestock 

grazing within shrub-steppe habitats in such areas shall be managed to maintain or 

achieve mid-sera1 or higher condition to maximize cover and prey availability. Such 

areas that are currently in late sera1 condition shall not be degraded. 
24. In high-elevation riparian areas, especially those subject to grazing, the Bureau shall 

ensure that weed assessments and weed control are conducted to optimize habitat for 

snowshoe hares. 

25. Within lynx habitat, the Bureau shall ensure that key linkage areas and potential highway 

crossing areas are identified using best available science. 

26. The Bureau shall work cooperatively and proactively with the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHA) and the State Department of Transportation to identify land 

corridors necessary to maintain connectivity of lynx hahitat md~ap the Iocatim ~f ''kcj: 

linkage areas" where highway crossings may be needed to provide habitat connectivity 

and reduce mortality of lynx (and other wildlife). 

27. Dirt and gravel roads traversing lynx habitat (particularly those that could become 

highways) shall not be paved or otherwise upgraded (e.g., straightening of curves, 

widening of roadway, etc.) in a manner that is likely to lead to significant increases in 

traffic volumes, traffic speeds, or width of the cleared right-of-way (ROW) or will 

contribute to development or increased human activity in lynx habitat. Whenever rural 

dirt and gravel roads traversing lynx habitat are proposed for such upgrades, a thorough 

analysis shall be conducted on the potential direct and indirect effects to lynx and lynx 

habitat. 

28. The Bureau shall ensure that proposed land exchanges, land sales, and special use permits 

are evaluated for effects on key linkage areas. 

29. If activities are proposed in lynx habitat, the Bureau shall ensure that stipulation and 

conditions of approval for limitation on the timing of activities and surface use and 

occupancy are developed at the leasing and Notice of Stacking/APD stages. For 

example, requiring that activities not be conducted at night when lynx are active and 

avoiding activity near denning habitat during the breeding season (April or May to July) 

to protect vulnerable kittens. 

30. The Bureau shall ensure that snow compaction is minimized when authorizing and 

monitoring developments. The Bureau shall encourage remote monitoring of sites that 

are located in lynx habitat so they do not have to be visited daily. 

Colorado River fishes 

1. The Bureau will continue to participate in the Colorado River Recovery Program. 

2. For projects that cause depletions to the Colorado River system, the Bureau would initiate 

formal consultation with the Service. 

Gray wolf 

1. No project actions will be located within 330 feet of den sites between April 1 and June 

30. Areas within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of a den site are recommended for protection 

from disturbance. 
2. The Bureau will take action to help reduce human-caused mortality wherever possible. 

For example, provide educational material, as appropriate, to avoid the inadvertent killing 

of a wolf mistaken for a coyote; provide information on compatible grazing practices (see 

#3 below); and avoid situations that lead to the adoption of human foods and garbage by 

wolves, which could lead to biting by and the subsequent elimination of the wolf. 

3. The Bureau will disseminate information useful to livestock producers on wolfllivestock 

interactions; alternative livestock practices that minimize conflicts between wolves and 

livestock (e.g., dispersed grazing rather than concentrated grazing); and compatible 

lambing and calving methods that reduce or eliminate woif depredation in occupied 

habitat. 

4. The Bureau will designate a state representative to attend the annual interagency 

coordination meeting. 

5. The Bureau will continue to attend the annual coordination meetings with the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department. 

Grizzly bear 

1. The Bureau shall ensure that authorized activities planned to occur in currently occupied 

grizzly bear habitat shall be analyzed and planned with active grizzly bear protection 

measures. Restrictions on timing of activity and spatial considerations for grizzly bears, 

or other parameters, will be implemented to avoid or prevent significant disruptions of 

normal or expected bear behavior and activity in the area. 

2. The Bureau shall provide a packet of educational materials to authorized permittees in 

grizzly habitat, including, but not limited to, special recreation permittees, livestock 

permittees, and timber operators. 

3. In occupied grizzly bear habitat, and in areas of bear conflicts, the Bureau shall install 

bear-resistant refuse containers in those developed campgrounds and picnic areas where 

refuse containers are provided and maintained. In areas receiving dispersed recreational 

use, the Bureau shall inform the public of proper storage techniques for food and refuse. 

4. The Bureau shall ensure that operation plans and special use permits in occupied grizzly 

bear habitat will specify food storage and handling and garbage disposal standards. All 

temporary living facilities under temporary use permits in occupied grizzly bear habitat 

will be required to practice proper food storage and keep all potential attractants stored so 

they are unavailable to bears. Edibles andfor garbage will be secured from access by 

grizzly bears. Bear proof refuse containers, and timely refuse collection to prevent 

overflow, shall be required. 

5. Important grizzly bear food resources that may occur on Bureau-administered land, 

particularly whitebark pine, army cutworm moths, ungulates (primarily elk calving 

grounds), and spawning cutthroat trout, shall be noted and monitored. Other important 

foods may be added to those listed above as our understanding of grizzly bear food 

resources on Bureau-administered land grows. Monitoring protocols for these food 
resources can be adapted from Appendix E of the Conservation Strategy (ICST 2003) 

(httn://www.fs.fed.uslrl/.tvildlifc/in,bclConservationStra~. 

