Appendix K –Biological Assessment and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Concurrence Letter 

249 
 

Biological Assessment 

to analyze the effects of 

Amending BLM and USFS Land Use Plans 

To address: 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed 

Land Use Plan Amendment and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

16 March 2015 

Revised May 20, 2015 

250 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 253 

2.0 Project History .................................................................................................................................... 254 

3.0 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................... 255 

4.0 Analysis Area...................................................................................................................................... 256 

5.0 Description of Changes to Existing Management identified in the Proposed Land Use Plan 

Amendments ............................................................................................................................................. 258 

6.0 Species Considered in the Analysis .................................................................................................... 285 

6.1 Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) - Endangered .............................................................. 293 

6.2 Colorado Butterfly Plant (Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis) - Threatened ........................... 294 

6.3 Desert yellowhead (Yermo xanthocephalus) – Threatened............................................................. 296 

6.4 Ute Ladies’ -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) - Threatened ............................................................... 297 

6.5 Western prairie-fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara)-Endangered ............................................ 299 

6.6 Bonytail (Gila elegans) - Endangered ............................................................................................ 300 

6.7 Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) - Endangered.......................................................... 301 

6.8 Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) - Endangered.................................................................................. 303 

6.9 Kendall Warm Springs Dace (Rhinichthys osculus thermalis) - Endangered................................. 304 

6.10 Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus)-Endangered................................................................... 306 

6.11 Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) - Endangered.................................................................. 307 

6.12 Wyoming Toad (Bufo baxteri) - Endangered................................................................................ 308 

6.13 Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)-Endangered ................................................................................. 310 

6.14 Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) -Endangered ....................................................................... 311 

6.15 Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) - Threatened........................................... 312 

6.16 Whooping Crane (Grus americana) - Endangered ....................................................................... 313 

6.17 Black-Footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) - Endangered ................................................................. 314 

6.18 Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) - Threatened.............................................................................. 316 

6.19 Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) - Threatened..................................................................................... 317 

6.20 Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudonius preblei) - Threatened ................................. 319 

6.21 Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis ) - Proposed................................................... 320 

6.22 Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus) – Non-essential experimental.............................................................. 323 

7.0 Effects of Selected Alternative ........................................................................................................... 326 

7.1 Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) - Endangered .............................................................. 326 

7.1.1 Effects of Selected Alternative................................................................................................................326 

7.1.2 Effects Determination .............................................................................................................................332 

7.2 Colorado Butterfly Plant (Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis) - Threatened ........................... 333 

7.2.1 Effects of Selected Alternative................................................................................................................333 

7.2.2 Effects Determination .............................................................................................................................338 

7.3 Desert yellowhead (Yermo xanthocephalus) – Threatened ............................................................ 339 

251 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.3.1 Effects of Selected Alternative................................................................................................................339 

7.3.2 Effects Determination .............................................................................................................................343 

7.4 Ute Ladies’ -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) - Threatened ............................................................... 345 

7.4.1 Effects of Selected Alternative................................................................................................................345 

7.4.2 Effects Determination .............................................................................................................................350 

7.5 Platte River Species- Western prairie-Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara)-Endangered, Pallid 

Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus)-Endangered, Least tern (Sterna antillarum)-Endangered, Piping 

Plover (Charradrius melodus) –Endangered, Whooping crane (Grus americana) - Endangered........ 352 

7.5.1 Effects of Selected Alternative................................................................................................................352 

7.5.2 Effects Determination .............................................................................................................................356 

7.6 Endangered Colorado River Fish Species- Bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow 

(Ptychocheilus lucius) , Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)-

Endangered ........................................................................................................................................... 359 

7.6.1 Effects of Selected Alternative................................................................................................................359 

7.6.2 Effects Determination .............................................................................................................................363 

7.7 Kendall Warm Springs Dace (Rhinichthys osculus thermalis) - Endangered................................. 365 

7.7.1 Effects of Selected Alternative................................................................................................................365 

7.7.2 Effects Determination .............................................................................................................................370 

7.8 Wyoming Toad (Bufo baxteri) - Endangered.................................................................................. 371 

7.8.1 Effects of Selected Alternative................................................................................................................371 

7.8.2 Effects Determination .............................................................................................................................375 

7.9 Black-Footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) – Endangered, Experimental ........................................... 376 

7.9.1 Effects of Selected Alternative................................................................................................................376 

7.9.2 Effects Determination .............................................................................................................................381 

7.10 Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) - Threatened.............................................................................. 383 

7.10.1 Effects of Selected Alternative..............................................................................................................383 

7.10.2 Effects Determination ...........................................................................................................................388 

7.11 Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) - Threatened..................................................................................... 390 

7.11.1 Effects of Selected Alternative..............................................................................................................390 

7.11.2 Effects Determination ...........................................................................................................................394 

7.12 Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudonius preblei) - Threatened ................................. 395 

7.12.1 Effects of Selected Alternative..............................................................................................................396 

7.12.2 Effects Determination ...........................................................................................................................400 

7.13 Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) - Threatened........................................... 401 

7.13.1 Effects of Selected Alternative..............................................................................................................401 

7.13.2 Effects Determination ...........................................................................................................................406 

7.14 Northern Long Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) - Proposed..................................................... 408 

7.14.1 Effects of Selected Alternative..............................................................................................................408 

7.14.2 Effects Determination ...........................................................................................................................413 

7.15 Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) – Non-essential experimental ............................................................... 414 

7.15.1 Effects of Selected Alternative..............................................................................................................414 

7.15.2 Effects Determination ...........................................................................................................................418 

8.0 Contacts .............................................................................................................................................. 421 

9.0 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................... 422 

252 
 

 

 

 

 

Biological Assessment 

1.0 Introduction 

This Biological Assessment (BA) analyzes the potential effects of changes to existing 

management identified in the selected alternative of the joint BLM/Forest Service - Wyoming 

Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (Amendment), on threatened or endangered species listed or proposed for listing under 

the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or on their designated critical habitat. Existing 

management conditions that would not be changed as a result of the Amendment will not be 

analyzed in this document. 

In accordance with the ESA and regulatory guidance, we consider: 

•	 Only those organisms that appear on the official species list as seen in Table 3, and 

•	 Only those species under the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

We consider all listed and proposed species that may be present in the action area. We will also 

consider the effects of the proposed project on the primary constituent elements (PCEs) and/or 

physical and biological features (PBFs) of designated or proposed critical habitat that is likely to 

be affected by the proposed actions. 

This document is prepared in accordance with the requirements of the ESA and its implementing 

regulations. It is also prepared in accordance with current Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

policy following (IM No. 2012-044 and BLM Manual 6840) and US Forest Service (USFS) 

policy following standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2670) and the 

guidance provided in the USFWS Consultation Handbook (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service 1998). Additionally, this BA is prepared in collaboration with 

the USFWS as agreed upon under the Consultation Streamlining Guidance. 

This analysis is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time this 

document was written. This includes information such as data collected from BLM and Forest 

databases, vegetation analyses, direct surveys in the field, the most recent and appropriate 

scientific research or species information, as well as direct observations by Biologists in the 

field. 

This Biological Assessment (BA) analyzes the potential impacts on threatened and endangered 

plant, fish, and animal species that would result from the implementation of those management 

actions authorized under the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan/Land 

and Resource Management Plan (RMP/ LRMP)Amendments that would change, or are new and 

not part of existing management identified in current RMPs. Five potential alternatives are 

analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This BA analyzes the Proposed 

Amended RMP/LRMP (Amendment). 

Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and its 

designated critical habitat (if applicable). Regulations implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the ESA are codified at 50 CFR 402. Section 7 (a)(2) requires Federal 

agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 

253 
 

 

 

continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify or destroy its designated critical 

habitat. 

If a Federal action may “adversely affect” a listed species or its designated critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service (USFWS). In addition, under the 1994 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and the 

2000 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the BLM, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 

USFWS, and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), all four agencies agreed to promote the 

conservation of candidate species and streamline the Section 7 consultation and coordination 

process. 

This BA conforms to the legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the ESA, and was 

guided by the Regulations on Interagency Cooperation in 50 CFR 402.12 (f). 

2.0 Project History 

Greater Sage-Grouse (sage-grouse) have emerged as a significant conservation concern over the 

last 10 years. The species is currently a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act 

as “threatened”, because of two primary factors: 1) the large-scale loss and fragmentation of 

habitats across the species range, and 2) a lack of regulatory mechanisms in place to ensure the 

conservation of the species. The primary threats to sage-grouse habitat are summarized in the 

listing decision. The two dominant threats are related to infrastructure associated with energy 

development in the eastern portion of the species range, and the conversion of sagebrush 

communities to annual grasslands associated with large uncharacteristic wildfires in the western 

portion of the species range. 

The BLM and the USFS are working together to protect sage-grouse and their habitat by revising 

or amending 68 BLM Land Use Plans and 20 National Forest and Grassland Land and Resource 

Management Plans across nine western states, including Northeast California, Oregon, Nevada, 

Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Northwest Colorado, South Dakota, and North Dakota. The 

BLM manages approximately half of the sage-grouse habitat, whereas the USFS manages 

approximately 8 percent of species habitat. 

In 2011 and 2012, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) submitted letters to the 

BLM and FS recommending that the agencies amend Land Use Plans to provide adequate 

regulatory mechanisms to conserve the species. The BLM and USFS are participating in six 

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) to develop Records of Decision that will be used as a 

basis for amending Land Use Plans, including Forest Plans. 

On December 9, 2011, a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register to initiate the 

BLM/USFS GRSG Planning Strategy across nine western states, including California, Oregon, 

Nevada, Idaho, Utah, and Southwest Montana in the Great Basin Region and Northwest 

Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota in the Rocky Mountain Region. 

The Wyoming RMP amendment/revision and draft EIS is one of fifteen separate EISs that are 

currently being conducted to analyze and incorporate specific conservation measures across the 

range of the GRSG, consistent with National BLM and USFS policy. 

On December 27, 2011, the BLM Washington Office released Instruction Memorandum (IM) 

No. 2012-044, which directed all of the planning efforts across the GRSG range to consider all 

applicable conservation measures when revising or amending its RMPs in GRSG habitat, 

including the measures developed by the National Technical Team (NTT) that were presented in 

254 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

their December 2011 document – A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Measures. IM-2012-044 directs all planning efforts associated with the national strategy to 

consider and analyze (as appropriate) the conservation measures presented in the report. 

Along with the applicable measures that were outlined in the NTT Report, planning efforts 

associated with this National GRSG Planning Strategy will also analyze applicable conservation 

measures that were submitted to the BLM and USFS from various state governments and from 

citizens during the public scoping process. 

The BLM and USFS are directed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA) to plan for and manage “public lands.” As defined by the Act, public lands are those 

federally owned lands, and any interest in lands (e.g., federally owned mineral estate), that are 

administered by BLM/USFS. 

The process for developing, approving, maintaining, and amending or revising RMPs/LRMPs 

was initiated under the authority of FLPMA Section 202(f). BLM’s regulations under 43 CFR 

§1610 require BLM to use NEPA processes in preparing the plan so that the plan selected is 

based on informed decision making and public involvement. The 1976 National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA), Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1950, 1920 and Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 direct the USFS in implementing NEPA into their planning processes. 

The process is guided by BLM planning regulations in 43 CFR §1600 and the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations in 40 CFR §1500. 

The pre-planning phase of the BLM and USFS planning process consists of (1) compiling and 

reviewing the current laws, regulations, policies, executive orders (EO), and directives pertaining 

to the planning area and (2) developing any needed State Director’s/Regional Forester’s 

guidance specific to the process and planning effort for the planning area. 

Consultation/Conferencing History: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming State 

Office and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) have initiated a planning effort to prepare Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) and Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) amendments with 

an associated environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Casper, Green River, Kemmerer, 

Newcastle, Pinedale, and Rawlins RMPs; and the Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF), 

Medicine Bow National Forest (MBNF), and Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) 

LRMPs. 

BLM and USFS land use plans and amendments must be consistent with officially approved or 

adopted resource- related plans, and the policies and programs contained therein, of other federal 

agencies, state and local governments, and Native American tribes, so long as the guidance and 

RMPs are also consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of federal laws and 

regulations applicable to public lands, including federal and state pollution control laws as 

implemented by applicable federal and state air, water, noise, and other pollution standards or 

implementation plans. 

3.0 Purpose and Need 

The purpose of this Land Use Plan (LUP) Amendment for the sage-grouse is to identify and 

incorporate appropriate conservation measures to protect, enhance, and/or restore sage-grouse 

habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to their habitat. The need to create this 

amendment arose when the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms was identified as a significant 

threat in the USFWS finding on the petition to list the sage-grouse. The USFWS identified 

255 
 

 

conservation measures within BLM and USFS LUPs as the principal regulatory mechanisms for 

habitat conservation. Therefore, this amendment will focus on areas affected by threats to sagegrouse habitat identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision (USFWS 2010a). 

4.0 Analysis Area 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming State Office and the U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) have initiated a planning effort to prepare Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Land 

and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) amendments with an associated environmental impact 

statement (EIS) for the Casper, Green River, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, and Rawlins 

RMPs; and the Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF), Medicine Bow National Forest (MBNF), 

and Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) LRMPs. 

The planning area for the sage-grouse RMP and LRMP Amendments comprise the Wyoming 

BLM Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices, and the 

USFS BTNF, MBNF, and TBNG Planning Units and includes all public lands and federal 

mineral estate managed by the BLM and the USFS within these areas. The planning area 

encompasses approximately 16 million acres of public surface land administered by the BLM 

and USFS, and approximately 23 million acres of federal mineral estate in Albany, Campbell, 

Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont, Goshen, Laramie, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Platte, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, Teton, Uinta, and Weston counties in Wyoming. Of the 23 million acres of 

federal mineral estate, approximately 7 million acres are split estate. Table 1 provides a summary 

of land and mineral ownership and administrative jurisdictions within the planning area. 

256 
Map 1- Planning Area 

257 
Table 1-Land and Mineral Ownership and Administrative Jurisdictions within the Planning Area 

Jurisdiction Acres

Total land surface area in the planning area (all ownership) 38,854,719 

Areas the Wyoming Sage-Grouse RMP/LRMP Amendments decisions will cover: 

Federal land/federal minerals 15,887,984 

Federal land/nonfederal minerals 364,585 

Nonfederal land/federal minerals 6,443,758 

Total BLM/USFS-administered federal land surface to be covered by 

RMP/LRMP decisions 

16,249,869 

Total BLM/USFS-administered federal mineral estate to be covered by 

RMP/LRMP decisions 

22,964,444 

Areas the Wyoming Sage-Grouse RMP/LRMP Amendments decisions will not cover: 

Private or state land/private or state minerals 15,325,765 

For purposes of this document, the following will be used to describe the types of habitat 

discussed: 

	 General Habitat Management Area (GHMA): Is occupied (seasonal or year-round) 

habitat outside of priority habitat. These areas have been identified by the BLM/Forest 

Service in coordination with respective state wildlife agencies. 

	 Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA): Sage-grouse priority habitats are areas that 

have the highest conservation value to maintaining or increasing Sage-grouse 

populations. These areas would include breeding, late brood-rearing, winter concentration 

areas, and where known, migration or connectivity corridors. Sage-grouse Priority 

Habitat Management Area includes core plus connectivity habitat, unless specifically 

identified as containing only one (i.e., PHMA (core only)). 

	 Sagebrush Focal Area: Areas identified by the FWS that that represent recognized 

“strongholds” for GRSG that have been noted and referenced by the conservation 

community as having the highest densities of GRSG and other criteria important for the 

persistence of GRSG. Sagebrush Focal Areas are wholly contained within PHMA, and 

are assumed to have the same management actions applied, unless otherwise specified. 

5.0 Description of Changes to Existing Management identified in the Proposed 

Land Use Plan Amendments 

As part of the Land Use Plan Amendment, BLM and the Forest Service identified management 

actions to manage sage-grouse habitat on federally managed lands. Table 2 (below) identifies 

new management actions or changes to existing management that are being consulted on in this 

BA. BLM and Forest Service have different policies and language/wording requirements, which 

creates the need for separate actions/standards/guidelines. 

258 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Management Actions for the BLM and USFS Proposed LUP Amendments. 

# Alternative E (Proposed LUP Amendment) 

BLM Forest Service 

General Management Direction for Action Alternatives 

5 The BLM/Forest Service will coordinate new recommendations, mitigation, and conservation measures applied for sage-grouse with the 

WGFD and other appropriate agencies, local government cooperators, and the Wyoming SGIT. These measures will be analyzed in sitespecific NEPA documents, as necessary. 

6 Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing 

vegetation management treatments according to the type of 

seasonal habitats present in a priority area. Vegetation treatments 

must include monitoring to determine achievement of objectives 

and their long-term success. 

See GRSG-TDDD-ST-003-Standard, GRSG-TDDD-ST-004-

Standard, GRSG-TDDD-ST-005-Standard, GRSG-TDDD-ST006-Standard, and GRSG-TDDD-ST-007-Standard at MA #131 

through #134 for seasonal restrictions. 

See GRSG-GRSGH-ST-001-Standard at MA #99 for monitoring 

direction. 

7 Ensure site-specific, measurable, conservation and mitigation objectives are included in project planning within sage-grouse habitats. 

8 Each BLM field office will develop landscape-scale restoration, 

conservation, and maintenance strategies, including special 

management of seasonal habitats and identified connectivity 

zones outside of PHMA, working with voluntary partners and 

cooperating agencies. These strategies must be coordinated and 

reconciled, where possible, with adjoining management entities 

that share habitats or populations. 

These LUP amendments are landscape-scale restoration, 

conservation, and maintenance strategies for greater sage-grouse 

habitat. Management of National Forest System lands will be 

coordinated and reconciled, where possible, with adjoining 

management entities that share habitats or populations. 

9 Design all range projects in a manner that minimizes potential for 

invasive species establishment. Monitor and treat invasive 

species associated with existing range improvements. 

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-004-Guideline – In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, actions and 

authorizations should be designed to limit the spread and effect of 

undesirable non-native plant species. 