6. The Bureau shall continue to attend, and be a member of, the Yellowstone Ecosystem 

Subcommittee of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (ICBC). After delisting, the 

Bureau shall continue to attend the appropriate coordination group(s) including the 

Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee. 

7. The Bureau shall not approve commercial cutting or other removal of whitebark pine in 

the six Bureau administrative areas analyzed in this document in occupied nr pnte~ltjrr! 

grizzly bear habitat. 

8. The Bureau shall implement strategies to reduce human-bear and domestic livestock-bear 

conflicts by conducting an evaluation of the causes of such conflicts when they do occur 

and determining what can be done to avoid or reduce such conflicts in the future. 

Currently these conflicts are discussed at the Northwest Wyoming Level One 

Streamlining Team meetings held approximately every 45-60 days. 

9. All permit holders that conduct activities on public lands in occupied grizzly bear habitat 

that could result in livestock carcasses being left in locations where bears might be 

attracted to them shall be informed that all livestock carcasses or parts of carcasses shall 

be either packed, dragged, or otherwise transported to a location a minimum of 112 mile 

from any inhabited dwelling, sleeping area, tent road, trail, or recreation site in as timely 

a manner as possible, unless otherwise directed by a Bureau rangelwildlife specialist or 

ranger. Carcasses shall be moved at least 100 yards from live water. Other options for 

carcass disposal may include using explosives or burning the carcass at the discretion of a 

Bureau rangelwildlife specialist or ranger. In cases of uncertainty on carcass disposition 

the permit holder (or lessee) shall contact the appropriate Bureau Field Office. 

10. The Bureau shall require that the Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) of existing aquatic 

systems and riparian zones in occupied grizzly bear habitat will be maintained for all 

Bureau-administered Public Lands. If these areas are polluted and/or damaged from 

activities, lesseelpermitteelgrantee or the Bureau will be required to assume full 

responsibility for rehabilitation and restoration of such areas (from IGBC 1986). 

11. The Bureau shall require that existing roads, drilling pads, and other areas with 

vegetation removed due to authorized activities in occupied grizzly bear habitat will be 

revegetated and reclaimed by lessee/permittee/grantee in a fashion that considers all 

grizzly bear needs or requirements. 

12. Wild horse roundups and other intensive wild horse management activities will avoid 

areas in or immediately adjacent to occupied grizzly bear habitat. 

Ute ladies9-tresses 

1. The Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Standard Mitigation Guidelines for Surface 

Disturbing Activities requires any lessee or permittee to conduct inventories or studies in 

accordance with Bureau and Service guidelines to verify the presence or absence of 

threatened or endangered species before any activities can begin on site. In the event the 
presence of one or more of these species is verified, the operation plans of a proposed 

action will be modified to include the protection of the species and its habitat, as 

necessary. Possible protective measures may include seasonal or activity limitations, or 

other sui-face management and occupancy constraints (BLM 1998). 

Surface disturbance will be prohibited within 500 feet of surface water and/or riparian 

areas. 

No Surface Occupancy will be allowed within special management areas (e.g., known 

threatened or endangered species habitiit). 

Portions of the authorized use area are known or suspected to be essential habitat for 

threatened or endangered species. Prior to conducting any onsite activities, the 

lesseefperrnittee will be required to conduct inventories or studies in accordance with 

Bureau's and the Service's guidelines to verify the presence or absence of this species. In 

the event that an occurrence is identified, the lesseelpermittee will be required to modify 

operational plans to include the protection requirements of this species and its habitat 

(e.g., seasonal use restrictions, occupancy limitations, facility design modifications). 

2. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for 

the Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the State of 

Wyoming, specifically: 

Within the potential of the ecological site (soil type, landform, climate, and geology), 

soils are stable and allow for water infiltration to provide for optimal plant growth and 

minimal surface runoff. 

Grazing management practices will restore, maintain, or improve plant communities. 

Grazing management strategies consider hydrology, physical attributes, and potential for 

the watershed and the ecological site. 

Upland vegetation on each ecological site consists of plant communities appropriate to 

the site, which are resilient, diverse, and able to recover from natural and human 

disturbance. 

Rangelands are capable of sustaining viable populations and a diversity of native plant 

and animal species appropriate to the habitat. Habitats that support or could support 

threatened species, endangered species, species of special concern, or sensitive species 

will be maintained or enhanced. 

Grazing management practices will incorporate the kinds and amounts of use that will 

restore, maintain, or enhance habitats to assist in the recovery of Federal threatened and 

endangered species or the conservation of federally-listed species of concern and other 

state-designated Special Status Species. Grazing management practices will maintain 

existing habitat or facilitate vegetation change toward desired habitats. Grazing 

management will consider threatened and endangered species and their habitats. 