10 Apply all appropriate required design features (Appendix B) as 

mandatory Stipulations/Conditions of Approval (COAs) within 

PHMAs for fluid minerals, travel management, lands and realty, 

range management, wild horses and burro, coal exploration, 

locatable minerals, West Nile Virus, mineral materials, nonenergy solid leasable minerals, vegetation management, fire and 

fuels management, and noise. 

Required design features displayed in Appendix B that are not 

current standard operating procedure have been converted to 

standards or guidelines for the Forest Service draft proposed plan 

amendments. Those items that were not converted will be 

displayed in implementation guidance distributed after the project 

decision is finalized. 

GRSG-INFRA-GL-001-Guideline - In priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, impacts to greater 

sage-grouse and their habitats should be reduced during 

maintenance, replacement, and upgrades of existing structures. 

Impacts should also be mitigated when constructing new 

infrastructure. 

• Existing guy wires should be removed or appropriately 

marked with bird flight diverters to make them more visible to 

greater sage-grouse in flight. Authorization of new 

infrastructure with guy wires should be restricted. 

• Power lines (distribution and transmission) should be designed 

to minimize wildlife related impacts and constructed to the 

latest APLIC standards. 

• When possible, perch deterrents should be installed on 

existing and new overhead facilities. Tanks and other above 

ground facilities should be equipped with structures or devices 

that discourage nesting and perching of raptors and corvids. 

• Permanent structures should be designed or sited to minimize 

impacts to greater sage-grouse, with emphasis on locating and 

operating facilities that create movement (e.g., pump jacks) or 

attract frequent human use and vehicular traffic (e.g., fluid 

259 
 

 

storage tanks) in a manner that will minimize disturbance of 

greater sage-grouse or interference with habitat use. 

•	 Liquid gathering facilities should be placed outside priority 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas. To 

reduce truck traffic and perching and nesting of ravens and 

raptors, tanks should not be placed at well locations. 

GRSG-LG-GL-006-Guideline – Collision risk should be 

mitigated through design features or markings (e.g., mark, laydown 

fences, location and design) when fences are constructed or 

reconstructed within priority-PHMAs and sagebrush focal areas 

and within 4 miles of occupied leks in priority-connectivity 

management areas. 

GRSG-M-FML-ST-003-Standard –Locate compressor stations 

on portions of a lease that are non-habitat and are not used by 

greater sage-grouse, and if there would be no direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects on greater sage-grouse or their habitat. If this is 

not possible, work with the operator to use mufflers, sound 

insulation, or other features to reduce noise. GRSG-M-FMO-GL001-Guideline –Employee camps should not be authorized in 

priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas. 

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-002-Guideline – In priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, closed‐loop systems 

should be used for drilling operations with no reserve pits, where 

feasible. 

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-003-Guideline – In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, during drilling 

operations, soil compaction should be reduced and soil structure 

should be maintained using the best available techniques to 

improve vegetation reestablishment. 

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-004-Guideline – In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, dams, 

impoundments and ponds for mineral development should be 

constructed to reduce potential for West Nile virus. Examples of 

methods to accomplish this include: 

•	 Increase the depth of ponds to accommodate a greater volume 

of water than is discharged. 

•	 Build steep shorelines (greater than 2 feet) to reduce shallow 

water and aquatic vegetation around the perimeter of 

impoundments to reduce breeding habitat for mosquitoes. 

•	 Maintain the water level below that of rooted aquatic and 

upland vegetation. Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat 

terrain or low-lying areas. 

•	 Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down-slope 

seepage or overflow by digging ponds in flat areas rather than 

damming natural draws for effluent water storage or lining 

constructed ponds in areas where seepage is anticipated. 

•	 Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond 

with crushed rock or use a horizontal pipe to discharge inflow 

directly into existing open water. 

•	 Line the overflow spillway with crushed rock and construct 

the spillway with steep sides. 

•	 Fence pond sites to restrict access by livestock and other wild 

ungulates. 

•	 Remove or re‐inject produced water. 

•	 Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production 

where water occurs on the surface. 

260 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GRSG-RT-ST-005-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not allow public 

access on temporary energy development roads, unless consistent 

with all other terms and conditions included in this land use 

management plan amendment. 

GRSG-RT-GL-001-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, new roads and road 

realignments should be designed and administered to reduce 

collisions with greater sage-grouse. 

GRSG-RT-GL-002-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, road construction 

within riparian areas and mesic meadows should be restricted. If 

not possible to restrict construction within riparian areas and mesic 

meadows, roads should be designed and constructed perpendicular 

to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings, unless topography 

prevents doing so. 

GRSG-RT-GL-004-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, dust abatement terms 

and conditions should be included in road use permits when dust 

has the potential to impact greater sage-grouse. 

GRSG-RT-GL-005-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, road and road-way 

maintenance activities should be designed and implemented to 

reduce the risk of vehicle or human‐caused wildfires and the spread 

of invasive plants. Such activities include but are not limited to the 

removal or mowing of vegetation a car-width off the edge of roads; 

use of weed-free earth-moving equipment, gravel, fill, or other 

materials; and blading or pulling roadsides and ditches that are 

infested with noxious weeds only if required for public safety or 

protection of the roadway. 

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-005-Guideline - To facilitate safe and 

effective fire management actions, in priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, fuels treatments 

should be designed to reduce the spread and intensity of wildfire in 

high-risk areas (i.e., areas of increased potential for ignition and in 

areas where there is a potential for wildfire that would be difficult 

for suppression resources to contain and control). 

GRSG-FM-GL-002-Guideline – Locating temporary wildfire 

suppression facilities (e.g., incident command posts, spike camps, 

helibases, mobile retardant plants) in priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas should be restricted. 

Methods to restrict impacts include location in existing disturbed 

areas, grasslands, near roads/trails or other areas where there is 

existing disturbance or minimal sagebrush cover. 

GRSG-FM-GL-003-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, cross‐country vehicle 

travel during fire operations should be restricted whenever safe and 

practical to do so, as determined by fireline leadership, incident 

commanders, etc. 

GRSG-FM-GL-004-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, burnout operation 

areas should be restricted by constructing direct fire lines, 

whenever safe and practical to do so, to improve effectiveness and 

minimize loss of existing sagebrush habitat as determined by 

fireline leadership, incident commanders, etc.. 

GRSG-FM-GL-005-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, fire management 

prescriptions should minimize undesirable effects on vegetation 

261 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and/or soils (e.g., minimize mortality of desirable perennial plant 

species and reduce risk of hydrophobicity). 

GRSG-FM-GL-006-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, roads and natural fuel 

breaks should be incorporated into fuel break design to improve 

effectiveness and minimize loss of existing sagebrush habitat. 

GRSG-FM-GL-007-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, all fire-associated 

vehicles and equipment should be power‐washed before entering 

and exiting the area to minimize the introduction of undesirable 

invasive plant species. 

GRSG-FM-GL-008-Guideline - Unit-specific greater sage-grouse 

fire management toolboxes containing maps, lists, contact 

information for qualified resource advisors, local guidance, and 

relevant information should be developed. 

GRSG-FM-GL-009-Guideline – Localized maps of priority and 

general habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas should 

be provided to dispatch officers and extended attack incident 

commanders to use when prioritizing wildfire suppression 

resources and designing suppression tactics. 

GRSG-FM-GL-010-Guideline - In or near priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, a greater sage‐

grouse resource advisor should be assigned to all extended attack 

fires. 

GRSG-FM-GL-011-Guideline – On critical fire weather days, 

additional fire suppression resources should be pre‐positioned to 

optimize a quick and efficient response into priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas. 

GRSG-FM-GL-012-Guideline - During periods of multiple fires, 

line officers should be involved in setting priorities to help protect 

priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas. 

GRSG-FM-GL-013-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, consider using fire 

retardant and mechanized equipment only if it is likely to result in 

minimizing burned acreage. 

GRSG-FM-GL-014-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, mop‐up should be 

conducted where the burned areas adjoin unburned islands, 

doglegs, or other habitat features, as safety and available resources 

allows. 

11 Integrated vegetation management would be used to control, 

suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive 

species per BLM Handbook H-1740-2. Manage weed treatments 

to maintain and improve greater sage-grouse habitat. Apply 

Required Design Features and BMPs as Conditions of Approval, 

such as those in Appendix B. 

Integrated vegetation management would be used to control, 

suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive 

species per Forest Service Manual 2080. Manage weed treatments 

to maintain and improve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

13 As new occupied sage-grouse habitat is found or occurs either 

through additional inventories or expansion into previously 

unoccupied habitat, the BLM will incorporate, through 

appropriate processes and analyses, these areas into the GHMA 

sage-grouse habitat category and manage them as such, until the 

earliest review occurs by the SGIT. At that time they will be 

considered for PHMA status or continue to be managed as 

GHMA habitat, and will be added to the statewide map at that 

time. 

As new occupied sage-grouse habitat is found or occurs either 

through additional inventories or expansion into previously 

unoccupied habitat, the Forest Service will incorporate these areas 

into priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush 

focal areas through appropriate processes and analyses. 

14 Contribute to actions that help to ground-truth the statewide sage-grouse seasonal habitat models for the State of Wyoming. 

262 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 Use the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework or best available assessment tool (approved by the AO/Responsible Official) when 

assessing or evaluating sage-grouse habitats at multiple scales. 

17 Many sage-grouse seasonal habitats within and outside of PHMA 

are encumbered by valid existing rights, such as mineral leases or 

existing rights-of-way. Fluid mineral leases often will include 

less stringent lease stipulations than the timing, distance, and 

density requirements identified for consideration in this plan. The 

BLM will work with proponents holding valid existing leases that 

include less stringent lease stipulations than the timing, distance, 

and density restrictions described within this plan to ensure that 

measurable sage-grouse conservation objectives (such as, but not 

limited to, consolidation of infrastructure to reduce habitat 

fragmentation and loss, and effective conservation of seasonal 

habitats and habitat connectivity to support management 

objectives set by the WGFD) are included in all project 

proposals. 

GRSG-M-FML-GL-002-Guideline – On existing federal leases in 

priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, when surface occupancy cannot be restricted due to valid 

existing rights or development requirements, disturbance and 

surface occupancy should be limited to areas least harmful to 

greater sage-grouse, based on vegetation, topography, or other 

habitat features. 

18 Areas within PHMA would be limited to designated roads, 

primitive roads, and trails. Individual route designations will 

occur during subsequent implementation level travel 

management planning. Until implementation level travel 

management plans and route designations are complete, 

motorized travel will be limited to existing roads, and trails. 

Motorized travel on National Forest System lands is limited to 

designated roads and trails. 

19 Complete activity-level travel plans within five years of the ROD 

for this planning effort. During activity level planning, where 

appropriate, designate routes in PHMA with current 

administrative/agency purpose or need to administrative access 

only. Existing plans should be assessed for consistency with 

sage-grouse conservation objectives. 

Motorized travel plans have been completed for National Forest 

System Lands. Existing plans will be assessed periodically for 

consistency with greater sage-grouse habitat needs. 

20 Construct roads needed for production activities to minimum design standards within PHMAs, in compliance with the Density and 

Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) process. 

21 Field Office and Ranger District staff will work with project proponents (including those within the BLM/Forest Service) and the WGFD to 

site their projects in locations that meet the purpose and need for their project, but have been determined to contain the least sensitive 

habitats. 

22 Evaluate opportunities to coordinate management plans and strategies on multiple allotments where coordination under a single 

management plan/strategy would result in enhancing Greater Sage-Grouse populations or its habitat, as determined in coordination with the 

state wildlife agency and with project proponents, partners, and stakeholders. 

25 All existing LUP decisions will be retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in these LUP amendments. Where more restrictive land 

use allocations or decisions are made in existing RMPs, those more restrictive land use allocations or decisions will remain in effect and will 

not be amended by these LUP amendments. 

26 Fire and fuels management would contribute to the protection 

and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that support Greater SageGrouse populations (including large contiguous blocks of 

sagebrush). 

See GRSG-FM-GL-001-Guideline at MA #114. 

27 BLM planning units (Districts), in coordination with the USFWS and relevant state agencies, would complete and continue to update 

Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire & Invasive Species Habitat Assessments to prioritize at-risk habitats, and identify fuels 

management, preparedness, suppression and restoration priorities necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations. These assessments and subsequent assessment updates would also be a coordinated effort with an 

interdisciplinary team to take into account other Greater Sage-Grouse priorities identified in this plan. Appendix J describes a minimal 

framework example and suggested approach for this assessment. 

Implementation actions will be tiered to the Local (District) Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire & Invasive Species Assessment 

using the best available science related to the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse. 

In coordination with USFWS and relevant state agencies, the BLM planning units (Districts) will identify annual treatment needs for 

wildfire and invasive species management as identified in local unit level Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments. Annual 

treatment needs will be coordinated across state/regional scales and across jurisdictional boundaries for long-term conservation of Greater 

Sage-Grouse. 

263 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These landscape assessment implementation efforts will be reviewed annually with appropriate USFWS and state agency personnel. 

28 Implement a coordinated inter-agency approach to fire restrictions based upon National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) thresholds 

(fuel conditions, drought conditions, and predicted weather patterns) for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

29 Within acceptable risk levels, utilize a full range of fire management strategies and tactics, including the management of wildfires to 

achieve resource objectives across the range of sage-grouse habitat consistent with land use plan direction. 

29a In order to avoid surface-disturbing activities in PHMA, priority 

will be given to development of oil and gas and other mineral 

resources outside of PHMA, subject to applicable stipulations. 

When authorizing development of oil and gas and other mineral 

resources in PHMA, subject to applicable stipulations for the 

conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse, priority will be given to 

development in non-habitat areas first and then in the least 

suitable habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

GRSG-M-FMUL-GL-001-Guideline – In priority and general 

habitat management areas, when analyzing leasing of fluid mineral 

resources, prioritize development in non-habitat areas first and then 

in the least suitable habitat for greater sage-grouse, subject to valid 

existing rights, law, and regulations. 

139 Designate Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA) as shown on Map 2-36 (1,915,989 acres). SFAs will be managed as PHMA, with the following 

additional management: 

1) Recommended for withdrawal from the General Mining Act of 1872, subject to valid existing rights, the lands shown in Map 

2-23 (252,161 acres). 

2) Prioritized for management and conservation actions in these areas, including, but not limited to review of livestock grazing 

permits/leases (see livestock grazing section for additional actions). 

Lands and Realty Management 

Rights-of-Way (e.g., Power lines, Transmission, Wind Energy Projects) 

30 Sage-grouse PHMA would be managed as ROW avoidance areas 

for new ROW or SUA permits (Map 2-13). 

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-001-Standard – In priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, restrict issuance of 

new special use authorizations for infrastructure, such as highvoltage transmission lines, major pipelines hydropower, 

distribution lines, and cellular towers (Map 2-13). Exceptions must 

be limited and based on rationale (e.g., monitoring, modeling, or 

best available science) that explicitly demonstrates that adverse 

impacts to greater sage-grouse will be avoided with the exception. 

30a No similar action GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-002-Standard – In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not 

authorize temporary lands special use permits (i.e., facilities or 

activities) that result in loss of habitat or would have long-term 

(i.e., greater than five years) negative impact on greater sage-grouse 

or their habitats. 

31 Within GHMA where new ROWs/SUAs are necessary, new 

ROWs/SUAs would be co-located within existing ROWs/SUAs 

where technically feasible. 

Appropriate sage-grouse seasonal timing constraints would be 

applied. 

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-006-Standard – In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, locate 

upgrades to existing transmission lines within the existing 

designated corridors unless an alternate route would benefit greater 

sage-grouse or their habitats. 

32 Sage-grouse PHMA: 

New transmission projects would be allowed only 1) within the 

2-mile wide transmission line route through sage-grouse PHMA 

(core only) population areas in south-central and southwestern 

Wyoming (see Map 2-15 from EO 2011-5); 2) when co-located 

with an existing 115 kilovolt or greater powerline, as close as 

technically feasible, not to exceed 0.5 miles or within a 

designated corridor authorized for overhead powerlines. Projects 

in designated corridors and along these routes will not be counted 

against the 5% disturbance cap (Wyoming Density and 

Disturbance Calculation Tool Manual). 

New transmission projects proposed outside of these areas would 

be considered where it can be demonstrated that declines in sageGRSG-LR-SUA-ST-004-Standard – In priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, new power 

transmission projects must be located within the 2-mile wide 

transmission line route in south-central and southwestern Wyoming 

(see Map 2-15) or as close as technically feasible (within 0.5 mile) 

on either side of existing 115 kV or larger transmission lines or 

corridors (creating a route no wider than 1 mile). These projects 

will not be counted against the 5% disturbance cap (Wyoming 

Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool Manual). 

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-005-Standard - In priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, new power 

distribution lines must not be located within 0.6 miles from the 

perimeter of occupied greater sage-grouse leks. Effective mitigation 

to protect greater sage-grouse is required. 

264 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

grouse populations could be avoided through project design 

and/or mitigation. 

In conducting review of power line transmission proposals, the 

use of the Framework for Sage-grouse Impacts Analysis for 

Interstate Transmission Lines or other appropriate documents are 

necessary. These transmission and distributions lines should be 

sited to minimize any potential impact on sage-grouse or their 

habitats, and must consider siting along or adjacent to existing 

long-term linear disturbance features whenever possible (i.e., 

along existing occupied above ground utilities, roads). 

New projects within sage-grouse PHMA that may require future 

distribution and transmission lines would include the proposed 

distribution and transmission lines in their DDCT as part of the 

proposed disturbance. Lines permitted but not located in the 

above mentioned routes or a designated corridor will be counted 

towards the 5% disturbance calculation (line disturbance is equal 

to ROW width multiplied by length and includes all access roads, 

staging areas, and other surface disturbance associated with 

construction outside of the ROW). 

New Distribution Lines: 

New electric distribution lines would be buried where feasible. If 

not feasible, distribution lines may be authorized when 

effectively mitigated to protect greater sage-grouse and the 

Authorized Officer determines that overhead installation is the 

action alternative with the fewest adverse impacts. Agricultural 

and residential lines will be considered to be adequately 

mitigated for greater sage-grouse if constructed at least 0.6 mile 

from the lek perimeter with appropriate timing constraints and 

constructed to the latest APLIC standards. These ROW 

authorizations will be subject to approval by the State Director. 

PHMAs are designated as avoidance areas for high voltage 

transmission line ROWs, except for the transmission projects 

specifically identified below. All authorizations in these areas, 

other than the excepted projects, must comply with the 

conservation measures outlined in this proposed plan, including 

the RDFs and avoidance criteria presented in Appendix B of this 

document. The BLM is currently processing an application for 

Gateway South and the NEPA review for this project is well 

underway. The BLM is analyzing Greater Sage-Grouse 

mitigation measures through the project’s NEPA review process. 

See all Standards and Guidelines in the Timing, Distance, Density, 

and Disturbance section and see GRSG-INFRA-GL-001-

Guideline. 

GRSG-LR-SUA-GL-002-Guideline – In priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, outside of existing 

designated corridors, new transmission lines and pipelines should be 

buried to limit disturbance to the smallest footprint unless explicit 

rationale is provided that the biological impacts to greater sagegrouse are being avoided. When new transmission lines and 

pipelines are not buried, locate them adjacent to existing 

transmission lines and pipelines. 

34 Maintenance/replacement of existing structures would be allowed 

subject to valid and existing rights. Upgrades would be 

considered, subject to mandatory Required Design Features 

(RDF) (Appendix B). 

Existing guy wires should be removed or appropriately marked 

with bird flight diverters to make them more visible to sagegrouse in flight. Powerlines (distribution and transmission) will 

be designed to minimize wildlife related impacts and constructed 

to the latest APLIC standards. 

See GRSG-INFRA-GL-001-Guideline at MA #10. 

35 Where existing authorizations, ROWs, or SUAs have had some 

level of development (e.g., road, fence, and well) and are expired 

and are no longer in use, the site would be reclaimed by 

removing these features and restoring the habitat. Powerlines 

(distribution and transmission) will be designed to minimize 

wildlife related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC 

standards. 

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-003-Standard - In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, when a lands 

special use authorization is revoked or terminated and no future use 

is contemplated, the authorization holder must remove overhead 

lines and other infrastructure in compliance with 36 CFR 251.60(i). 

Renewable Energy 

265 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36 Wind energy development would be avoided in sage-grouse 

PHMA (Map 2-33), and not allowed unless it can be sufficiently 

demonstrated that the development activity would not result in 

declines of sage-grouse PHMA populations. 

Sufficient demonstration of “no declines” should be coordinated 

with the WGFD and USFWS. Areas that are currently 

unavailable due to the need to protect sensitive resources would 

remain unavailable to wind energy development1

. 

GRSG-WS-GL-001-Guideline – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, restrict authorization of wind 

utility-scale and/or commercial energy development except for onsite power generation associated with existing industrial 

infrastructure (e.g., mine site). 

38 The use of guy wires for MET tower supports would be avoided 

within sage-grouse PHMA. All existing and any new unavoidable 

guy wires should be marked with recommended bird deterrent 

devices. 

The siting of new temporary MET towers within sage-grouse 

PHMA would be avoided within 2 miles of occupied sage-grouse 

leks, unless they are out of the direct line of sight of the occupied 

lek. 

GRSG-LR-SUA-GL-001-Guideline - Authorization of new 

temporary MET towers should be avoided in priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas within two miles of 

active greater sage-grouse leks, unless they are out of direct line of 

sight of the occupied lek. 

Land Tenure Adjustments (Acquisitions, Land Exchanges, Transfers and Sales) 

40 Lands classified as PHMAs for Greater Sage-Grouse would be 

retained in federal management unless: (1) the agency can 

demonstrate that disposal of the lands will provide a net 

conservation gain to the Greater Sage-Grouse or (2) the agency 

can demonstrate that the disposal of the lands will have no direct 

or indirect adverse impact on conservation of the Greater SageGrouse. 

Exceptions would be considered where there is mixed ownership 

and land exchanges would allow for additional or more 

contiguous federal ownership patterns within PHMAs. 

For PHMAs with minority federal ownership, an additional, 

effective mitigation agreement would be included for any 

disposal of federal land. As a final preservation measure, 

consideration should be given to pursuing a permanent 

conservation easement. 

For lands in General Habitat Management Areas that are 

identified for disposal, the BLM will only dispose of such lands 

consistent with the goals and objectives of this plan, including, 

but not limited to, the land use plan goal to conserve, recover, 

and enhance sage-grouse habitat on a landscape scale. 

GRSG-LR-LOA-ST-001-Standard – In priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not approve land 

ownership adjustments that would result in a net loss or degradation 

of greater sage-grouse habitat. Exceptions include when there is 

mixed ownership and adjustments would allow for additional or 

more contiguous federal ownership patterns that support improved 

greater sage-grouse population trends and habitats. 

41 Areas where acquisitions (including subsurface mineral rights) or conservation easements would benefit sage-grouse habitat would be 

identified. 

42 Sage-grouse habitat requirements would be utilized to prioritize 

parcels for exchange or acquisition within sage-grouse PHMA. 

See GRSG-LR-LOA-ST-001-Standard at MA #40. 

43 Within sage-grouse PHMA, non-mineral withdrawals would be 

evaluated to determine if the withdrawal action is consistent with 

sage-grouse conservation. 

GRSG-LR-LW-GL-001-Guideline – In priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, utilize land 

withdrawals as a tool, where appropriate and subject to valid 

existing rights, to prevent activities that will be detrimental to 

greater sage-grouse or their habitats. 

Livestock Grazing Management 

45 The BLM/Forest Service would work cooperatively with permittees, lessees, and other landowners to develop voluntary grazing 

management strategies that integrate both public and private lands into single management units to improve sage-grouse habitat. 

Livestock Grazing Permit Monitoring 

46 GRSG-LG-GL-001-Guideline - Grazing guidelines in table 3 

should be applied in each of the seasonal habitats as displayed. If 

values in table 3 cannot be achieved based upon a site-specific 

analysis using Ecological Site Descriptions, long-term ecological 

266 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

site capability analysis, or other similar analysis, adjust grazing 

management to move towards desired habitat conditions in table 3 

consistent with the ecological site capability. Table 3 Do not use 

drought and degraded habitat condition to adjust values. Grazing 

guidelines in table 3 would not apply to isolated parcels of National 

Forest System lands that have less than 200 acres of greater sagegrouse habitat. 

GRSG-LG-GL-002-Guideline – On the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland, if 90% or more of the allotment falls within nesting or 

brood rearing habitat, 25% of the allotment would be exempted 

from the breeding/nesting residual perennial grass height guidelines 

in Table 3. 

GRSG-LG-GL-008-Guideline – On the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland, where general habitat management areas overlap with 

Management Area 8.4 (Mineral Production), Management Area 

3.63 (Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat), or other 

designated areas for short-grass species, livestock grazing should 

be managed to meet the objectives for that Management Area. 

Permit Renewals 

48 The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock 

grazing permits/leases that include lands within SFAs and 

PHMAs will include specific management thresholds based on 

GRSG Habitat Objectives Table and Land Health Standards (43 

CFR 4180.2) and defined responses that will allow the 

authorizing officer to make adjustments to livestock grazing 

without conducting additional NEPA. 

See GRSG-LG-GL-001-Guideline in MA #46. 

49 BLM monitoring would be used to evaluate progress toward 

achieving land health standards within PHMAs and, where not 

achieved, to determine if existing grazing management practices 

or levels of grazing use on public lands are significant factors in 

failing to meet, maintain or make progress towards achieving the 

standards and conform with the guidelines, which through this 

process will identify appropriate actions to address nonachievement and non-conformance. 

Allotments within SFAs, followed by those within PHMAs, and 

focusing on those containing riparian areas, including wet 

meadows, will be prioritized for field checks to help ensure 

compliance with the terms and conditions of the grazing permits. 

Field checks could include monitoring for actual use, utilization, 

and use supervision. 

The BLM will prioritize (1) the review of grazing permits/leases, 

in particular to determine if modification is necessary prior to 

renewal, and (2) the processing of grazing permits/leases in SFAs 

followed by PHMAs outside of the SFAs. In setting workload 

priorities, precedence will be given to existing permits/leases in 

these areas not meeting Land Health Standards, with focus on 

those containing riparian areas, including wet meadows. The 

BLM may use other criteria for prioritization to respond to urgent 

natural resource concerns (e.g., fire) and legal obligations. 

See GRSG-LG-GL-001-Guideline in MA #46. 

50 At the time a permittee or lessee voluntarily relinquishes a permit 

or lease, the BLM will consider whether the public lands where 

that permitted use was authorized should remain available for 

livestock grazing or be used for other resource management 

objectives. 

GRSG-LG-GL-003-Guideline – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, when livestock grazing permits 

and/or grazing preference are voluntarily relinquished, consider 

closure of grazing allotments, pastures, or portions of pastures, or 

managing the allotment as a forage reserve where removal of 

livestock grazing would enhance the ability to achieve desired 

habitat conditions displayed in Table 2. 

267 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52 When periods of drought occur, where appropriate, the AO would evaluate strategies to address drought through coordination with 

grazing permittee/lessee and annual billings processes. 

In cooperation with livestock grazing permittees/lessees, drought contingency plans would be developed at the appropriate landscape 

unit that provide for a consistent/appropriate BLM/Forest Service response. Contingency plans should establish strategies for addressing 

ongoing drought and post-drought recovery. 

Range Development Projects 

53 In sage-grouse GHMA and PHMA, existing range improvements (e.g., fences, livestock/wildlife watering facilities) would continue to be 

evaluated and modified when necessary. 

The potential risk to Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitats from existing structural range improvements would be evaluated. The potential 

for modification of those structural range improvements identified as posing a risk would be addressed. 

Supplements and supplemental feeding would continue to be authorized where appropriate. 

Livestock Trailing 

54 Livestock trailing that is authorized would include a trailing plan 

to utilize non-habitat to the extent possible, include specific 

routes and timeframes for trailing, utilize existing trails, and 

avoid stopovers on occupied leks, as appropriate. 

GRSG-LG-GL-005-Guideline –Trailing livestock should be 

routed through non-habitat, to the extent feasible or in areas that 

will minimize impacts to greater sage-grouse and their habitats. 

Specific routes and timeframes should be identified, existing trails 

should be used, and stopovers on occupied leks should be 

restricted. 

GRSG-LG-GL-004-Guideline - Domestic sheep bedding areas 

and herder camps should be located in areas of least conflict with 

greater sage-grouse seasonal uses. Bedding sheep and locating 

camps within 0.6 mi of a lek in priority habitat management areas 

and sagebrush focal areas should be avoided during lekking (March 

1 to May 15). 

Riparian Area Management 

55 Grazing between riparian habitats and upland habitats would be 

balanced to promote the production and availability of beneficial 

forbs to Greater Sage-Grouse for use during nesting and broodrearing. Grazing in meadows, mesic habitats, and riparian 

pastures also would be balanced to promote the production and 

availability of beneficial grasses and forbs for use during late 

brood-rearing within sage-grouse PHMA, while maintaining 

upland conditions and functions. 

See GRSG-LG-GL-001-Guideline at MA #46 

56 Range improvement projects would be planned and authorized in 

a way that contributes to rangeland health and maintains and/or 

improves Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. 

GRSG-LG-GL-006-Guideline – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, new permanent livestock facilities 

(except fences) should not be constructed within 0.6 miles from the 

perimeter of occupied leks. In general habitat management areas, 

new permanent livestock facilities should not be constructed within 

0.25 miles of occupied leks. 

57 Existing water developments associated with springs and seeps would be evaluated and associated pipelines/structures to those 

developments having a negative effect on sage-grouse PHMA would be modified. 

Minerals Management 

Exceptions to lease stipulations, Conditions of Approval, and terms and conditions 

58 Exceptions waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, 

COAs, and T&Cs, etc. for sage-grouse would continue to be 

considered on a case-by-case basis consistent with approved 

LUPs and other BLM policy and regulations as they relate to 

exceptions within sage-grouse PHMA and GHMA. 

GRSG-TDDD-ST-010-Standard – On a case-by-case basis, and 

only when it can be demonstrated that activity will not cause 

declines in greater sage-grouse populations, allow exceptions, 

modifications, and waivers for Standards GRSG-TDDD-ST-003, 

004, 005, 006, 007, 008, and 009 . The authorized officer may grant 

an exception if a review determines that the action, as proposed or 

conditioned, would not impair the function or utility of the site for 

the current or subsequent seasonal habitat, life-history, or 

behavioral needs of greater sage-grouse. 

268 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fluid Minerals Unleased Estate 

60 The BLM would allow oil and gas leasing consistent and subject 

to the leasing stipulations analyzed in the timing, distance, 

disturbance, and density restrictions sections (Map 2-8). 

GRSG-M-FMUL-ST-001-Standard - In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, new oil and 

gas leases may be offered consistent and subject to the leasing 

stipulations displayed in the timing, distance, disturbance, and 

density restrictions standards in section GRSG-TDDD. 

61 A minimum lease size of 640 contiguous acres of federal mineral 

estate would be applied within sage-grouse PHMA. 

Preliminary parcels reviewed for possible offering in a lease sale 

should comply with this minimum lease size. Expressions of 

interest that are less than this minimum lease size would be 

evaluated and modified by the BLM to meet the minimum lease 

size, where possible, prior to review for possible offering in a 

lease sale. 

The Forest Service does not have jurisdiction over lease size 

requirements. 

62 Geophysical exploration projects that are designed to minimize 

habitat fragmentation within sage-grouse PHMA would be 

allowed, except were prohibited or restricted by existing LUP 

decisions. 

GRSG-M-FMUL-ST-002-Standard – In priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, require geophysical 

exploration projects to be designed to minimize habitat 

fragmentation. 

63 In cases where federal oil and gas leases have been issued with 

stipulations varying from those in Appendix E for the protection 

of sage-grouse or their habitats being provided in the applicable 

LUP decision, as revised or amended, their inclusion as permit 

COAs would be considered when approving exploration and 

development activities through completion of the environmental 

record of review (43 CFR 3162.5 and 36 CFR 228.108), 

including appropriate documentation of compliance with NEPA. 

Overall consideration shall be given to minimizing the impact to 

sage-grouse through a project design that avoids, minimizes, 

reduces, rectifies, and/or adequately compensates for direct and 

indirect impacts to sage-grouse PHMA or use and includes 

applicable and technical COAs. Selection and application of 

these measures shall be based on current science and research on 

the effects to important breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and 

wintering areas. For proposed operations in PHMA, the Surface 

Use Plan of Operations (see 43CFR 3162.3-1(f)) shall address, at 

a minimum, the anticipated noise, density and amount of 

disturbance, mechanical movement (e.g., pump jacks), permanent 

and temporary facilities, traffic, phases of development over 

time, offsite mitigation, and expected periods of use associated 

with the proposed project. Seasonal habitats or project features 

related to potential sage-grouse impacts that are not addressed in 

the SUPO based on site-specific or project-specific 

considerations shall be noted in the project file, along with a 

rationale for not including them. 

GRSG-M-FML-ST-001-Standard – In priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas when approving the 

Surface Use Plan of Operation portion of the Application for Permit 

to Drill on existing leases that are not yet developed, require that 

leaseholders avoid and minimize surface disturbances and 

disruptive activities. If impacts from surface disturbance and 

disruptive activities remain after avoidance and minimization 

strategies, require leaseholders to provide timely, durable 

compensatory mitigation projects to offset residual impacts. Valid 

existing rights would be recognized. 

GRSG-M-FML-ST-004-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, when authorizing 

development of fluid mineral resources, prioritize development in 

non-habitat areas first and then in the least suitable habitat for 

greater sage-grouse, subject to valid existing rights, law, and 

regulations. 

GRSG-M-FML-GL-001-Guideline – In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas on existing 

leases, operators should be encouraged to reduce disturbance to 

greater sage-grouse habitat. At the time of approval of the Surface 

Use Plan of Operation portion of the Application for Permit to 

Drill, terms and conditions should be included to reduce 

disturbance to greater sage-grouse habitat, where appropriate and 

feasible and consistent with the rights granted to the lessee. Valid 

existing rights would be recognized and respected. 

In this process the BLM would evaluate, among other things: 

1. Whether the conservation measure is “reasonable” (43 CFR 

3101.1-2) and consistent with valid existing rights 

2. Whether the action is in conformance with the approved 

LUP; and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation 

measures. 

The BLM would work with project proponents in these situations 

to promote measurable sage-grouse conservation objectives such 

as, but not limited to, consolidation of project related 

infrastructure to reduce habitat fragmentation and loss and to 

promote effective conservation of seasonal habitats and 

connectivity areas that support population management 

objectives set by the State. 

See GRSG-M-FML-GL-002-Guideline at MA #17. 

269 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The BLM would continue to work with project proponents 

(including those from within the BLM) and the WGFD to site 

their projects in locations that meet the purpose and need for their 

project, but have been determined to contain the least sensitive 

habitats (based on vegetation, topography, or other habitat 

features) and resources whether inside or outside of PHMA. 

Valid existing rights would be recognized and respected. 

Fluid Minerals Leased Estate 

66 Master Development Plans would be considered and encouraged for projects involving multiple proposed disturbances within sage-grouse 

PHMA. 

67 Within sage-grouse PHMA, unitization would be encouraged as a 

means of minimizing adverse impacts to sage-grouse to reduce 

fragmentation and surface disturbing and disruptive activities. 

Require unitization when deemed necessary for proper 

development and operation of an area or to facilitate more 

orderly (e.g., phased and/or clustered) development as a means of 

minimizing adverse impacts to resources, including Greater 

Sage-Grouse, so long as the unitization plan adequately protects 

the rights of all parties, including the United States. 

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-005-Guideline – In priority and general 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas to keep habitat 

disturbance at a minimum, a phased development approach should 

be applied to fluid mineral operations, wherever possible, 

consistent with the rights granted under the lease. Disturbed areas 

should be reclaimed as soon as they are no longer needed for 

mineral operations. 

68 For proposed actions in sage-grouse PHMA, determine whether a categorical exclusion is applicable and if so, closely examine the 

extraordinary circumstances, if applicable, to determine whether one or more exists that would require preparation of a NEPA analysis. 