3. The Bureau will maintain biological diversity of plant and animal species; support 

WGFD strategic plan population objective levels to the extent practical and to the extent 
consistent with the Bureau's multiple use management requirements; maintain, and 

where possible, improve forage production and quality of rangelands, fisheries, and 

wildlife habitat; and to the extent possible, provide habitat for threatened and endangered 

and special status plant and animal species on all public lands in compliance with the 

ESA and approved recovery plans. 

4. In any proposed new access, wetland and riparian areas will be avoided where possible 

(18 CER 725.2 - Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands). 

The following two conservation measures (5 and 6i, will be added to grazing pcmi? ~PI?~SI'~S ir, 

allotments with known populations of the orchid. 

5. Place mineral supplements, new water sources (permanent or temporary), or 

supplemental feed for livestock for livestock, wild horses, or wildlife at least 1 .O mile 

from known orchid populations. Hay or other feed and straw must be certified weed-free. 

These restrictions are intended to keep free-ranging livestock away from populations of 

the orchid and subsequent grazing on individual orchid plants. Surveys for the orchid 

will be conducted in potential orchid habitat prior to livestock operations projects. 

Placement of mineral supplements, straw or other feed for livestock within 1.0 mile of 

known populations of the orchid will be evaluated and approved by the Bureau with 

concurrence by the Service and implemented on a case-by-case basis only. 

6. The Bureau will not increase permitted livestock stocking levels in any allotment with 

pastures containing known orchid populations without consulting with the Service. It is 

unknown to what extent overall impacts due to livestock grazing have on the orchid, 

whether it is detrimental due to actual grazing and trampling of plants or beneficial due to 

livestock removal of adjacent competing vegetation. 

7. Grazing will be intensively managed within known habitat containing populations from 

July through September, to allow plants to bloom and go to seed. 

8. Recreational site development will not be authorized in known Ute ladies'-tresses habitat. 

9. The Bureau will manage stream habitats to retain, re-create, or mimic natural hydrology, 

water quality, and related vegetation dynamics. Projects that may alter natural hydrology 

or water quality, change the vegetation of the riparian ecosystem, and cause direct ground 

disturbance will be evaluated and redesigned to ensure that adverse effects to populations 

of the orchid do not occur. 

10. Biological control of noxious plant species will be prohibited within I .O mile from known 

orchid habitat until the impact of the control agent has been fully evaluated and 

determined not to adversely affect the plant population. The Bureau will monitor 

biological control vectors. 

11. Except in cases of extreme ecological health (insect or weed outbreakslinfestations), 

herbicide treatment of noxious plantslweeds will be prohibited within 0.25 miles of 

known populations of the orchid and insecticide/pesticide treatments will be prohibited 

within 1.0 mile of known populations of the orchid to protect pollinators. 
Mere insect or weed outbreaks have the potential to degrade area ecological health 

inside the buffers listed above, at the discretion of the Bureau's authorized officer and 

with concurrence by the Service, the following will apply: where needed, and only on a 

case-by-case basis, a pesticide use proposal or other site specific plan will address 

concerns of proper timing, methods of use, and chemicals, Pesticides specifics to dicots 

will be preferred where these are adequate to control the noxious weeds present. 

Aerial application of herbicides will be carefully planned to prevent drift in areas near 

known populations of the orchid (outside of the 0.25 mile buffer). The Bureau will work 

with APHIS-W-S ADC, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and County Weed and Pest 

Agencies to select pesticides and methods of application that will most effectively 

manage the infestation and least affect the orchid. 

12. If revegetation projects are conducted within 0.25 miles of known habitat for the orchid, 

only native species will be selected. This conservation measure will keep non-native 

species from competing with the orchid. 

13. Limit the use of off road vehicles (OHVs) to designated roads and trails within 0.5 mile 

of known populations of the orchid, with no exceptions for the "performance of necessary 

tasks" other than fire fighting and hazardous material cleanup allowed using vehicles off 

of highways. No OHV competitive events will be allowed within 1.0 mile of known 

populations of the orchid. Roads that have the potential to impact the orchid and are not 

required for routine operations or maintenance of developed projects, or lead to 

abandoned projects will be reclaimed as directed by the Bureau. 

14. Apply a condition of approval (COA) on all applications for permit to drill (APDs) oil 

and gas wells for sites within 0.25 miles of any known populations of the orchid. This 

condition will prohibit all authorized surface disturbance and OHV travel from sites 

containing populations of the orchid. Operations outside of the 0.25 mile buffer of orchid 

populations, such as "directional drilling" to reach oil or gas resources underneath the 

orchid's habitat, would be acceptable. 

15. For known Ute ladies'-tresses populations, the Bureau will place a Controlled Surface 

Use (CSU) stipulation prohibiting all surface disturbances on new oil and gas leases, 

buffering the area within 0.25 miles of known Ute ladies'-tresses populations. For 

existing oil and gas leases with known Ute ladies'-tresses populations (these would be for 

newly discovered populations not currently documented), the Bureau will require the 

COA in conservation measure 14 above including the same 0.25 mile buffer area around 

those known Ute ladies'-tresses populations. 

16. Prohibit the sale and disposal of salable minerals in habitat containing known populations 

of the orchid (within a 0.25 mile buffer area of known orchid populations), and where 

possible pursue acquisition of property with known populations of the orchid with salable 

minerals. The disposal (sale and removal) of salable minerals is a discretionary Bureau 

action and is prohibited within a 0.25 mile buffer area of known populations of the 

orchid. 

17. To prevent loss of habitat for the orchid, the Bureau "shall retain in Federal ownership all 

habitats essential for the survival and recovery of any listed species, including habitat that 
was used historically that has retained its potential to sustain listed species, and is deemed 

to be essential to their survival" (BLM 2001). Prior to any land tenure adjustments in 

known habitat for the orchid, the Bureau will survey to assess the habitat boundary and 

retain that area in Federal ownership. Bureau-administered p~tblic lands that contain 

identified habitat for the orchid will not be exchanged or sold, unless it benefits the 

species. 

18. All proposed rights-of-way projects (powerlines, pipelines, roads, etc.) will be designed 

and locations selected at least 0.25 miles from any known orchid habitat to minimize 

disturbances. Rights-of-way actions for roads. powerlines, pipelines, etr- wi!! avnic! 

occupied habitat for the orchid. If avoidance of adverse effects is not possible, the 

Bureau will re-initiate consultation with the Service. 

19. All proposed projects will be designed and locations selected to minimize disturbances to 

known populations of the orchid, and if the avoidance of adverse affects is not possible, 

the Bureau will re-initiate consultation with the Service. Projects will not be authorized 

closer than 0.25 miles from any known populations of the orchid without concurrence of 

the Service and the Bureau's authorized officer. No ground disturbing construction 

activities will be authorized within 0.25 miles of any known populations of the orchid 

during the essential growing season time period (from July to September, the growing, 

flowering and fruiting stages) to reduce impacts to this species. 

20. In order to conserve and protect natural areas, planned recreational foot trails are created 

to control human traffic. The Bureau will create programs that will strive to protect the 

orchid's habitat and prevent new trails from being constructed within 0.25 miles from 

known occurrences of the orchid. 
APPENDIX 2 - REFERENCES 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1996. Suggested Practices for Raptor 

Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996. Edison Electric InstituteRaptor 

Research Foundation, Washington D.C. 

------- . 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 

2006. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy Commission. 

Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, CA. 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). 1986. hteragency grizzly bear guidelines. U.S. 

Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 

United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1998. Standards for Healthy Rangelands 

and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands Administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in the State of Wyoming. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. January. 

- - - - - - . 2001, Manual 6840 - Special Status Species Management. United Statues Department 

of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. January 19,2001. 41 pp. + Glossary. 

- - - - - - - . 2005. Final Statewide Programmatic Biological Assessment: Black-footed Ferret 

(Mztstela nigripes). Submitted to U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. Wyoming State Office. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

------- . 2008a. Final Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Pinedale Field Office. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Pinedale, Wyoming. 

------- . 2008b. Biological Assessment for the Pinedale Resource Management Plan. Pinedale 

Field Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989. Black-footed ferret survey guidelines for 

compliance with the Endangered Species Act, April 1989. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, Colorado and Albuquerque, New Mexico. 15 pp. 

------- . 2004. Block clearance letter (ES-61411/BFFN\IY7746) indicating that black-footed 

ferret surveys are no longer required in all black-tailed prairie dog colonies statewide or 

in white-tailed prairie dog towns except those noted in an attachment. February 2,2004. 

Wyoming Field Office. 

APPENDIX 3 - BEST MANAGERiLENT PRACTICES FOR THE PINEDALE RESOURCE 

MANAGEkENT PLAN 

These U.S. Bureau of Land Management (Bureau or BLM) Best Management Practices (BMPs) are 

taken from the Pinedale Resource Management Plan (RMP) (BLM 2008a) Biological Assessment 

BA (BLM 2008b). Implementation of the following best management practices (BMPs) is intended 

to minimize, or eliminate, adverse impacts to federally-listed and Bureau sensitive species that are 

likely to result from implementation of the management actions provided in the Pinedale RMP. The 

Bureau has been active in conservation of listed and candidate species, and is committed to playing a 

key role in the recovery effort for these species. On August 8, EiiOS, tne Service removed iilc: bald 

eagle (Hnliueefus leucocephalus) from the list of threatened and endangered species. However, the 

Bureau remains committed to the continued protection and monitoring of the bald eagle on Bureauadministered lands (BLM 2007). The use of the following recommended Best Management 

Practices will reduce potential effects to species and their habitats. In the event new populations of 

the species are discovered, these measures will apply until such time that further investigation and 

subsequent consultation with the Service result in more appropriate management prescriptions. 

Bald eagle 

I. The Service recommends that when project proposals are received, the Bureau should initiate 

coordination with the Service at the earliest possible date so that the Service can provide 

information on natural resource issues. This should minimize the need to redesign projects at 

a later date to include conservation measures that may be determined as appropriate by the 

Service. 