If a categorical exclusion applies, and no extraordinary circumstances exist, determine whether preparing a NEPA analysis would help 

inform decision making. 

69 A reclamation bond would be required on all projects that is commensurate with the scope, scale, size of the project within sage-grouse 

PHMAs. Partial bonding may be appropriate depending on these factors. 

69a No similar action GRSG-M-FML-ST-002-Standard – In priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, when facilities are no 

longer needed or leases are relinquished, require reclamation plans 

to include terms and conditions to restore habitat to desired 

conditions as displayed in Table 2. 

71 Where the federal government owns the mineral estate, and the 

surface is in non-federal ownership, apply the same stipulations, 

COAs, and/or conservation measures and RDFs applied if the 

mineral estate is developed on BLM-administered lands in that 

management area, to the maximum extent permissible under 

existing authorities, and in coordination with the landowner. 

The Forest Service has no jurisdiction over mineral estate when 

they are not the surface owner. The BLM is solely responsible for 

mineral estate under non-federal surface ownership. 

72 Where the federal government owns the surface and the mineral 

estate is in non-federal ownership, apply appropriate surface use 

COAs, stipulations, and mineral RDFs through ROW grants or 

other surface management instruments, to the maximum extent 

permissible under existing authorities, in coordination with the 

mineral estate owner/lessee. 

GRSG-M-FML-GL-003-Guideline - In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, where the 

federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate is in 

non-federal ownership coordinate with the mineral estate 

owner/lessee to apply appropriate stipulations, conditions of 

approval, conservation measures and required design features to the 

appropriate surface management instruments to the maximum 

extent permissible under existing authorities. 

Solid Leasable Minerals 

75 At the time an application for a new coal lease or lease 

modification is submitted to the BLM, the BLM will determine 

whether the lease application area is "unsuitable" for all or certain 

coal mining methods pursuant to 43 CFR 3461.5. PHMA is 

essential habitat for maintaining Greater Sage-Grouse for 

purposes of the suitability criteria set forth at 43 CFR 

3461.5(o)(1). 

GRSG-M-CM-ST-002-Standard – Priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas are essential habitat for maintaining 

greater sage-grouse for purposes of the suitability criteria set forth at 

43 CFR 3461.5(o)(1). 

76 Upon receipt of a coal lease application proposing underground 

mining methods that include surface operations and impacts 

within sage-grouse PHMAs, Criterion 15 would be applied and 

GRSG-M-CMUL-ST-001-Standard – Apply all restrictions listed 

in the Timing, Distance, Density and Disturbance section to coal 

exploration and new coal lease projects. 

270 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the area would be identified as suitable for further coal leasing 

consideration after consultation with the state and, where 

applicable, surface management agency to determine that all or 

certain stipulated methods of coal mining will not have a 

significant long-term impact on sage-grouse. Stipulated methods 

may include, but not limited to, underground mining methods 

with no placement of surface facilities. 

Unsuitability is not applied to underground operations without 

surface impacts (43 CFR 3461.1) This would be consistent with 

IM WY-2012-019, which says that the BLM will assess potential 

impacts to sage-grouse through the NEPA process, and that the 

State regulatory agency would apply this mitigation, as well 

protective measures consistent with the State Policy for solid 

leasable mining action at the permitting stage. 

77 Coal exploration activities could be allowed in sage-grouse 

PHMAs if they can be completed in compliance to surface 

occupancy and disturbance and density stipulations analyzed 

through the DDCT process. 

See GRSG-M-CMUL-ST-001-Standard at MA #76. 

GRSG-M-CML-GL-001-Guideline – In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, when coal 

leases are subject to readjustment, additional requirements should 

be included in the readjusted lease to protect and reduce threats to 

greater sage-grouse and their habitats to conserve, enhance, and 

restore habitat for long-term viability. 

Solid Leasable Minerals (Other than Coal and Oil Shale) 

78 Exploration licenses and prospecting permits would be 

considered with appropriate mitigating measures. 

All non-energy leasable mineral activities would be considered in 

sage-grouse PHMAs, provided that the activities can be 

completed in compliance to surface occupancy and disturbance 

and density stipulations (Map 2-28) analyzed through the DDCT 

process. 

GRSG-M-NEL-GL-001-Guideline – In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, at the time of 

issuance of prospecting permits, exploration licenses and leases, or 

readjustment of leases for non-energy leasable minerals, the Forest 

Service should provide recommendations to the Bureau of Land 

Management for the protection of greater sage-grouse and their 

habitats. Apply all restrictions listed in the Timing, Distance, 

Density and Disturbance section to non-energy leasable minerals 

exploration and development. 

GRSG-M-NEL-GL-002-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, the Forest Service 

should recommend to the Bureau of Land Management that 

expansion or readjustment of existing leases avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate the effects to greater sage-grouse and their habitat. 

Locatable Mineral Activities 

79 1,761,547 acres are withdrawn from mineral entry for the 

protection of sensitive resources. 

252,161 acres within SFAs (see management action 139 for 

identification of SFAs) would be recommended for withdrawal 

from the General Mining Act of 1872, subject to valid existing 

rights. 894,061 acres would be considered for recommendation for 

withdrawal from mineral entry, based on risk to sage-grouse and 

its habitat from conflicting locatable mineral potential and 

development. A total of approximately 20,357,626 acres are open 

to locatable mineral entry (Map 2-23).Operators may be requested 

to submit modifications to the accepted notice or approved plan of 

operations so that the operations minimally impact PHMAs. The 

AO may convey to the operator suggested conservation measures, 

based upon the notice or plan level operations and the geographic 

area of those operations [also called the project area which is 

defined in 43 CFR 3809.5 and 36 CFR 228.3. 

These suggested conservation measures include measures that 

support the overall goals and objectives of the core population 

area strategy, though measures listed for protection of sage-grouse 

breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering may not be 

GRSG-M-LM-ST-001-Standard – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, approve Plans of Operation with 

mitigation to protect greater sage-grouse and their habitats, 

consistent with the rights of the mining claimant as granted by the 

Mining Law of 1872, as amended. Apply all restrictions listed in 

the Timing, Distance, Density and Disturbance section (GRSGTDDD) to locatable minerals exploration and development. 

GRSG-M-LM-ST-002-Standard – The disturbance cap described 

in GRSG-TDDD-ST-009-Standard will not be applied to foreclose 

development of locatable minerals on unpatented claims located 

under the General Mining Act of 1872, as amended; the disturbance 

from locatable mining will be accounted for in determining the 

percent disturbance and whether the cap has been exceeded. 

271 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reasonable or applicable to the BLM’s determination of whether 

the proposed operations will cause unnecessary or undue 

degradation under 43 CFR 3809.5 and 36 CFR 228.3. The request 

containing the suggested conservation measures must make clear 

that the operator’s compliance is not mandatory. 

Notices or Plans of Operation, or modifications thereto, 

submitted following the issuance of this guidance: As part of the 

15 day completeness review of notices [or modifications thereto] 

and 30 day completeness review of plans of operations [or 

modifications thereto], the proposed project area(s) where 

exploration, development, mining, access and reclamation would 

take place should be reviewed for overlap of PHMAs in the 

corporate GIS database. If there is overlap, the BLM AO may 

notify the operator of ways that they may minimize impacts to 

PHMAs and request the operator to amend its notice or plan to 

include such measures. The request to amend the submitted 

notice or plan of operations must make clear that the operator’s 

compliance is not mandatory and that including such measures is 

not a requirement for completeness of either the notice or a plan 

of operations, nor is it a condition of acceptance of the notice or 

approval of the plan of operations. 

Salable Minerals 

80 All salable mineral activities within sage-grouse PHMAs would 

be considered, provided they can be completed in compliance 

within surface occupancy, seasonal restrictions, and disturbance 

and density stipulations (Map 2-18) analyzed through the DDCT 

process. 

GRSG-M-MM-ST-001-Standard – Apply all restrictions listed in 

the Timing, Distance, Density and Disturbance section to 

authorizations for mineral material sales and free use. 

81 Closure and restoration of salable mineral pits no longer in use 

would be considered to meet sage-grouse habitat conservation 

objectives. Emphasis would be given to reclamation/restoration 

of sage-grouse PHMAs as a viable long term goal to improve 

sage-grouse habitat. 

GRSG-M-MM-ST-002-Standard - Permits for mineral material 

operations in priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, must include appropriate requirements for 

reclamation of the site to restore, enhance, or maintain desired 

habitat conditions displayed in Table 2. 

Recreation and Visitor Services 

Outdoor Recreation Management 

82 BLM SRPs would be allowed in sage-grouse PHMAs, unless 

negative impacts to sage-grouse cannot be adequately mitigated. 

GRSG-R-ST-001-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not authorize 

temporary recreation uses (i.e., facilities or activities) that result in 

loss of habitat or would have long-term (i.e., greater than 5 years) 

negative impact on greater sage-grouse or their habitats. 

GRSG-R-GL-001-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, terms and conditions 

that protect and restore greater sage-grouse habitats within the 

permit area should be included in new recreation special use 

authorizations. During renewal, amendment, or reauthorization, 

existing permits and operating plans should also be modified. 

82a In PHMAs, do not construct new recreation facilities (e.g., 

campgrounds, trails, trailheads, staging areas) unless the 

development would have a net conservation gain to Greater SageGrouse habitat (such as concentrating recreation, diverting use 

away from critical areas, etc.), or unless the development is 

required for visitor safety or resource protection. 

GRSG-R-GL-002-Guideline – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, new recreational facilities or 

expansion of existing recreational facilities (e.g., roads, trails, 

campgrounds), including special use authorizations for facilities 

and activities, should not be approved unless the development 

results in a net conservation gain to greater sage-grouse and/or their 

habitats (such as concentrating recreation, diverting use away from 

critical areas, etc.) or the development is required for visitor safety. 

Special Designations and Other Management Areas 

272 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

84 New sage-grouse conservation ACECs would not be designated. This LUP amendment would not designate Greater Sage-Grouse 

Special Interest Areas. 

Special Status species 

4 Include the collection of baseline data and outline post-project monitoring components into project planning, as appropriate and 

necessary. 

12 Existing notices and approved plans of operations under 43 CFR 

38097: For projects that overlap PHMAs, operators may be 

requested to submit modifications to the accepted notice or 

approved plan of operations so that the operations minimally 

impact PHMAs (core only). The AO may convey to the operator 

suggested conservation measures, based upon the notice or plan 

level operations and the geographic area of those operations (also 

called the project area, which is defined by the BLM in 43 CFR 

3809.5 and the Forest Service in 36 CFR 228.3). These suggested 

conservation measures include measures that support the overall 

goals and objectives of the priority/core population area strategy 

and may not be reasonable or applicable to the BLM/Forest 

Service’s determination of whether the proposed operations will 

cause unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.5 or 

likely cause a significant disturbance of surface resources under 

36 CFR 228.4. The request containing the suggested conservation 

measures must make clear that the operator’s compliance is not 

mandatory. 

Notices or plans of operation, or modifications thereto, submitted 

following the issuance of this guidance: As part of the 15-day 

completeness review of notices (or modifications thereto) and 30-

day completeness review of plans of operations (or modifications 

thereto), the proposed project area(s) where exploration, 

development, mining, access and reclamation would take place 

should be reviewed for overlap of sage-grouse PHMAs in the 

corporate GIS database. If there is overlap, the BLM/Forest 

Service AO may notify the operator of ways that they may 

minimize impacts to PHMAs (core only) and request the operator 

to amend its notice or plan to include such measures. The request 

to amend the submitted notice or plan of operations must make 

clear that the operator’s compliance is not mandatory and that 

including such measures is not a requirement for completeness of 

either the notice or a plan of operations, nor is it a condition of 

acceptance of the notice or approval of the plan of operations. 

See GRSG-M-LM-ST-001-Standard at MA #79. 

16 The official Wyoming sage-grouse lek database is maintained by the WGFD in accordance with Appendix 4B of the Umbrella 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the WGFD and BLM/Forest Service (WGFD and BLM 1990). 

The MOU states that agencies will meet at least annually to coordinate and review the accuracy of data, and incorporate the most up-to-date 

information. 

137 The Greater Sage-Grouse adaptive management plan (Appendix 

D) provides regulatory assurance that unintended negative impacts 

to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat will be addressed before 

consequences become severe or irreversible. 

Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying when 

potential management changes are needed in order to continue 

meeting Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives. With 

respect to sage-grouse, all regulatory entities in Wyoming, 

including the BLM and FS, use soft and hard triggers. Soft and 

hard triggers are focused on three metrics: 1) number of active 

GRSG-GRSGH-ST-002-Standard - When: 1) annual lek counts, 

wing counts, aerial surveys, habitat monitoring or Density 

Disturbance Calculation Tool evaluations show deviation from 

normal annual fluctuations in greater sage-grouse habitat or 

populations for two consecutive years that may indicate a long-term 

downward trend; or 2) monitoring identifies other negative 

population or habitat anomalies for greater sage-grouse, conduct an 

evaluation to determine causal factors and develop an appropriate 

response strategy. This strategy may include curtailment of 

7 These regulations apply to the exploration and development of locatable minerals on placer claims and lode claims, as well as 

exploration on tunnel sites and mineral processing operations on mill sites The location and maintenance of claims and sites are 

regulated under 43 CFR Subpart 3830. 

273 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

leks, 2) acres of available habitat, and 3) population trends based 

on annual lek counts. 

Soft Triggers Response: 

Soft triggers require immediate monitoring and surveillance to 

determine causal factors and may require curtailment of activities 

in the short- or long-term, as allowed by law. The project level 

adaptive management strategies will identify appropriate 

responses where the project’s activities are identified as the causal 

factor. The management agency (BLM and/or Forest Service) and 

the AMWG will implement an appropriate response strategy to 

address causal factors not attributable to a specific project or to 

make adjustments at a larger regional or state-wide level. 

Hard Trigger Response: 

Upon determination that a hard trigger has been tripped, the BLM 

and/or Forest Service will immediately defer issuance of 

discretionary authorizations for new actions for a period of 90 

days. In addition, within 14 days of a determination that a hard 

trigger has been tripped, the AMWG will convene to develop an 

interim response strategy and initiate an assessment to determine 

the causal factor or factors (hereafter called the causal factor 

assessment). 

activities that may adversely affect greater sage-grouse populations 

or habitat. 

GRSG-GRSGH-ST-003-Standard - Variability in: 1) number of 

active leks; 2) acres of available greater sage-grouse habitat; or 3) 

greater sage-grouse population trends based on lek counts can 

provide catastrophic indicators that greater sage-grouse is not 

responding to conservation measures set forth in the plan or that 

large scale negative impacts to greater sage-grouse populations or 

habitat are occurring. If two of the preceding three indicators 

exceed 60% of normal variability in a year, or one of the preceding 

three indicators exceeds 40% of normal variability for three out of 

any five years, desired conservation results are not being attained 

and within 14 days the Adaptive Management Working Group 

(representatives from the Bureau of Land, Forest Service, US Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and State of Wyoming) will convene to 

develop an interim response strategy and initiate an assessment to 

determine the causal factors. 

138 The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse 9-Plan LUP Amendment will include the requirement for the development of EIS /project-level 

adaptive management strategies in support of the population management objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse set by the State of 

Wyoming (State of WY EO 2011-05). These adaptive management strategies will be developed in partnership with the WGFD, project 

proponents, partners, and stakeholders and will incorporate the best available science. The purpose of these strategies is to address 

localized Greater Sage-Grouse population declines by providing the framework in which management will be changed if monitoring 

identifies significant negative population impacts. The current population objective is to maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Area Population within the State of Wyoming. 

Travel Management 

86 The Casper Field Office Poison Spider OHV Park (290 acres) 

would remain as an “open” OHV area. 

The non-sand dune portions of the following OHV “open” areas 

within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to existing roads 

and trails: 

1. Rawlins Field Office: Dune Pond Cooperative 

Management Area. 

2. Rock Springs Field Office: Portion of the Greater Sand 

Dunes Recreation Area. 

There are no “open” OHV areas on National Forest System Lands 

included in this LUP amendment. 

87 In PHMAs and GHMAs, temporary closures will be considered in 

accordance with 43 CFR subpart 8364 (Closures and 

Restrictions); 43 CFR subpart 8351 (Designated National Area); 

43 CFR subpart 6302 (Use of Wilderness Areas, Prohibited Acts, 

and Penalties); 43 CFR subpart 8341 (Conditions of Use). 

Temporary closure or restriction orders under these authorities 

are enacted at the discretion of the authorized officer to resolve 

management conflicts and protect persons, property, and public 

lands and resources. Where an authorized officer determines that 

off-highway vehicles are causing or will cause considerable 

adverse effects upon soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, 

cultural resources, historical resources, threatened or endangered 

species, wilderness suitability, other authorized uses, or other 

resources, the affected areas shall be immediately closed to the 

type(s) of vehicle causing the adverse effect until the adverse 

effects are eliminated and measures implemented to prevent 

recurrence. (43 CFR 8341.2) A closure or restriction order 

should be considered only after other management strategies and 

alternatives have been explored. The duration of temporary 

Motorized travel is currently limited to designated roads and trails 

on National Forest System lands. 

274 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

closure or restriction orders should be limited to 24 months or 

less; however, certain situations may require longer closures 

and/or iterative temporary closures. This may include closure of 

routes or areas. 

88 New primary and secondary roads would be avoided within 1.9 

miles of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks within sagegrouse PHMA. 

Other new roads would be prohibited within 0.6 miles of the 

perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMA. 

GRSG-RT-ST-001-Standard - Restrict construction of new 

category level 4 and 5 roads within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of 

occupied greater sage-grouse leks within priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas unless construction 

allows decommissioning of an existing route that negatively affects 

greater sage-grouse. 

GRSG-RT-ST-002-Standard - Do not authorize any category of 

road construction within 0.6 miles from the perimeter of occupied 

leks in priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas 

or 0.25 miles from the perimeter of occupied leks in general habitat 

management areas as described in GRSG-TDDD-ST-001 and 002-

Standards. 