2. The Service recommends that Bureau-administered lands within 1 mile of an integral part of 

bald eagle habitats including nests, communal winter roosts, and foraging/concentration areas 

not be exchanged or sold. If it is imperative that these lands are transferred out of Bureau 

ownership then every effort should be made to include conservation easements or voluntary 

conservation restrictions around the important bald eagle habitat to restrict activities of the 

property and protect the bald eagles from disturbance and their habitat from destruction. 

3. The Service recommends that proponents of Bureau-authorized actions be advised that 

roadside carrion can attract foraging bald eagles and potentially increase the risk of vehicle 

collisions with bald eagles feeding on carrion. When large carrion occurs on the road, 

appropriate officials should be notified for necessary removal. 

4. The Service recommends that the Bureau coordinate with Animal and Plant Health 

Inspections Service-Wildlife Services, Animal Damage Control (APHIS-WS ADC) to 

minimize potential impacts to the bald eagle and its habitats from pestlpredator control 

programs that may be included in the local animal damage control plan. The Service should 

also be included in this coordination. 

5. The Service recommends that proposed and future water projects not be designed to 

discharge into drainages or reservoirs occurring within 500 feet of county roads and 

highways. This measure is intended to (I) minimize vehicle collisions with wildlife using 
the water source, and (2) minimize the occurrence of eagle-vehicle collisions resulting from 

eagles feeding on road-killed wildlife. 

6. The Service recommends that Bureau provide educational information to project proponents 

and the general public pertaining to the following topics: appropriate vehicle speeds and the 

associated benefit of reduced vehicle collisions with wildlife; use of lead shot (particularly 

over water bodies); use of lead fishing weights; and general ecological awareness of habitat 

disturbance. 

-- 7. I he Service recommends that Bureau coordinate with other agencies and private landowners 

to identify voluntary opportunities to modify current land stewardship practices that may 

impact the bald eagle and its habitats. 

8. Since bald eagles are often dependent on aquatic species as prey items, the Service 

recommends that the Bureau periodically review existing water quality records (e.g., 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality [WDEQ], Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (WGFD), U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], etc.) from monitoring stations on, or 

near, important bald eagle habitats (i.e., nests, roosts, concentration areas) on public land for 

any conditions that could adversely affect bald eagles or their prey. If water quality problems 

are identified, the Bureau should contact the appropriate jurisdictional entity to cooperatively 

monitor the condition andlor take corrective action. 

9. The Service recommends that the Bureau's projects with the potential to disturb bald eagles 

should be implemented in the least amount of time and during periods least likely to affect 

the bald eagle. 

Black-footed ferret 

1. Develop prairie dog management plans with ongoing monitoring and protection of prairie 

dog towns and complexes on towns with high priority for black-footed ferret reintroductions. 

2. Follow the guidelines outlined in the Wyoming Black-tailed Prairie Dog Management Plan 

(Wyoming Black-tailed Prairie Dog Working Group 2001) and the White-tailed Prairie Dog 

Conservation Assessment (Seglund et al. 2004). Encourage the Wyoming Board of 

Agriculture to give regulatory management of Prairie Dogs to the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department to remove unprotected, "pest'' status on prairie dogs and provide regulatory 

mechanisms for recreational shooting of prairie dogs. 

3. Establish land stewardship agreements with other agencies and/or private landowners where 

large (1,000 acres) prairie dog towns or complexes exist. These agreements can control 

potential uses that may be detrimental to prairie dogs and their habitats, while preserving the 

landowner's intent for use. 

4. Avoid sale or exchange of lands with the potential for black-footed ferret reintroductions and 

attempt to acquire parcels with prairie dogs on them, especially those that have potential as 

part of a black-footed ferret reintrod~~ction effort. 
5. Initiate, to the extent feasible, land exchanges in the Thunder Basin and Shirley Basin in 

areas with potential for black-footed ferrets, in order to increase the land area in Federal 

ownership. 

6. Avoid vegetation stand conversions that have been shown to be detrimental to prairie dogs, 

and reduce or eliminate any other suspected ecosystem-degrading practices. 

7. Encourage, support, andlor establish a prairie dog research program, addressing issues such 

as the effect of recreational shooting and oil and gas development on prairie dogs, sylvatic 

plague control, and population viabiiity analysis. 

8. Because knowledge of the effects of resource extraction on white-tailed prairie dog 

populations is limited, monitoring at sites before, during, and after energy development is 

recommended (Seglund et 01. 2004). 

Canada lynx 

1. Design regeneration prescriptions to mimic historical fire (or other natural disturbance) 

events, including retention of fire-killed dead trees and coarse woody debris. 

2. Design harvest units to mimic the pattern and scale of natural disturbances and retain natural 

connectivity across the landscape. Evaluate the potential of riparian zones, ridges, and 

saddles to provide connectivity. 