89 Within sage-grouse PHMA, no upgrading of existing routes that 

would change route category or capacity would be allowed unless 

the upgrading would have minimal impact on sage-grouse in 

sage-grouse PHMA, was necessary for motorist safety, or 

eliminated the need to construct a new road. 

GRSG-RT-ST-003-Standard - In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not allow upgrading of existing 

routes that would change route category (level 1 through 5) or 

capacity unless the upgrading would have minimal impact on 

greater sage-grouse, is necessary for motorist safety, or eliminates 

the need to construct a new road. 

90 In sage-grouse PHMAs, existing roads or realignments would be 

used to access valid existing rights that are not yet developed. If 

valid existing rights could not be accessed via existing roads, any 

new road would be constructed to the absolute minimum standard 

necessary, and the surface disturbance would be added to the 

total disturbance in the sage-grouse PHMA. If that disturbance 

exceeds 5% for that area, additional, effective mitigation 

necessary would be evaluated and implemented to offset the 

resulting loss of sage-grouse habitat. 

GRSG-RT-ST-004-Standard - If necessary to construct new roads 

and trails in priority habitat management areas or sagebrush focal 

areas for one of the reasons listed in GRSG-RT-ST-003-Standard 

or to access valid existing rights, limit construction to the minimum 

standard, length, and number and avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

impacts. See the Density Disturbance Calculation information 

referenced in Appendix I. 

91 For roads, primitive roads and trails not designated in travel 

management plans within sage-grouse PHMAs, natural 

reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in appropriate 

situations where additional resource damage is not foreseeable. 

This would include primitive route/roads that were not 

designated in Wilderness Study Areas and within lands with 

wilderness characteristics that have been selected to be managed 

to retain those characteristics for protection. 

GRSG-RT-GL-003-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, when 

decommissioning roads and unauthorized routes, restoration 

activity should be designed to move habitat towards desired 

conditions displayed in Table 2. 

92 Within sage-grouse PHMAs, when reseeding roads and trails, 

appropriate seed mixtures would be used and the use of 

transplanted sagebrush would be considered. 

See GRSG-GRSGH-GL-006-Guideline shown at MA #100. 

Vegetation Management 

93 Within sage-grouse PHMA and GHMA, the BLM would manage 

for vegetation composition and structure that reflects ESD or 

other methods that reference site potential or comparable 

standard to achieve sage-grouse and other resource objectives. 

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-007-Guideline - When breeding and nesting 

habitat overlaps with other seasonal habitats, habitat should be 

managed for breeding and nesting desired habitat conditions 

displayed in Table 2. 

94 Within sage-grouse PHMAs in northeast Wyoming (as mapped 

in WY EO 2011-5), vegetation treatments in nesting and 

wintering habitat that would reduce sagebrush canopy to less than 

15% would not be conducted. 

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-002-Guideline - Within priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas in northeast 

Wyoming, vegetation treatments in nesting and wintering habitat 

that would reduce sagebrush canopy to less than 15% should be 

restricted. 

95 For vegetation treatments in sagebrush within sage-grouse 

PHMAs , refer to Appendix A, WGFD Protocols for Treating 

Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse (WGFD 2011, as updated) and 

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-001-Guideline – Sagebrush removal in 

priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas and in 

275 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BLM Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2013-128128 

(Sage-grouse Conservation Related to Wildland Fire and Fuels 

Management). 

These recommended protocols would be used in determining 

whether proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” that 

would contribute toward the 5% threshold within sage-grouse 

PHMA maintenance. Additionally, these protocols would be used 

to determine whether the proposed treatment configuration would 

be expected to have neutral or beneficial impacts for PHMA 

(core only) populations or if they represent additional habitat loss 

or fragmentation. 

Treatments to enhance sagebrush/grasslands habitat for sagegrouse would be evaluated based upon habitat quality and the 

functionality/use of treated habitats post-treatment. 

The BLM would work collaboratively with partners at the state 

and local level to maintain and enhance sage-grouse habitats. 

wintering habitat should be restricted unless necessary to support 

attainment of desired habitat conditions displayed in Table 2. 

96 For vegetation treatments in sagebrush within PHMAs, refer to 

Appendix A, WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit 

Sage-Grouse (WGFD 2011, as updated). These recommended 

protocols, subject to seasonal conditions of approval, would be 

used in determining whether proposed treatment constitutes a 

“disturbance” that would contribute toward the 5% threshold for 

habitat maintenance. 

Additionally, these protocols would be used to determine whether 

the proposed treatment configuration would be expected to have 

neutral or beneficial impacts for PHMA (core only) populations 

or if they represent additional habitat loss or fragmentation. 

Treatments to enhance sagebrush/grasslands habitat for sagegrouse would be evaluated based upon habitat quality and the 

functionality/use of treated habitats post-treatment. 

The BLM would work collaboratively with partners at the state 

and local level to maintain and enhance sage-grouse habitats. 

Seasonal restriction would be applied, as needed, for 

implementing fuels management treatments according to the type 

of seasonal habitat present. 

See GRSG-GRSGH-GL-001-Guideline shown at MA #95. 

97 Grazing would be deferred on treated areas for two full growing 

seasons unless vegetation objectives or vegetation recovery 

indicates a shorter or longer rest period is necessary based on 

vegetation monitoring results. 

Grazing would be deferred on treated areas until vegetation 

objectives or appropriate vegetation recovery is achieved. 

98 For vegetation treatments in sagebrush within sage-grouse PHMAs, refer to Appendix A, WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to 

Benefit Sage-Grouse (WGFD 2011, as updated). 

Vegetation Reclamation 

99 Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage-grouse PHMAs 

would be consistent with the Wyoming Reclamation Policy 

(BLM 2009a) and Appendix C. 

A monitoring plan would be developed for each restoration or 

reclamation project and reporting progress and changes in 

resource condition. 

GRSG-GRSGH-ST-001-Standard – Design habitat restoration 

projects to move towards the desired conditions displayed in Table 

2 and incorporate the concepts outlined in Appendix C Reclamation 

Plan and Appendix D Monitoring Framework. 

100 Areas for vegetation restoration and/or restoration criteria that 

include state sage-grouse conservation plans and appropriate 

local information would be identified. The use of native plants 

and seeds for restoration would be required unless the probability 

for success is low (non-native plants and seeds may be used as 

long as they meet sage-grouse habitat objectives), and restoration 

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-006-Guideline - In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, native plant 

species should be emphasized to restore, enhance, or maintain 

desired habitat conditions displayed in Table 2. 

276 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

management would be designed to obtain long-term persistence 

based on ESD. 

Reestablishment of sagebrush cover and desirable understory 

plants would be the highest priority for restoration efforts. 

Landscape patterns that most benefit sage-grouse would be 

restored and created, considering potential changes in climate. 

101 Within sage-grouse PHMAs, implementation of restoration projects would be prioritized based on environmental variables that improve 

chances for project success in areas most likely to benefit sage-grouse. 

Restoration would be prioritized in seasonal habitats that are thought to be limiting sage-grouse distribution and/or abundance. 

102 Where probability of success or native seed availability is low or 

where there is a specific identified purpose that cannot be met 

with natives, non-native seeds could be used provided they meet 

sage-grouse habitat conservation objectives. 

The use of native seeds for fuels management treatment would be 

prioritized based on availability, adaptation (site potential), and 

probability of success. Where probability of success or native 

seed availability is low, non-native seeds may be used to meet 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives to trend toward restoring 

the fire regime. When reseeding, use fire resistant native and 

non-native species, as appropriate, to provide for fuel breaks. 

Native seed allocation would be prioritized for use in sage-grouse 

habitat. 

See GRSG-GRSGH-GL-006-Guideline shown at MA #100. 

103 Post ES&R and BAER management would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants. This may 

require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing, wild horse and burro, and travel management, etc., to achieve and maintain the 

desired condition of ES&R and BAER projects to benefit sage-grouse (Eiswerth and Shonkwiler 2006). 

104 The role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses in and adjacent to sage-grouse 

PHMAs would be evaluated to determine if they should be restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for sage-grouse. If these 

seedings are part of an AMP/Conservation Plan or if they provide value in conserving or enhancing the rest of the PHMAs, no 

restoration would be necessary. 

The compatibility of these seedings for sage-grouse habitat or as a component of a grazing system would be assessed during the land 

health assessments (or other analyses [Forest Service only]) (Davies et al. 2011). 

105 Priority would be given for implementing specific sage-grouse 

habitat restoration projects in areas invaded by annual grasses 

first to sites that are adjacent to or surrounded by sage-grouse 

PHMAs. Areas invaded by annual grasses would be second 

priority for restoration when the sites are not adjacent to PHMAs, 

but are within 2 miles of PHMAs. The third priority for areas 

invaded by annual grasses habitat restoration projects would be 

sites beyond 2 miles of PHMAs. The intent would be to focus 

restoration outward from existing, intact habitat. 

See GRSG-GRSGH-ST-001-Standard shown at MA #99. 

106 In fire prone areas where sagebrush seed is required for sage-grouse habitat restoration, the BLM/Forest Service would consider establishing 

seed harvest areas that are managed for seed production and are a priority for protection from outside disturbances. 

107 Vegetation treatment proposals must include evaluation of soils, 

precipitation, invasive/exotic plants, as well as the current 

condition of sage-grouse PHMAs. 

Avoid aerial pesticide/herbicide spraying in favor of ground 

applications to minimize drift into non-target areas in Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat unless benefits of treatments are likely to 

outweigh impacts. 

Vegetation treatment proposals must include evaluation of soils, 

precipitation, invasive/exotic plants, as well as the current condition 

of greater sage-grouse habitat. 

See GRSG-GRSGH-ST-001-Standard at MA #99. 

Grasshopper/Mormon Cricket Control and Management 

108 The BLM could implement treatments within sage-grouse 

PHMAs where outbreaks of grasshopper or Mormon cricket 

populations are expected to rise above economic levels. 

Treatments must be conducted only following reduced agent-area 

No similar direction. 

277 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

treatments (RAATS) protocols. The BLM would work 

collaboratively with partners at the federal, state, and local levels, 

including the Wyoming Weed and Pest Districts within the 

counties where the treatment is to occur, to maintain and enhance 

sage-grouse habitats in a manner consistent with the core 

population area strategy for conservation. 

The BLM would be directed to utilize the Wyoming Grasshopper 

and Mormon Cricket Control website as a resource for updated 

information when conducting analysis of grasshopper and 

Mormon cricket control in sage-grouse habitats. 

Avoid aerial pesticide/herbicide spraying in favor of ground 

applications to minimize drift into non-target areas in Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat unless benefits of treatments are likely to 

outweigh impacts. 

Wild Horse Management 

109 Within sage-grouse PHMAs, the BLM would review and 

consider amending BLM Herd Management Area Plans 

(HMAPs) to incorporate sage-grouse habitat objectives and 

management considerations for all BLM herd management areas 

(HMAs). 

No similar direction – no wild horse herd management areas on 

National Forest System Lands in the planning area. 

110 Sage-grouse PHMA (core only) management objectives would be 

considered when evaluating AMLs. 

No similar direction – no wild horse herd management areas on 

National Forest System Lands in the planning area. 

111 Sage-grouse PHMA (core only) management objectives would be 

considered when conducting land health assessments in BLM 

HMAs. 

No similar direction – no wild horse herd management areas on 

National Forest System Lands in the planning area. 

112 When conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and burro 

management activities, water developments or other rangeland 

improvements for wild horses in sage-grouse PHMAs, the direct 

and indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitat would 

be addressed. Water developments or rangeland improvements 

would be implemented using the criteria identified for domestic 

livestock identified above in sage-grouse PHMAs. 

No similar direction – no wild horse herd management areas on 

National Forest System Lands in the planning area. 

113 Coordinate with other resources (Range, Wildlife, and Riparian) 

to conduct land health assessments within all BLM HMAs. 

No similar direction – no wild horse herd management areas on 

National Forest System Lands in the planning area. 

Wildland Fire and Fuels Management 

114 In sage-grouse PHMAs, fuels treatments would be designed and 

implemented with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

ecosystems and enhancing and protecting future sagebrush 

ecosystems (refer to WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to 

Benefit Sage-grouse [WGFD 2011, as updated]) and 

Appendix A. 

These recommended protocols would be used in determining 

whether proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” that will 

contribute toward the 5% threshold for habitat maintenance. 

Fuel treatments would be designed through an interdisciplinary 

process to expand, enhance, maintain, and protect Greater SageGrouse habitat. Green strips (using native fire resistant/resilient 

species) and/or fuel breaks would be used, where appropriate, to 

protect seeding efforts from subsequent fire events. 

In coordination with the USFWS and relevant state agencies, 

BLM planning units(Districts) with large blocks of Greater SageGrouse habitat would develop, using the assessment process 

described in Appendix A, a fuels management strategy which 

considers an up-to-date fuels profile, land use plan direction, 

current and potential habitat fragmentation, sagebrush and sageSame as MA 114 and: see GRSG-GRSGH-GL-005-Guideline at 

MA #10 and GRSG-FM-ST-001-Standard at MA #116. 

278 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

grouse ecological factors, and active vegetation management 

steps to provide critical breaks in fuel continuity, where 

appropriate. When developing this strategy, planning units would 

consider the risk of increased habitat fragmentation from a 

proposed action versus the risk of large scale fragmentation 

posed by wildfires if the action is not taken. 

Utilizing an interdisciplinary approach, a full range of fuel 

reduction techniques would be available. Fuel reduction 

techniques such as grazing, prescribed fire, chemical, biological, 

and mechanical treatments would be acceptable. 

Upon project completion, fuels projects would be monitored and 

managed to ensure long-term success, including persistence of 

seeded species and/or other treatment components. Invasive 

vegetation post-treatment would be controlled. 

Wildfire prevention plans would be developed that explain the 

resource value of sage-grouse habitat and include fire prevention 

messages and actions to reduce human-caused ignitions. 

115 Burned areas that are within sage-grouse PHMAs would be restored. 

Areas containing less than 5% canopy cover and have the potential for 5% canopy cover would be treated as disturbed pending an 

implementation management plan with trend data showing the area returning to functional sage-grouse habitat. This would be specific 

only to wildfire situations. 

The BLM/Forest Service could bring in BAR and BAER teams who would work collaboratively with partners at the federal, state, and 

local level to rehabilitate and restore sage-grouse habitats in a manner consistent with the core habitat population area strategy for 

conservation. DDCT reviews would be conducted in coordination with the WGFD Habitat Protection Program located in Cheyenne, 

Wyoming at the WGFD headquarters. Areas within sage-grouse PHMAs would be high priority for restoration of sage-grouse habitat 

beyond immediate response. 

116 For fuels management, the BLM would consider multiple tools for 

fuels reduction and would analyze in NEPA compliance 

documentation before electing to implement prescribed fire in 

PHMAs. 

If prescribed fire is used in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, the 

NEPA analysis for the Burn Plan will address: 

• Why alternative techniques were not selected as a viable 

options 

GRSG-FM-ST-001-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, when prescribed fire 

is used for fuels management or vegetation treatments, design the 

burn to move conditions towards those displayed in table 2. Restrict 

prescribed fire in areas of Wyoming big sagebrush, other xeric 

sagebrush species, where cheat-grass or other fire-invasive species 

occur, and/or within areas of less than 12-inch precipitation zones 

unless necessary to facilitate site preparation for restoration of 

greater sage-grouse habitat consistent with desired conditions in • How Greater Sage-Grouse goals and objectives would 

be met by its use 

• How the COT Report objectives would be addressed 

and met 

• A risk assessment to address how potential threats to 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be minimized. 

table 2. 

GRSG-FM-ST-002-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, if it is necessary to use 

prescribed fire to facilitate site preparation for restoration of greater 

sage-grouse habitat consistent with desired conditions in table 2, the 

associated NEPA analysis must identify how greater sage-grouse 

Prescribed fire as a vegetation or fuels treatment shall only be 

considered after the NEPA analysis for the Burn Plan has 

addressed the four bullets outlined above. Prescribed fire could be 

used to meet specific fuels objectives that would protect Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat in PHMAs (e.g., creation of fuel breaks that 

would disrupt the fuel continuity across the landscape in stands 

where annual invasive grasses are a minor component in the 

understory, burning slash piles from conifer reduction treatments, 

used as a component with other treatment methods to combat 

annual grasses and restore native plant communities). 

Prescribed fire in known winter range only after the NEPA 

analysis for the Burn Plan has addressed the four bullets outlined 

above. Any prescribed fire in winter habitat would need to be 

designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk around and/or in the 

winter range and designed to protect winter range habitat quality. 

Refer to Appendix A, WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush 

to Benefit Sage-grouse (WGFD 2011, as updated) and BLM 

Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2013-128. If 

desired conditions would be met, why alternative techniques were 

not selected, and how potential threats to greater sage-grouse habitat 

would be minimized. 

279 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124 

prescribed fire activities are not in compliance with these 

protocols, the treatment would be considered a PHMA 

disturbance. 

117 Within sage-grouse PHMA, post fuels management projects 

would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or 

pre-treatment native plants (while controlling for erosion and 

treating infestation of invasive plant species), to return to suitable 

sage-grouse habitat. 

118 Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats. Prioritize 

treatments closest to occupied sage-grouse habitats and near 

occupied leks, and where juniper encroachment is phase 1 or 

phase 2. Use of site-specific analysis and principles like those 

included in the FIAT report (Chambers et. al., 2014) and other 

ongoing modeling efforts to address conifer encroachment will 

help refine the location for specific priority areas to be treated. 

In sage-grouse PHMAs, and GHMAs, suppression would be a 

high priority and commensurate with values at risk. 

GHMAs would be assigned a priority commensurate with its 

importance in the local fire plan. 

Fire fighter and public safety would be the highest priority. 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be prioritized commensurate 

with property values and other critical habitat to be protected, 

with the goal to restore, enhance, and maintain areas suitable for 

Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Within sage-grouse PHMAs (and PACs, if so determined by 

individual LUP efforts) would be the highest priority for 

conservation and protection during fire operations and fuels 

management decision making. The sage-grouse PHMAs (and 

PACs, if so determined by individual LUP efforts) would be 

viewed as more valuable than GHMAs when priorities are 

established. When suppression resources are widely available, 

maximum efforts would be placed on limiting fire growth in 

GHMA polygons as well. These priority areas will be further 

refined following completion of the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessments 

described in Appendix J. 

See GRSG-FM-ST-001-Standard at MA #116. 

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-003-Guideline – When removing conifers that 

are encroaching into greater sage-grouse habitat, avoid persistent 

woodlands (old growth relative to the site or more than 100 years 

old). 

GRSG-FM-ST-003-Standard - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas suppress wildfire that 

moves habitat away from desired conditions in table 2. 

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management 

1 Continue to support the development of statewide sage-grouse seasonal habitat models for the State of Wyoming. 

2 Field Offices and Ranger Districts will work with project proponents, partners, and stakeholders to avoid or minimize impacts and/or 

implement direct mitigation (e.g., relocating disturbance, timing restrictions, etc.), and utilize BMPs and off-site compensatory 

mitigation where appropriate. 

3 Utilize the Wyoming Sage-grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) and Local Working Group plans or other state or cooperativelydeveloped plans, analyses, and other sources of information to guide development of conservation objectives for local management of 

sage-grouse habitats. The BLM and Forest Service will collaborate with appropriate Federal agencies, and the State of Wyoming as 

contemplated under Governor Executive Order 2013-3, to: (1) develop appropriate conservation objectives; (2) define a framework for 

evaluating situations where Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives are not being achieved on Federal land, to determine if a causal 

relationship exists between improper grazing (by wildlife or wild horses or livestock) and Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives; 

and (3) identify appropriate site-based action to achieve Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives within the framework. 

Monitoring Effectiveness 

125 The BLM, in coordination with the State of Wyoming and its agencies, other local partners and stakeholders, would establish monitoring 

framework (Appendix D) for sage-grouse populations and habitat that would be incorporated into individual project approvals, including 

small and in-house projects, as appropriate and necessary. 

Density and Disturbance 

280 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

126 In sage-grouse PHMA (core only), the density of disturbance of 

an energy or mining facility (see Appendix I) would be limited to 

an average of one site per square mile (640 acres) within the 

DDCT, subject to valid existing rights. The one location and 

cumulative value of existing disturbances will not exceed 5 

percent of suitable habitat of the DDCT area. Utilize the most 

current greater sage-grouse density disturbance process 

(Appendix J) or other state and/or federal agreed-upon process 

for compliance evaluations. 

GRSG-TDDD-ST-008-Standard – In priority-PHMAs and 

sagebrush focal areas, limit the density of activities related to oil 

and gas development or mining activities to no more than an 

average of one facility or mining activity per 640 acres, using the 

current Density Disturbance Calculation Tool process described in 

Appendix I or its replacement, subject to valid existing rights. 

127 Inside sage-grouse connectivity habitat, all suitable habitat 

disturbed (any program area) will not exceed 5% of suitable 

habitat within the DDCT area using the DDCT process described 

in Appendix I. 

GRSG-TDDD-ST-009-Standard – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not permit surface disturbances 

and disruptive activities unless all existing discrete anthropogenic 

disturbances cover less than 5% of the suitable habitat in the 

surrounding area using the Density Disturbance Calculation Tool 

process or its replacement, as described in Appendix I. An 

exception to this standard is described in the Locatable Minerals 

section in GRSG-M-LM-ST-003-Standard. 

Onsite and Offsite Mitigation 

128 In undertaking BLM management actions, and, consistent with 

valid existing rights and applicable law, in authorizing third-party 

actions that result in habitat loss and degradation in PHMA, the 

BLM will require and ensure mitigation that provides a net 

conservation gain to the species including accounting for any 

uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of such mitigation. 

This will be achieved by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating 

for impacts by applying beneficial mitigation actions. 

When compensatory mitigation is required, the BLM, in 

coordination with the State of Wyoming and its agencies and 

partners, will ensure an essential nexus and rough proportionality 

exists between the residual impacts that warrant compensatory 

GRSG-TDDD-GL-002-Guideline-– In-kind mitigation is 

preferred to out-of-kind mitigation. Where in-kind mitigation 

provides no net conservation gain to greater sage-grouse, or where 

other habitat types are most limiting to populations, mitigation 

should focus on habitats that provide the greatest benefit to the 

species. When approving mitigation requests, the following 

hierarchy should be considered: 

1. Onsite (on lease). 

2. Offsite within the project’s DDCT analysis area. 

3. Offsite within the same priority habitat management area or 

sagebrush focal area boundary. 

mitigation and the compensatory mitigation actions, as determined 

by the best available science. This essential nexus and rough 

proportionality will be clearly described in the NEPA analysis, 

decision document, and land use authorization for a land-use 

authorization application. 

For in-kind mitigation, focus should be given to the list below, as 

appropriate: 

1. In-kind and onsite (on lease); 

2. In-kind and offsite within the project’s DDCT analysis area; 

3. In-kind and off-site within the same PHMA boundary; 

4. In-kind and adjacent to the affected PHMA within GHMAs; 

5. In-kind and offsite within the same 2006 WAFWA Strategy 

determined Management Zone as the impact. 

In-kind mitigation is generally preferred to out-of-kind 

mitigation, although there may be exceptions, including where 

out-of-kind mitigation would be more effective for achieving 

BLM’s resource, value, and function goals and objectives, as 

long as an essential nexus is maintained with the land use’s 

impacts. Where in-kind mitigation provides no net benefit to 

sage-grouse, or where other habitat types are most limiting to 

populations, mitigation should focus on habitats that provide the 

greatest benefit to the species. 

4. Adjacent to the affected priority habitat management area or 

sagebrush focal area within the general habitat management 

area boundary. 

5. Offsite within the same 2006 WAFWA Strategy determined 

Management Zone as the impact. 

6. Other areas as identified by the local unit. 

Timing and Distance Restrictions 

129 Sage-grouse leks inside PHMAs: GRSG-TDDD-ST-001-Standard – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas do not authorize new surface 

occupancy or surface disturbing activities on or within a 0.6 mile 

281 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surface occupancy and surface disturbing activities would be 

prohibited on or within a 0.6 mile radius of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse leks (Map 2-3). 

The authorized officer may grant an exception if an 

environmental record of review determines that the action, as 

proposed or conditioned, would not impair the function or utility 

of the site for the current or subsequent seasonal habitat, lifehistory, or behavioral needs of Greater Sage-Grouse. 

radius of the perimeter of occupied leks that are located in priority 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas. 

130 Sage-grouse leks outside PHMAs: 

Surface occupancy and surface disturbing activities would be 

prohibited or restricted on or within a 0.25 mile radius of the 

perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks (Map 2-3). 

The authorized officer may grant an exception if an 

environmental record of review determines that the action, as 

proposed or conditioned, would not impair the function or utility 

of the site for the current or subsequent seasonal habitat, lifehistory, or behavioral needs of Greater Sage-Grouse. 

GRSG-TDDD-ST-002-Standard – In general habitat management 

areas, do not authorize new surface occupancy or surface disturbing 

activities on or within a 0.25 mile radius of the perimeter of 

occupied leks. 

131 Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing 

habitat inside PHMA (core only): 

Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be 

prohibited from March 15-–June 30 to protect sage-grouse 

breeding, nesting, and early brood rearing habitat. This timing 

limitation would be applied throughout the sage-grouse PHMA 

(core only) area habitats. Activities in unsuitable habitats would 

be evaluated under the exception, waiver, and modification 

criteria and could be allowed on a case by case basis. 

Where credible data support different timeframes for this 

seasonal restriction, dates could be shifted by up to 14 days prior 

to or subsequent to the above dates. 

GRSG-TDDD-ST-003-Standard – In priority-PHMA habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not authorize new 

surface disturbing or disruptive activities from March 15 through 

June 30. Activities that meet the exception, waiver, and 

modification criteria may be authorized. Where credible data, based 

upon field analysis, support different timeframes for the seasonal 

restriction, dates may be shifted by up to 14 days before or 

subsequent to the above dates. 

132 Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing 

habitat inside PHMA (connectivity only): 

Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be 

prohibited within PHMA (connectivity only) from March 15– 

June 30 to protect breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing 

habitats within 4 miles of the lek or lek perimeter of any 

occupied sage-grouse lek within identified connectivity areas. 

This timing limitation would be applied throughout the sagegrouse PHMA (connectivity only). Activities in unsuitable 

habitats would be evaluated under the exception, waiver, and 

modification criteria and may be allowed on a case-by-case basis. 

Where credible data support different timeframes for this 

seasonal restriction, dates could be shifted by 14 days prior or 

subsequent to the above dates. 

GRSG-TDDD-ST-004-Standard – Within priority-connectivity 

habitat management areas, do not authorize new surface disturbing 

or disruptive activities from March 15 through June 30 within 4 

miles of the lek or lek perimeter of any occupied lek within 

identified priority-connectivity areas. Activities that meet the 

exception, waiver, and modification criteria may be authorized. 

Where credible data, based upon field analysis, support different 

timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates may be shifted by 14 

days before or subsequent to the above dates. 

133 Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing 

habitat outside PHMAs: 

Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be 

prohibited from March 15–June 30 to protect sage-grouse nesting 

and early brood rearing habitats within 2 miles of the lek or lek 

perimeter of any occupied lek located outside PHMAs. 

Where credible data support different timeframes for this 

restriction, dates could be shifted by 14 days prior or subsequent 

to the above dates. 

GRSG-TDDD-ST-005-Standard – In general habitat management 

areas, do not new authorize surface disturbing or disruptive 

activities from March 15 to June 30 within 2 miles of the lek or lek 

perimeter of any occupied lek located inside general habitat 

management areas. Activities that meet the exception, waiver, and 

modification criteria may be authorized. Where credible data, based 

upon field analysis, support different timeframes for this restriction, 

dates may be shifted by 14 days before or subsequent to the above 

dates. 

134 Sage-grouse winter concentration areas: 

Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities in mapped sagegrouse winter concentration areas would be prohibited from 

December 1–March 14 to protect PHMA (core only) populations 

GRSG-TDDD-ST-006-Standard – Within mapped winter 

concentration areas in priority habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, do not authorize new surface disturbing or 

disruptive activities from December 1 through March 14 to protect 

282 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of sage-grouse that use these winter concentration habitats. This 

timing limitation would be applied to all winter concentration 

areas within sage-grouse PHMA. 

Activities in unsuitable habitats within PHMAs would be 

evaluated under the exception, waiver, and modification criteria 

and could be allowed on a case-by-case basis. 

Protection of additional mapped winter concentration areas in 

GHMAs would be implemented where winter concentration areas 

are identified as supporting populations of sage-grouse that 

attend leks within PHMA (core only). Appropriate seasonal 

timing restrictions and habitat protection measures would be 

considered and evaluated in all identified winter concentration 

areas. 

priority-PHMA habitat area and sagebrush focal area populations of 

greater sage-grouse that use these winter concentration habitats. 

Activities not located in suitable habitat that meet the exception, 

waiver, and modification criteria may be authorized. 

GRSG-TDDD-ST-007-Standard – Within mapped winter 

concentration areas in priority-connectivity and general habitat 

management areas, do not authorize new surface disturbing or 

disruptive activities from December 1 through March 14 where 

winter concentration areas are identified as supporting populations 

of greater sage-grouse that attend leks within priority-PHMAs and 

sagebrush focal areas. 

Predation 

135 The BLM would implement strategies and techniques in land 

management decisions that address predators shown to pose a 

threat to sage-grouse (Appendix F). 

The BLM would support and encourage other agencies in their 

efforts to minimize impacts from predators on sage-grouse where 

needs have been documented. 

The Forest Service would implement strategies and techniques in 

land management decisions that address predators shown to pose a 

threat to sage-grouse (Appendix F). 

GRSG-PR-GL-001-Guideline – Efforts by other agencies to 

minimize impacts from predators on greater sage-grouse should be 

supported and encouraged where needs have been documented. 

Noise 

136 The BLM would work with proponents to limit project related 

noise where it would be expected to reduce functionality of 

habitats that support PHMA area populations. 

The BLM would evaluate the potential for limitation of new 

noise sources on a case-by-case basis as appropriate. 

BLM’s near-term goal would be to limit noise sources that would 

be expected to negatively impact PHMA sage-grouse populations 

and to continue to support the establishment of ambient baseline 

noise levels for occupied PHMA leks. 

As additional research and information emerges, specific new 

limitations appropriate to the type of projects being considered 

would be evaluated and appropriate limitations would be 

implemented where necessary to minimize potential for noise 

impacts on sage-grouse PHMA population behavioral cycles. 

As new research is completed, new specific limitations would be 

coordinated with the WGFD and partners. 

Noise levels at the perimeter of the lek should not exceed 10 dBA 

above ambient noise. 

GRSG-TDDD-GL-001-Guideline – During lekking (March 1 to 

May 15) anthropogenic disturbances, including noise at 10 dB 

above ambient (not to exceed 20-24 dB) to lekking birds, should be 

restricted from 6 pm to 9 am at a distance of 0.6 mile from the 

perimeter of an occupied lek. 

Table 3. Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for Greater Sage- grouse. 

ATTRIBUTE INDICATORS DESIRED CONDITION 

AREAS MANAGED FOR BREEDING AND NESTING 1,2,3 (Seasonal Use Period March 15-June 30) Apply 5.3 miles 

from occupied leks. 4 

Lek Security 

Proximity of trees,5 

Trees or other tall structures are none to 

uncommon within 1.86 miles of leks6,7 

Proximity of sagebrush to leks6 

Adjacent protective sagebrush cover within 328 

feet of lek6 

Cover 

Seasonal habitat extent7 >80% of the breeding and nesting habitat 

Sagebrush canopy cover 6,7,8 15 to 25% 

Sagebrush height7 

Arid sites7,9 

8 to 32 inches in black sage and 12 to 32 inches in 

all other areas 

All Wyoming NFs: 16 to 32 inches 

283 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTRIBUTE INDICATORS DESIRED CONDITION 

Mesic sites7,10 

Predominant sagebrush shape6 >50% in spreading11 

Perennial grass canopy cover 6, 7 

Arid sites6,7,9 

Mesic sites6,7,10 

>10% 

>15% 

Perennial grass height6,7,8 

Provide overhead and lateral concealment from 

predators6 

Perennial forb canopy cover 6,7,8 

Arid sites9 

Mesic sites10 

>5%6,7 

>10%6,7 

AREAS MANAGED FOR BROOD-REARING/SUMMER1 (Seasonal Use Period July 1-November 30) 

Cover 

Seasonal habitat extent7 >40% of the brood-rearing/summer habitat 

Sagebrush canopy cover 6,7,8 10 to 25% 

Sagebrush height7,8 

8 to 20 inches in black sage and 12 to 32 inches in 

all other areas 

Perennial grass canopy cover and forbs 7,8 >15% 

Riparian areas/mesic meadows Proper Functioning Condition 12 

Upland and riparian perennial forb 

availability6,7 

Preferred forbs are common with several preferred 

species present13 

WINTER1 (Seasonal Use Period December 1-March 14) 

Cover and Food 

Seasonal habitat extent6,7,8 >80% of the winter habitat 

Sagebrush canopy cover above snow6,7,8 >10% 

Sagebrush height above snow6,7,8 >10 inches14 

1

Seasonal dates can be adjusted; that is, start and end dates may be shifted either earlier or later, but the amount of days cannot be shortened 

or lengthened by the local unit. 

2 Doherty, K. 2008. Sage-grouse and Energy Development: Integrating Science with Conservation Planning to Reduce Impacts. University 

of Montana. Missoula, MT. 

3 Holloran and Anderson. 2005. Spatial Distribution of Greater Sage-grouse nests in relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats. Condor 

107:742-752. 4 Buffer distance may be changed only if 3 out of 5 years of telemetry studies indicate the 5.3 miles is not appropriate. 

5 Baruch-Mordo, S. J.S. Evans, J.P Severson, D.E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, J.M. Kiesecker, M.J. Falkowski. C.A. Hagen, and K.P. Reese. . 

2013. Saving sage-grouse from trees: A proactive solution to reducing a key threat to a candidate species. Biological Conservation 167: 233-

241. 

6 Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: 

Multi-scale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Technical 

Reference XXXX -X. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. Submitted for publication. 7 Connelly, J. M. A. Schroweder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun.2000. Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28 (4): 967-985. 8 Connelly, J. K. Reese, and M. Schroder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater sage-grouse habitats and populations. Station Bulletin 80, 

Contribution 979. University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources Experiment Station. Moscow, ID. 

9 10–12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type site (HAF 2014). 10 >12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata vaseyana is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type site (HAF 2014). 11 Sagebrush plants with a spreading shape provide more protective cover than sagebrush plants that are more tree- or columnar shaped (HAF 

2014). 

13 Existing land management plan desired conditions for riparian areas/wet meadows (spring seeps) may be used in place of properly 

functioning conditions, if appropriate for meeting greater sage-grouse habitat requirements. 13 Preferred forbs are listed in HAF Table III-2 (HAF 2014). Overall total forb cover may be greater than that of preferred forb cover since 

not all forb species are listed as preferred in Table III-2. 14 The height of sagebrush remaining above the snow depends upon snow depth in a particular year. Intent is to manage for tall, healthy, 

sagebrush stands. 

284 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4. Grazing Guidelines for Greater Sage-grouse Seasonal Habitat. 

Seasonal Habitat Grazing Guidelines 

Areas managed for breeding and 

nesting 1 within 5.3 miles of 

occupied leks 

Perennial grass height: 2 

When grazing occurs during breeding and nesting season (March 15 to June 30) manage 

for upland perennial grass height of: 

7 inches 3,4,5,6 

When grazing occurs post breeding and nesting season (July 1 to November 30) manage 

for 4 inches 4,5,8 of perennial grass height. 