3. Provide for continuing availability of foraging habitat in proximity to denning habitat. 

4. In areas where recruitment of additional denning habitat is desired, or to extend the 

production of snowshoe hare foraging habitat where forage quality and quantity is declining 

because of plant succession, consider improvement harvests (commercial thinning, selection, 

etc). Improvement harvests should be designed to retain and recruit the understory of small 

diameter conifers and shrubs preferred by hares; retain and recruit coarse woody debris 

consistent with the likely availability of such material under natural disturbance regimes; and 

maintain or improve the juxtaposition of denning and foraging habitat. 

5. Provide habitat conditions through time that s~tpport dense horizontal understory cover and a 

high density of snowshoe hares. This includes, for example, mature multi-storied conifer 

vegetation. Focus vegetation management, including timber harvest and use of prescribed 

fire, in areas that have potential to improve snowshoe hare habitat (dense horizontal cover) 

but that presently have poorly developed understories with little value to snowshoe hares. 

6. Design bum prescriptions to promote response by shrub and tree species that are favored by 

snowshoe hare and thus regenerate or create snowshoe hare habitat (e.g., regeneration of 

aspen and lodgepole pine). 

7. Design burn prescriptions to retain or encourage tree species composition and structure that 

will provide habitat for red squirrels or other alternate prey species. 
Consider the need for pre-treatment of fuels before conducting management ignitions. 

Design burn prescriptions and, where feasible, conduct fire suppression actions in a manner 

that maximizes lynx denning habitat. 

Map and monitor the location and intensity of snow compacting activities (for example, 

snowmobiling, snowshoeing, cross-county skiing, dog sledding, etc.) that coincide with lynx 

habitat to facilitate future evaluation of effects on lynx as information becomes available. 

Discourage recreational use in areas where it is shown to csmpromrise lynx !labitat. Such 

actions shouid be undertaken on a pr~ority basis considering habitat function and importance. 

Provide a landscape with intercormected blocks of foraging habitat where snowmobile, crosscountry skiing, snowshoeing, or other snow compacting activities are minimized or 

discouraged. 

Identify and protect potential security habitats in and around proposed developments or 

expansions. 

Determine where high total road densities (>2 miles per square mile) coincide with lynx 

habitat and prioritize roads for seasonal restrictions or reclamation in those areas. 

Minimize roadside brushing to provide snowshoe hare habitat. 

Limit public use on temporary roads constructed for timber sales. Design new roads, 

especially the entrance, for effective closure upon completion of sale activities. 

Limit public use on temporary and permanent roads constructed for access to timber sales, 

mines, and leases. Design new roads, especially the entrance, for effective closure. Upon 

project completion, reclaim or obliterate these roads. 

Minimize building of roads directly on ridgetops or areas identified as important for lynx 

habitat connectivity. 

To reduce mistaken shooting of lynx, initiate andlor augment interagency information and 

education efforts throughout the range of lynx in the contiguous states. Use trailhead posters, 

magazine articles, news releases, state hunting and trapping regulation booklets, and so on to 

inform the public of the possible presence of lynx and their field identification and status. 

Where needed, develop measures such as wildlife fencing and associated underpasses or 

overpasses to reduce mortality risk. 

Where feasible within identified key linkage areas, maintain or enhance native plant 

communities, patterns, and habitat for potential lynx prey. Pursue opportunities for 

cooperative management with other landowners. Evaluate whether land ownership and 

management practices are compatible with maintaining lynx highway crossings in key 

linkage areas. On public lands, management practices will be compatible with providing 
habitat connectivity. On private lands, agencies will strive to work with landowners to 

develop conservation easements, exchanges, or other solutions. 

21. Dirt and gravel roads traversing lynx habitat (particularly those that could become highways) 

should not be paved or otherwise upgraded (e.g., straightening of curves, widening of 

roadway, etc.) in a manner that is likely to lead to significant increases in traffic volumes, 

traffic speeds, or width of the cleared right-of-way (ROW) or would contribute to 

development of increased human activity in lynx habitat. Whenever rural dirt and gravel 

roads traversing lynx habitat are proposed for such upgrades. a thorough analysis should be 

conducted on the potential direct and indirect effects to iynx ar~d iyi~ ha2itat. 

22. In land adjustment programs, identify key li&age areas. Work tovk7ards unified management 

direction via habitat conservation plans, conservation easements or agreements, and land 

acquisition. 

23. Plan recreational development and manage recreational and operational uses to provide for 

lynx movement and to maintain effectiveness of lynx habitat. 

24. Identify, map, and prioritize site-specific locations, using topographic and vegetation features 

to determine where highway crossings are needed to reduce highway impacts on lynx. 

25. Using the best available science, develop a plan to protect key linkage areas on federal lands 

from activities that would create barriers to movement. Barriers could result from an 

accumulation of incremental projects, as opposed to any one project. 

26. When opportunities for vegetation treatments come up, develop treatments that provide or 

develop characteristics suitable for snowshoe hare. 

27. Protect existing snowshoe hare and red squirrel habitat. 

Gray wolf 

1. The Bureau will avoid an increase in miles of road in crucial elk winter range. 

2. The Bureau will avoid situations that allow for wolves to habituate to humans or become 

exposed to and use human refuse as a food source. 