Areas managed for brood rearing 

and summer habitat1 

Retain an average stubble height of 4 inches for herbaceous riparian/mesic meadow 

vegetation 7,9 

Winter 1 <35% use of sagebrush 

1 For descriptions of Seasonal Habitat and Seasonal Periods of greater sage-grouse see table 1. 2 Grass heights only apply in breeding and nesting habitat with >10% sagebrush cover to support nesting. 3 Holloran et al. 2005. Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat selection and success in Wyoming. 4 Average droop height, assuming current vegetation composition has the capability to achieve these heights. Heights will be measured at the end 

of the nesting period (Connelly, 2000). 5 Hagen C., J.W. Connelly, and M.A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and broodrearing habitats. Wildlife Biology 13(1): 42-50. 6

Due to variability of annual precipitation and forage production 7”stubble height may not be possible every year, even in the absence of livestock 

grazing. 7 Crawford et al. 2004. Ecology and Management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. “In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage-grouse prefer 

the lower vegetation (5-15 cm (2-6 in) vs. 30-50 cm (12-20 in); Oakleaf 1971, Neel 1980, Klebenow 1982, Evans 1986) and succulent forb 

growth stimulated by moderate livestock grazing (Neel 1980, Evans 1986). “Moderate use equates to a 10-cm residual stubble height for most 

grasses and sedges.” 8 Stubble height to be measured at the end of the growing season. 9 Stubble height to be measured in the meadow areas used by greater sage-grouse for brood-rearing (not on the hydric greenline). 

6.0 Species Considered in the Analysis 

This BA provides detailed analyses of all federally listed (endangered or threatened) species, 

proposed species, and designated or proposed critical habitat that may be affected by the actions 

proposed in the Amendment. Development of this BA was guided by the regulations on 

Interagency Cooperation (Section 7 of the ESA) in 50 CFR Part 402 and BLM Manual 6840 and 

additional interagency coordination with the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

The following table (Table 3) lists the USFWS Threatened, Endangered, or proposed species that 

are being evaluated for this Biological Assessment (BA). 

285 
-

Table 3-USFWS endangered, threatened and proposed species and critical habitat potentially occurring in the analysis area 

and that may be influenced by the preferred alternative. 

SPECIES (Status) HABITAT DESCRIPTION and 

RANGE 

Units in which the species in known or 

suspected to be present in the analysis area, 

and/or containing suitable or critical habitat in 

the analysis area 

Bridger Teton

Pinedale

Kemmerer

Rock Spring

Rawlins

Medicine Bow

Casper

Thunder Basin

Newcastle 

EVALUATIO 

N CRITERIA 

INITIAL 

BIOLOGICA 

L DETER 

MINATION 

Mammals 

Black-footed ferret 

(Exp.) Mustela 

nigripes 

All populations are experimental 

and are found in the Rawlins field 

office. They require established 

prairie dog towns for food and 

shelter (Hoffmeister 1986), which 

primarily occur in grassland and 

sagebrush habitats in Wyoming. 

Such areas are characteristic of 

prairie, grassland plains, and 

surrounding mountain basins up to 

3,200 meters (10,500 ft.) 

X X NE, NJ 

Canada lynx (T) 

Lynx canadensis 

Montane and subalpine coniferous 

forests above 4,000 feet; lodgepole 

pine, subalpine fir and Engelmann 

spruce. 

X X X X NE 

Canada lynx (Lynx 

Canadensis) critical 

habitat 

Montane and subalpine coniferous 

forests above 4,000 feet; lodgepole 

pine, subalpine fir and Engelmann 

spruce. 

X X X X NE 

Grizzly Bear (T) 

Ursus arctos 

horribilis 

Extensive forest cover often 

interspersed with grasslands and 

meadows. In Wyoming these 

X X X NE 

286 
 

habitats are typically above 1,500 m 

(932 mi) (Schwartz et al. 2002). 

Preble’s Meadow 

Jumping Mouse (T) 

Zapus hudonius 

preblei 

Species found in both riparian 

and grassland communities. They 

are found under debris at the base 

of shrubs and trees or in open 

grasslands. 

X X X NE 

Northern Long-eared Species found primarily in X X X NJ 

Bat (Proposed T) coniferous or deciduous forests 

Myotis 

septentrionalis 

Gray Wolf (Non- habitat generalists and historically X X X X X NJ 

essential occupied most habitats in the 

experimental) Northern Hemisphere 

Birds 

287 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Least tern (E) Sterna 

antillarum 

The species does not occur in 

planning areas, however, water 

depletions in Wyoming may affect 

the species and/or critical habitat in 

downstream reaches. 

NE 

Piping plover (T) 

Charadrius melodus 

The species does not occur in 

planning areas, however, water 

depletions in Wyoming may affect 

the species and/or critical habitat in 

downstream reaches. 

NE 

Piping plover (Charadrius 

melodus) Critical 

habitat 

The species does not occur in 

planning area, however, water 

depletions in Wyoming may affect 

the species and/or critical habitat in 

downstream reaches. 

NE 

Whooping crane (E) 

Grus Americana 

The species does not occur in 

planning area, however, water 

depletions in Wyoming may affect 

the species and/or critical habitat in 

downstream reaches. 

NE 

Whooping crane (E) 

Grus Americana 

Critical habitat 

The species does not occur in 

planning area, however, water 

depletions in Wyoming may affect 

the species and/or critical habitat in 

downstream reaches. 

NE 

288 
 

 

 

 

Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo (T) 

Coccyzus americanus 

Requires large blocks of riparian 

woodlands (50 acres/20 hectares or 

more) within low to moderate 

elevation arid to semiarid 

landscapes. It occurs in wetland 

areas throughout Wyoming. 

X X X X 

NLAA 

Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo (T) 

Coccyzus americanus 

Requires large blocks of riparian 

woodlands (50 acres/20 hectares or 

more) within low to moderate 

elevation arid to semiarid 

landscapes. It occurs in wetland 

areas throughout Wyoming. 

X NE 

Fish 

Bonytail chub (E) 

Gila elegans 

Gila elegans were generally found in 

pools and eddies in the absence of, 

although occasionally adjacent to, 

strong current and at varying depths 

generally over silt and silt-boulder 

substrates. 

NE 

Bonytail chub (Gila 

elegans) Critical 

habitat 

Critical habitat includes Colorado 

River, Yampa River, Dinosaur 

National Monument west, Ruby 

Canyon west. The species does not 

occur in planning areas. However, 

Water depletions in Wyoming may 

affect the species and/or critical 

habitat in downstream reaches. 

NE 

Humpback chub (E) 

Gila cypha 

The species does not occur in 

planning area, however, water 

depletions in Wyoming may affect 

the species and/or critical habitat in 

downstream reaches. 

NE 

Humpback chub 

(Gila cypha) critical 

habitat 

Critical habitat includes Colorado 

River, Yampa River, Dinosaur 

National Monument west, Ruby 

Canyon west. The species does not 

NE 

289 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

occur in planning areas. However, water depletions in Wyoming may 

affect the species and/or critical 

habitat in downstream reaches. 

Colorado 

pikeminnow (E) 

Ptychocheilus lucius 

The species does not occur in 

planning area, however, water 

depletions in Wyoming may affect 

the species and/or critical habitat in 

downstream reaches. 

NE 

Colorado 

pikeminnow 

(Ptychocheilus 

Lucius) Critical 

habitat 

Critical habitat includes Colorado 

River, Yampa River, Dinosaur 

National Monument west, Ruby 

Canyon west. The species does not 

occur in planning areas. However, water depletions in Wyoming may 

affect the species and/or critical 

habitat in downstream reaches. 

NE 

Pallid sturgeon (T) 

Scaphirynchus albus 

Bottom-oriented, large river obligate 

fish inhabiting the Missouri and 

Mississippi rivers and some 

tributaries from Montana to 

Louisiana. The species does not 

occur in planning area, however, water depletions in Wyoming may 

affect the species and/or critical 

habitat in downstream reaches. 

NE 

Razorback sucker (E) 

Xyrauchen texanus 

The species does not occur in 

planning area, however, water 

depletions in Wyoming may affect 

the species and/or critical habitat in 

downstream reaches. 

NE 

Razorback sucker 

(Xyrauchen texanus) 

critical habitat 

Critical habitat includes Colorado 

River, Yampa River, Dinosaur 

National Monument west, Ruby 

Canyon west. The species does not 

NE 

290 
 

occur in planning areas. However, water depletions in Wyoming may 

affect the species and/or critical 

habitat in downstream reaches 

Kendall Warm 

Springs Dace (E) 

Rhinichthys osculus 

thermalis 

Kendall warm springs dace, are 

confined to one stream 

approximately three hundred meters 

(328 yards) in length. It originates at 

a series of thermal springs near the 

base of a bluff. The springs flow 

southwest towards the Green River 

for a distance of 300m (984.25 ft.), 

before it cascades into the river over 

a travertine embankment. 

X NE 

Amphibians 

Wyoming Toad (E) 

Bufo baxteri 

Wyoming toad habitat includes 

floodplain ponds, small ponds and 

lakes produced by irrigation runoff, 

and many small seepage lakes within 

the Laramie Basin. The range of 

Wyoming toad is restricted to the 

Laramie Basin. 

X NE 

Blowout penstemon 

(E) Penstemon 

haydenii 

The plant’s current known range in 

Wyoming consists of the Ferris 

Dunes area in northwest Carbon 

County, where the plant is restricted 

to two habitat types: steep, northwest 

facing slopes of active sand dunes 

with less than five percent vegetative 

cover; and north-facing sandy slopes 

on the lee side of active blowouts 

with twenty five to forty percent 

vegetative cover. 

X X NLAA 

Colorado Butterfly 

Plant (T)- Gaura 

The species is found in wetland 

habitats comprised of sub-irrigated, 

alluvial soils, around meandering 

X X NLAA 

291 
neomexicana ssp. 

coloradensis 

streams on level or slightly sloping 

floodplains and drainage bottoms. It 

is restricted to Laramie and Platte 

counties with ten percent being on 

State lands and three occurrences on 

Federal lands (USFWS 2004). 

Desert Yellowhead 

(T) Yermo 

xanthocephalus 

The species is found only in shallow 

deflation hollows in outcrops of 

Miocene sandstones and limestones 

of the Split Rock Formation at its 

junction with the White River 

Formation. The species is currently 

known from a single population of 

plants scattered over an area of 20 ha 

(50 ac). in Fremont County 

Wyoming. 

X NE 

Plants 

Ute ladies'-tresses (T) 

Spiranthes diluvialis 

Found in moist meadows associated 

with perennial stream terraces, 

floodplains, and oxbows; seasonally 

flooded river terraces; sub-irrigated 

or spring-fed abandoned stream 

channels and valleys; lakeshores; 

and human-modified. 

X X X X X X X NE 

Western prairie 

fringed orchid (T) 

Platanthera 

praeclara 

North American tall grass prairie species found most often on 

unplowed, calcareous prairies and 

sedge meadows The species is not 

found in Wyoming. Upstream 

depletions to the Platte River system 

in Colorado and Wyoming may 

affect the species in Nebraska. 

NE 

292 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.1 Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) - Endangered 

Species/Habitat Description 

Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) is a perennial herb, typically twelve inches or less in 

height, with six to ten groups of milky-blue to pale lavender flowers. Penstemon haydenii can be 

recognized by its large, milky-lavender flowers that smell faintly of vanilla and its blue-green, waxy 

foliage. Flowering plants have broad-based, clasping leaves that taper abruptly to a narrow tip, while 

vegetative plants have thin, grass-like leaves. Individual plants produce multiple stems that can 

survive burial in shifting, wind-blown sand. The plants occur only in sites with little competing 

vegetation or where strong winds have created depressions in the sand called "blowouts". 

Historically, Penstemon haydenii was thought to be endemic to the Nebraska Sandhills. The 

Nebraska Sandhills is an extensive area with unique vegetation and soils. 

In Wyoming, Penstemon haydenii is found in sparsely vegetated sandy blowouts in the early stages 

of plant community development composed of blowout grass (Redfieldia flexuosa), lemon scurf-pea 

(Psoralidium lanceolatum) and thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus) or Indian ricegrass 

(Achnatherum hymenoides). Shifting sand dunes are prevented from becoming fully stabilized and 

overgrown because of wind and gravity. The dunes may be sixty to one hundred twenty feet high on 

typically steep slopes with elevations between 1,768 and 2,286 meters (5,800 and 7,500 feet). 

Life History 

Budding for Penstemon haydenii occurs from early May through early June. Flowering occurs from 

mid-May through Mid-late June. Fruiting occurs from late May through early June. 

Penstemon haydenii is a pioneer species. It is one of the first plants to establish itself on sand dunes 

at the base of mountains and ridges. In Wyoming, it blooms in June and is pollinated by insects. 

Twenty-six species of solitary bees and one bee-like wasp visit this plant in Wyoming, seeking both 

nectar and pollen rewards. Once pollinated, the flowers ripen into capsule-like fruits each containing 

twenty to thirty seeds. By summers end the seeds have matured and the capsules split open and 

release the seeds into the wind. Buried seeds remain viable and will only germinate after an ideally 

cool, moist spring. Once a plant germinates, it can live for several years but does not necessarily 

flower each year. 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

Penstemon haydenii was listed as an endangered species on September 1, 1987. 

Historically Penstemon haydenii was a common plant in blowouts in the Nebraska sandhills (Pool 

1914). With the encroachment of succeeding Sandhill prairie plants, the blowout penstemon is not 

able to compete. 

The plant’s current known range in Wyoming consists of the Ferris Dunes area in northwest Carbon 

County, where the plant is restricted to two habitat types: steep, northwest facing slopes of active 

sand dunes with less than five percent vegetative cover; and north-facing sandy slopes on the lee side 

of active blowouts with twenty five to forty percent vegetative cover. Known populations in 

Wyoming are found between 2,036 to 2,268 m (6,680-7,440 ft.) in elevation. Systematic surveys are 

recommended in areas with sand blowout features at lower elevations (below 2,042 m or 6,700 ft.). 

Threats 

293 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Penstemon haydenii was listed as an endangered species due to its small numbers and habitat 

limitations. It is believed that the direct cause of reduced habitat is due to fire control and livestock 

grazing practices. However, overgrazing of the sandhills caused the blowouts to occur creating better 

habitat for the species. With better management practices which include more controlled grazing and 

fire protection measures, competing vegetation is allowed to become established (73 FR 58261, 

October 6, 2008). 

Drought conditions have also been thought to contribute to the decline of Penstemon haydenii 

population numbers. The lack of moisture discourages the development of the seeds and promotes a 

prolonged dormant stage. Also, the larvae of the pyralid moth, which bores into the stem and root 

crowns of the plant has been known to cause a seventy five percent mortality rate in affected plants. 

6.2 Colorado Butterfly Plant (Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis) - Threatened 

Species/Habitat Description 

Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis (Colorado butterfly plant) is a member of the Evening 

primrose family (Onagraceae). The members of this family are characterized by having flowers with 

four petals that are joined at the base into a slender tube located above the seed-producing stem. 

Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis is a perennial plant that generally lives an average of two to 

six years. Characteristically the plants are 45 to 60 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) tall with leaves in 

excess of 3.8 cm (one and a half in) long. 

Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis have a single to multiple reddish, hairy stem(s) that measure 

50 to 80 cm (two to three ft.) tall. The lower leaves of the plant are lance-shaped with smooth or 

wavy-toothed margins and range from five to 15 cm (two to six in.) in length, while those on the 

stem are smaller and less abundant. The flowers are bilaterally symmetrical and similar in shape to 

the hind and fore wings of a butterfly. The flowers consist of four reddish sepals and four white 

petals that will first appear white but as the plant ages the flowers will become pink (Heidel 2008). 

The individual flowers are typically five to 14 millimeters (0.25 to 0.5 in). Only a few flowers are 

open at any given time. Flowers are assembled in a branched, elongate inflorescence above the 

leaves. Flowers are found below the rounded buds and above the mature fruits of the plant. The hard, 

nutlike fruits are four-angled and do not have a stalk. Non-flowering plants consist of a stem-less, 

basal rosette of oblong, hairless leaves three to 18 cm (one to seven in) long (Marriott 1987; Fertig 

1994; Fertig et al. 1994; Fertig 2000, 2000, 2001). 

Gaura neomexicana ssp. Coloradensis is generally found in wetland habitats comprised of subirrigated, alluvial soils. The common place to find the plant is around meandering streams on level or 

slightly sloping floodplains and drainage bottoms. Typically the plants occur in the high plains at 

1,524 to 1,951 m (5,000 to 6,400 ft.) Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis requires early to midsuccession riparian habitat generally among native grasses such as Agrostisstolonifera (red top) and 

Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass) on wetter sites; and Glycyrrhiza lepidota (wild licorice), 

Cirsium flodmanii (Floodman’s thistle), Grindelia squarrosa (curlytop gumweed) and Equisetum 

laevigatum (smooth scouring rush) on drier sites. This plant prefers open habitat not obstructed by 

other overgrown vegetation characteristic of places that have been disturbed in recent years. 

Life History 

Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis is a short lived, perennial herb that flowers from late June to 

late September or early October (Heidel 2008). Fruits begin to mature in late July and will continue 

to develop through September (Fertig 1994). Colorado butterfly plant reproduces entirely by seed. 

294 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The herb lives vegetatively in a basal root for several years before it will begin bearing fruit, which it 

does once and then dies. Moths are thought to be the primary pollinators, with pollination occurring 

in late evening or during the night. Individual plants may produce 143-383 fruits, each containing 1-

4 seeds (Mountain West Environmental Services 1985; Munz 1938). Population growth rates are 

based on seedling establishment and rosette maturity which is dependent on summer precipitation 

(Marriot et.al 1988; Floyd 1995a; Fertig 1996, 1997, 1998a, 1998b; Floyd and Ranker 1998). The 

vegetative rosettes are capable of producing a stable population through rough climatic years when 

seedling establishment may be reduced. Years of ideal climate may produce episodic establishment 

of large seedling recruitment classes which may be important for the long term growth, 

replenishment and survival of populations (Floyd and Ranker 1998). 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Critical Habitat 

Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis was listed as a threatened species on October 24th 1998. 

Gaura neomexicana ssp. Coloradensis occurs in southeastern Wyoming, north central Colorado, and 

extreme western Nebraska, mostly on private lands. No known occurrences of the Colorado butterfly 

plant in Wyoming are located on BLM or FS public lands. Two occurrences are known on the F.E. 