3. The Bureau will foster public outreachleducation programs to provide wolf information in 

schools, campgrounds, and other places. Topics can include, but not be limited to, personal 

safety around wolves, wolf ecology, wolf mortality factors, and livestock grazing practices 

harmful to woIves. 

4. The Bureau will continue to support the research and documentation of wolf/Iivestock 

interactions and livestock grazing practices to improve these practices so they are more 

compatible with wolves. 
5. The Bureau will continue to provide and improve wolf habitat by monitoring elk populations 

and improving habitat for elk. 

6. The Bureau will encourage reporting of wolf observations by the Bureau's staff and the 

public to the WGFD. 

Grizzly bear 

1. With the intent of reducing potential conflicts between grizzly bears and livestock and the 

Eu~cau ~houid phase out sheep allotments in occupied grizzly bear habitat as the 

opportunity arises. Existing sheep allotments in occupied grizzly bear habitat should be 

monitored and evaluated for conflicts between grizzly bears and sheep. The Bureau 

should offer no new permitted sheep Animal Unit Months (AUMs) in grizzly bear habitat 

where conflicts have occurred in the past, or are likely to occur in the future. 

2. The Bureau should adjust management of domestic livestock on public land allotments or 

leases to minimize grizzly bear-livestock conflicts (such as season of use, class of livestock, 

etc.). 

3. The Bureau should include a clause on all use authorizations that allows for permanent 

cancellation, temporary cancellation, or temporary cessation of activities if such are 

needed to resolve a grizzly-human conflict situation. 

4. Wherever possible, the Bureau should reduce motorized access routes in occupied grizzly 

bear habitat and will try to avoid authorizing any new motorized access in occupied 

grizzly bear areas (i.e., big game ranges). 

5. Wherever possible, the Bureau will implement appropriate closures or seasonal restriction 

areas to cross-country motorized travel to provide more security in occupied grizzly bear 

habitat. 

6. Where possible, maintain road densities of less than one mile per square mile in occupied 

grizzly bear habitat. Where existing road densities are currently below 1 mile per square 

mile, avoid increases in road density to maintain management options and secure habitat. 

Consider all big game winter range areas as areas where road density objectives are less 

than 1 mile of road per square mile. 

7. The Bureau should initiate a habitat mapping and monitoring effort for the grizzly bear. 

Habitat mapped on Bureau lands will be done using Geographic Information System 

(GIs) technology. Secure habitat, open motorized access route density (OMARD, refers to 

roads that are actively used) greater than one mileisquare mile, and total motorized access 

route density (TMARD, includes all roads, even gated roads) greater than two miledsquare 

mile will be monitored utilizing the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Cumulative Effects Model 

(CEM) GIs databases and will be reported annually, as is described in the Final Conservation 

Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area (Interagency Conservation 

Strategy Team [ICST 2003)) and conducted in the primary conservation area (PCA). 
8. In areas of vital importance to grizzly bears (known denning areas, army cutworm moth 

aggregations, cutthroat trout spawning sites, spring ungulate concentration sites, etc.) 

activities that adversely affect grizzly bear populations andlor their habitat should be 

avoided. Adverse habitat effects could result from land surface disturbances; water table 

alterations; reservoirs, rights-of-way, roads, pipelines, canals, transmission lines, or other 

structures; increased human foods; and reduced availability of natural foods. Areas of 

vital importance to grizzlies are identified through the evaluation process described in the 

Grizzly Bear Management Guidelines (IGBC 1986). 

Ute ladies'-tresses 

1. When project proposals are received, the Bureau will initiate coordination with the Service at 

the earliest possible date so that both agencies can advise on project design. This should 

minimize the need to redesign projects at a later date to include orchid conservation 

measures, determined as appropriate by the Service. 

2. The Bureau will participate in the development of both, a conservation agreementlassessment 

strategy and a species specific recovery plan for the orchid in coordination with the Service 

and other agencies as appropriate. Orchid habitat on Bureau-administered lands will be 

monitored to determine if recovery/conservation objectives are being met. 

3. The Bureau will coordinate with the Service, the National Resource Conservation Service 

(NRCS), and private landowners to ensure adequate protection for the orchid and its habitat 

when new activities are proposed, and to work proactively to enhance the survival of the 

plant. 

4. In the event that a new population of the orchid is found, the Service's Wyoming Field 

Office (307-772-2374) wiI1 be notified within 48 hours of discovery. 

5. Livestock grazing, mowinglhaying, and some burning are specific management tools that the 

Bureau may use to maintain favorable habitat conditions for the orchid where feasible. 

Mowing and grazing, with proper timing and intensity, reduce the native and exotic plant 

competition for light and possibly for water, space and nutrients. 

6. Recreational foot trails that may be located adjacent to Ute ladies' tresses plant habitat should 

be constructed to reduce impacts to this species. 

To prevent loss of habitat for the orchid, the Bureau "shall retain in Federal ownership all 

habitats essential for the survival and recovery of any listed species, including habitat that 

was used historically that has retained its potential to sustain listed species, and is deemed to 

be essential to their survival" (BLM 2001). Prior to any land tenure adjustments in potential 

orchid habitat, the Bureau will survey to assess the potential for the existence of the orchid. 

While it is difficult to assess whether the orchid was historically present on such sites, the 

Bureau should try and retain in Federal ownership all habitats essential for the survival and 

recovery of the orchid, including habitat that was used historically that has retained its 

potential to sustain this listed may be used for reintroduction efforts and is important for the 

recovery and enhancement of the species. 
Prescribed fire and grazing activities shall be coordinated between biologists, rangeland 

management specialists, and fire personnel to ensure that no damage occurs to the plant 

habitat when being used to maintain the habitat for the species. 

Maintain and restore the dynamics of stream systems, including the movement of streams 

within their floodplains, which are vital for the life cycle of the orchid. Flow timing, flow 

quantity, and water table characteristics should be evaluated to ensure that the riparian 

system is maintained where these plants occur. The Bureau should continue water use in a 

manner that maintains suitable habitat for the Ute ladies' tresses orchid to benefit the species. 

Maintain and restore the natural species composition and structural diversity of plant 

communities in riparian zones and wetlands. 

For the protection of the orchid and its potential habitat, surface-disturbing activities listed 

above, should be avoided in the following areas when they occur outside of the protective 

0.25 mile buffer from populations of the orchid: (a) identified 100-year flood plains; (b) areas 

within 500 feet from perennial waters, springs, wells, and wetlands, and; (c) areas within 100 

feet from the inner gorge of ephemeral channels. 

Form a steering committee to develop and prioritize management practices and assist the 

Bureau and the Service with research projects. 

Conduct inventories for the orchid in areas with potential habitat. 

Maintain a database of all searched, inventoried, or monitored orchid sites. 

Analyze vegetation treatments (mowing, prescribed fire, mechanical treatments, etc.) in 

known or potential habitat for the orchid to determine impacts to the species. 

Establish monitoring, biological, ecological, population demographics, and life history 

studies as funding and staffing allow, such as, monitoring current populations each year for 

trends, studies regarding identification of pollinators, genetics, life history, effects of 

pesticides and herbicides, seed viability and germination, and studies regarding monitoring 

the success of reintroduction efforts. Monitor orchid population sites for invasion by noxious 

and invasive plant species. 

Perform monitoring and analysis pertaining to flow timing, flow quantity, and water table 

characteristics with the goal of ensuring that riparian vegetation, in areas of known and 

potential habitat for the orchid, is maintained. 

When possible, collect and bank orchid seeds at local, regional, national, and international 

arboreta, seed banks, and botanical gardens as insurance against catastrophic events, for use 

in biological studies, and for possible introductionlreintroduction into potential habitat. 

Train law enforcement personnel on protections for the orchid and its habitat, its status, and 

current threats to its existence. 
20. Educate resource specialists, rangers, and fire crews about the orchid and its habitat to help 

with project design for the general area and for fire suppression actions occurring in potential 

habitat for the orchid and on the habitat characteristics and plant identification for the plant, 

so that if they encounter the orchid occurring in riparian habitat, they can report it to their 

office threatened and endangered species specialist. 

21. The Bureau should work towards developing reintroduction sites in coordination with the 

Service and to maintain the integrity of these sites for the survival of the orchid. The 

objective would be to reintroduce populations of the orchid into areas of historic occurrence 

and introduce new popuiations in suitabie habitat withi11 the plani7 s hisiciric range. 

22. Develop propagation techniques and use them to reinf;roduce/introduce the orchid and to 

repopulate known populations in the event population recovery becomes necessary. 

APPENDIX 3 - REFERENCES 

Lnteragency Conservation Strategy Team (ICST). 2003. Final Conservation Strategy for the 

Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Website accessed November 2005. 

http:llwww.fs.fed.us/rl/wildlife/igbc/ConsemationStrategy/replacement~cs.pdf 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). 1986. Interagency grizzly bear guidelines. U.S. 

Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 

Seglund, A. E., A. E. Ernst, M. Grenier, B. Luce, A. Puchniak, and P. Schnurr. 2004. White-tailed 

Prairie Dog Conservation Assessment. 152 pp. 

United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2001. Manual 6840 - Special Status Species 

Management. United Statues Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. 

January 19,2001. 41 pp. + Glossary. 

- - - - - - - . 2007. Bald Eagle Delisting Guidance. Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2007-037 from 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management dated September 4,2007. Wyoming State Office. 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. 2 pp. 

- - - - - - - . 2008a. Final Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Pinedale Field Office. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Pinedale, Wyoming. 

- - - - - - - . 2008b. Biological Assessment for the Pinedale Resource Management Plan. Pinedale Field 

Office. 

Wyoming Black-tailed Prairie Dog Working Group. 200 1. Final Draft Wyoming Black-tailed 

Prairie Dog Management Plan. Technical assistance in developing this plan was provided by 

Martin Grenier, Non-game Mammal Biologist, and Bob Oakleaf, Non-game Coordinator, 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department Non-game Program, June 15,2001.