Warren Air Force Base, while other occurrences are on private or state lands. Annual monitoring of 

these populations by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database has continued for the past twenty years 

and is ongoing (Heidel 2005). 

On January 11, 2005, seven units in Wyoming were designated as critical habitat for Gaura 

neomexicana .ssp. coloradensis (70 FR 1940). The units are: 1) Tepee Ring Creek; 2) Bear Creek 

East; 3) Bear Creek West; 4) Little Bear Creek/Horse Creek; 5) Lodgepole Creek West; 6) 

Lodgepole Creek East; and 7) Borie. 

The final designation of critical habitat for Gaura neomexicana .ssp. coloradensis included the 

following critical habitat primary constituent elements: 1) Sub-irrigated, alluvial soils on level or 

low-gradient floodplains and drainage bottoms at elevations of 1,524 to 1,951 meters (5,000 to 6,400 

feet); 2) A mesic moisture regime, intermediate in moisture between wet and dry, streamside 

communities dominated by sedges, rushes, cattails, and dry upland shortgrass prairie; 3) Early- to 

mid-succession riparian (streambank or riverbank) plant communities that are open and without 

dense or overgrown vegetation (including hayed fields that are disked every 5 to 10 years at a depth 

of 20 to 30 centimeters (8 to 12 inches), grazed pasture, other agricultural lands that are not plowed 

or disked regularly, areas that have been restored after past aggregate extraction, areas supporting 

recreation trails, and urban/wildland interfaces); and 4) Hydrological and geological conditions that 

maintain stream channels, floodplains, floodplain benches, and wet meadows that support patterns of 

plant communities associated with Gaura neomexicana .ssp. coloradensis (65 FR 62302, January 11, 

2005). 

Threats 

Threats that affect Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis are the use of non-selective broadleaf 

herbicides, mowing and haying and the channelization and fragmentation of waterways. Gaura 

neomexicana ssp. coloradensis also needs disturbances to open ground for them to succeed. In the 

past, flooding was the main disturbance that created and sustained open habitat for Gaura 

neomexicana ssp. coloradensis to establish and flourish. Wildfire and grazing have historically 

opened areas up for the growth of Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis. The most serious threats 

are competition from non-native plants or replacement of early successional vegetation, and 

conversion of rangelands for crop agriculture or urban expansion (Fertig 1998b; 2000; Munk 1999). 

295 
 

 

6.3 Desert yellowhead (Yermo xanthocephalus) – Threatened 

Species/Habitat Description 

Yermo xanthocephalus (Desert yellowhead) is a tap-rooted, glabrous (hairless) perennial herb with 

leafy stems to 30 cm (12 in) high. The leathery leaves are alternate, lance-shaped to oval, four to 25 

cm (1.5 to ten in) long and often folded along the midvein. Leaf edges are smooth or toothed. Flower 

heads are many (25 to 180) and crowded at the top of the stem. Each head contains four to six 

perfect yellow disk flowers (ray flowers are absent) surrounded by four to six yellow, keeled 

involucral bracts (modified leaves below flower head). The pappus (ring of hairs) on the achenes 

(seeds) consists of many white capillary bristles (Dorn 1991; Dorn 2001; Dorn 2006). 

The species is found only in shallow deflation hollows in outcrops of Miocene sandstones and 

limestones of the Split Rock Formation at its junction with the White River Formation (Van Houten 

1964; Love 1961). The hollows are known to accumulate drifting snow and may be more moist than 

surrounding areas. The vegetation at these sites are typically sparse, consisting of low cushion plants 

and scattered clumps of Oryzopsis hymenoides (Indian ricegrass) (Fertig 1995). 

Life History 

Yermo xanthocephalus usually flowers from mid-June to August and may prolong flowering, or 

flower for a second time in September (Heidel 2002). The growing season has an average of 124 

days (Scott and Scott 2009). This species is pollinated by visually-oriented insects which are 

attracted to its bright disk flowers and bracts (Dom 1991). Ants and nectar-feeding butterflies were 

noted as frequent visitors to desert yellowhead flowers (Heidel et al. 2011). 

Yermo xanthocephalus is a long-lived perennial that produces sexually by seed and possibly 

asexually by vegetative buds. Yermo xanthocephalus is pollinated by visually-oriented insects 

attracted to its bright disk flowers and bracts (Dorn 1991). 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

Yermo xanthocephalus was listed as a threatened species on September 24 1997. On March 16, 2004 

(69 FR 12278-12290), critical habitat was designated for Yermo xanthocephalus in Fremont County, 

Wyoming. The designated critical habitat is approximately 146 hectares (360 acres) of Federal lands 

managed by BLM in the Beaver Rim area. 

Yermo xanthocephalus is currently known from a single population of plants scattered over an area 

of 20 ha (50 ac). Originally, Dorn (1991) estimated that there were approximately 500 plants within 

1 ha (2.5 ac); however, this was only a visual estimate. Plant communities associated with Yermo 

xanthocephalus include, but are not be limited to, sparsely-vegetated cushion plant communities 

with scattered clumps of Oryzopsis hymenoides (Indian rice grass) between 2,043 and 2,073 m 

(6,700 and 6,800 ft.) in Fremont County Wyoming. 

The desert yellowhead has approximately 146 ha (360 ac) of designated critical habitat which occurs 

in Fremont County Wyoming. The critical habitat occurs entirely on land managed by the Bureau of 

Land Management in the Beaver Rim area approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of Sweetwater Station 

in southern Fremont County, Wyoming. The primary constituent elements for Desert yellowhead 

consist of, but are not limited to: 

•	 Recent soils derived from sandstones and limestones of the Split Rock Formation at its junction 

with the White River Formation. These are shallow, loamy soils of the Entisol order that can be 

classified as coarse-loamy over sandy-skeletal, mixed, Lithic Torriorthent. The surface stratum 

296 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

has little organic matter and subsurface layers show no accumulation of humus, clay, gypsum, 

salts, or carbonates. 

•	 Plant communities associated with desert yellowhead include, but may not be limited to, sparsely 

vegetated cushion plant communities with scattered clumps of Oryzopsis hymenoides (Indian 

ricegrass) between 2,043 and 2,073 m (6,700 and 6,800 ft.) in Fremont County, Wyoming. 

Species common to these communities include Arenaria hookeri (Hooker’s sandwort), 

Astragalus kentrophyta (thistle milkvetch), Hymenoxys acaulis (stemless hymenoxy), and Phlox 

muscoides (squarestem phlox). These cushion-plant communities also contain natural openings. 

•	 Topographic features/relief (outcroppings, cliffs, and hills) and physical processes, particularly 

hydrologic processes, that maintain the shape and orientation of the hollows characteristic of 

Yermo xanthocephalus habitat (through microscale dynamics of local winds and erosion) and 

maintain moisture below the surface of the ground (through sheet wash from the adjacent 

outcroppings, cliffs, and hills). (Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 16, 2004 / 

Rules and Regulations). 

Threats 

Yermo xanthocephalus has a small population size and a restricted distribution which inherently 

makes it vulnerable to catastrophic events. The entire known range of Yermo xanthocephalus occurs 

on 20 ha (50 ac) in southern Fremont County, Wyoming. When Yermo xanthocephalus was first 

listed, oil and gas development was the most severe and immediate threat to the species through 

potential habitat destruction. In addition, habitat destruction by domestic livestock and native 

ungulates, the tires of vehicles during illegal use of the area and foot traffic of humans visiting the 

area may cause damage to plants and habitat through the crushing of plants, destruction of seeds, and 

compaction or erosion of soil. 

Researchers have also found that flowering levels decline in drought years. They have also found 

that Yermo xanthocephalus seeds have capacity for wind dispersal. Water erosion also appears to 

influence distribution patterns (Heidel 2002). Fertig (1995) characterized the species as being 

adaptable to severe habitats and having low annual reproductive output. 

6.4 Ute Ladies’ -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) - Threatened 

Species/Habitat Description 

Spiranthes diluvialis, or commonly known as the Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial orchid (family 

Orchidaceae). The orchid first appears above ground as a rosette of thickened grass-like leaves that 

is very difficult to distinguish from other vegetation. Its leaves are up to 1.5 cm (0.6 in) wide and 28 

cm (11 in) long; the longest leaves are near the base. The usually solitary flowering stem is 20 to 50 

cm (eight to 20 in) tall, terminating in a spike of three to fifteen white or ivory flowers. 

Spiranthes diluvialis occurs in soils moist at the surface throughout the growing season. Soils are 

generally silty-loam often underlain with cobble and gravel. The habitat settings are: early to midsuccessional riparian habitats (i.e. well established soils and vegetation) along perennial streams and 

rivers such as moist stream edges, high flow channels, old oxbows, vegetated point bars, and other 

fluvial features with appropriate hydrology; and areas supported by groundwater and sometimes 

supplemented by irrigation water, such as wet meadows and springs (Fertig et al. 1994; USFWS 

1995; Fertig 2000; 57 FR 2048). Spiranthes diluvialis appears to be well adapted to disturbance 

caused by water movement through flood plains as well. 

297 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides hydrology, common habitat features include dominance by perennial graminoids and forbs 

and low vegetative cover. Where colonies occur in more wooded areas, plants are usually found on 

the edges of small openings and along trails (Ward and Naumann 1998). Spiranthes diluvialis is 

intolerant of crowding and competition. The orchid may persist for some time in the grassy 

understory of these woody riparian shrublands, but do not appear to thrive under these conditions 

(Ward and Naumann 1998). 

Life History 

Flowering of Spiranthes diluvialis occurs from mid-July through August. However, in some 

locations it may bloom in early July or may still be in flower as late as early October. Some 

individuals remain under ground or do not flower each year (Arft 1993). 

Because of the unique anatomy of orchid flowers, only certain insects can accomplish pollination. 

Reproduction of the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid is strictly sexual, with bumblebees (Bombus spp.) and 

anthophorans (Anthophora spp.) (Sipes and Tepedino 1995) as the primary pollinators. These insects 

visit the orchids for the nectar and pollination is accomplished incidentally. 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

The Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) was federally listed as threatened on January 17, 1992 

(57 FR 2048) in its entire range. No critical habitat has been designated for the species. To date, no 

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

(USFWS 1995). 

In Wyoming, Spiranthes diluvialis typically occurs on the eastern plains in moist valley bottoms 

where small perennial rivers and streams are fed by ground water. 

Threats 

Factors that could affect Spiranthes diluvialis include natural or human-directed disturbances, such 

as the modification of the hydrology, increased recreation use, introduction or proliferation of 

invasive species, improper herbicide use, reduction or loss of pollinators and improper season and 

stocking rate of livestock grazing (USFWS 1995). Also, hay mowing, or fire, may hinder 

maintaining habitat in suitable condition for the orchid by reducing cover, litter, and weeds, 

especially when these occur during the flowering period (Arft 1995; Moseley 1998). 

Many Spiranthes diluvialis locations are in more mountainous or rural locations and are not as 

susceptible to the direct effects of urban development; however, some scattered locations are subject 

to rural development such as gravel pit excavations, irrigation diversions, and construction of 

irrigation canals, roads and bridges. Channelization of waterways and construction of levees that 

isolate a stream from its floodplain prevent formation and maintenance of suitable habitat (USFWS 

2003). It also eliminates periodic disturbances that remove competitive shrub stands which also resaturates and rejuvenates old and new habitats (Moseley 1998; Fertig 2000; USFWS 2003). 

Recreational development may cause either direct (placing trails or campgrounds in occupied or 

suitable habitat) or indirect (changes in hydrology, spread of invasive species) impacts to Spiranthes 

diluvialis (USFWS 2003). Campground facilities, road and parking lot construction and 

improvements, trails, and fisheries improvements result in increased access to and use of riparian 

and wetland areas that support Spiranthes diluvialis. Water-related activities are a common concern 

for continued viability of Spiranthes diluvialis throughout Wyoming as well (USFWS 2003). 

298 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A newly emerging and potentially serious threat to the orchid range wide is the proliferation of 

invasive native and non-native plant species. Spiranthes diluvialis is susceptible to below-ground 

competition, such as from strongly rhizomatous species, or above-ground competition that reduces 

light such as taller trees and shrubs. Tamarisk is of particular concern as it readily invades newly 

formed habitat before Spiranthes diluvialis can become established, is extremely competitive and 

may change soil surface chemistry through deposition of salty leaf litter. Management of invasive 

species, while a high priority for many agencies and those in the public, requires a high and 

continuous investment in labor and other resources in order to achieve success. This effort is often 

difficult to sustain over time. 

6.5 Western prairie-fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara)-Endangered 

Species/Habitat Description 

Platanthera praeclara, the Western prairie fringed orchid is distinguished by its large flowers (up to 

1 1⁄2 inches in length), large angular column, and broadly triangular petals. The lateral lobes of the lip 

on the western species are often, but not always, narrower than those on the eastern species. 

Platanthera praeclara is a stout, erect, long-lived perennial with a showy open raceme (spike) of up 

to two dozen white to creamy white flowers often an inch or more in size, each with a long nectar 

spur. The sepals of the orchid are tinged with pale green. The lip, or lower petal, of each flower, is 

deeply three-lobed and fringed. The single smooth stem can grow from two and a half to four feet 

tall. There are two to five simple elongate leaves which are thick and hairless. 

Platanthera praeclara occurs most often in remnant native prairies and meadows. It has also been 

observed at disturbed sites such as oil fields and roadside ditches. In the southern part of its range it 

is more likely to be found in mesic upland prairies and in the north in wet prairies and sedge 

meadows. It is also known from prairies and swales in sand dune complexes that are fed by shallow 

underground water. 

Life History 

Platanthera praeclara is a long-lived perennial. It emerges in May and blooms in June through July 

in the Northern parts of its range. Platanthera praeclara is a plant of the tall grass prairie and 

requires direct sunlight for growth. The flowers are fragrant at night and are pollinated by large 

sphinx moths, which is required for seed set. Any threat to these insects, such as the use of 

insecticides, is a threat to the Platanthera praeclara. 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

On September 28, 1989, Platanthera praeclara was classified as endangered under the endangered 

species act of 1973 as amended. 

The Western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) is known to occur in seven states and 

one Canadian province. It was first documented by the Lewis and Clark expedition. The species 

historic range extends from the Red River valley of Manitoba, Minnesota, and North Dakota, 

spreading southeastward to Iowa and Missouri and westward to northeastern Oklahoma, eastern 

Kansas, central Nebraska and eastern South Dakota. (Sather 1991). 

Platanthera praeclara is not known to occur in Wyoming. As the species requires the maintenance 

of functional and dynamic tallgrass prairie, it is unlikely that the species will ever be found to occur 

within the State. The potential for effects is limited to depletion issues surrounding the Platte River 

drainage basin though no critical habitat is designated for this species. 

299 
 

 

 

 

 

Threats 

Because the species does not occur in the state of Wyoming, threats to the species within the state 

would only occur from water depletions. Since 1978, the FWS has consistently found through formal 

section 7 consultations with Federal agencies that actions resulting in depletions to flows in the 

Platte River system are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of one or more federally-listed 

threatened or endangered species and adversely modify critical habitat (Instruction Memorandum 

No. WY-2007-039). 

6.6 Bonytail (Gila elegans) - Endangered 

Species/Habitat Description 

Gila elegans, the bonytail, are medium-sized (less than 600 mm or 23.62 in) fish in the minnow 

family. Adult Gila elegans are gray or olive colored on the back with silvery sides and a white belly. 

The adult Gila elegans have an elongated body with a long, thin caudal peduncle. The head is small 

and compressed compared to the rest of the body. The mouth is slightly overhung by the snout and 

there is a smooth low hump behind the head that is not as pronounced as the hump on a humpback 

chub. 

Vanicek (1967) reported that Gila elegans were generally found in pools and eddies in the absence 

of, although occasionally adjacent to, strong current and at varying depths generally over silt and 

silt-boulder substrates. Adult Gila elegans are sympatric with humpback chub in shoreline eddies 

among emergent boulders and cobble, and adjacent to swift current (Valdez 1990). The diets of Gila 

elegans are presumed similar to that of the humpback chub (USFWS 2002). 

Life History 

Gila elegans are considered a species that is adapted to main stem rivers because it has been 

observed in pools and eddies (Vanicek 1967; Minckley 1973). Spawning of Gila elegans has never 

been observed in a river, but ripe fish were collected in Dinosaur National Monument in Utah during 

late June and early July suggesting that spawning occurred at water temperatures of about eighteen 

degrees Celsius (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit) (Vanicek and Kramer 1969). Similar to other closely 

related Gila species, bonytail probably spawn in rivers in spring over rocky substrates; spawning has 

been observed in reservoirs over rocky shoals and shorelines. It has been recently hypothesized that 

flooded bottomlands may provide important Gila elegans nursery habitat. 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

Gila elegans was first listed as endangered on April 23, 1980 (45 FR 27710). It is currently 

designated as endangered throughout its entire range. 

Currently, no documented self-sustaining populations exist in the wild. Formerly reported as 

widespread and abundant in main stem rivers (Jordan and Evermann 1896), its populations have 

been greatly reduced. Remnant populations presently occur in the wild in low numbers (USFWS 

2002). The species is not known to occur in Wyoming, However, the species is included in the 

document because management actions in Wyoming may affect critical habitat for the species by 

extension through water depletions. 

Threats 

The primary threats to Gila elegans are stream flow regulation and habitat modification; also, 

competition with and predation by nonnative fishes; hybridization with other native Gila species; 

poor land-use practices, degraded water quality, pesticides, and pollutants (USFWS 2002). The 

300 
 

 

 

 

existing habitat, altered by these threats, has been modified to the extent that it impairs essential 

behavior patterns, such as breeding, feeding, and sheltering. Threats to Gila elegans in relation to 

hybridization are essentially the same threats identified for humpback chub. Gila elegans were 

extirpated in some areas primarily because of rotenone poisoning and cold-water releases from dams 

(USFWS 2002). 

6.7 Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) - Endangered 

Species/Habitat Description 

Ptychocheilus lucius, the Colorado pikeminnow or squawfish, are the largest cyprinid fish (minnow 

family) native to North America. It is an elongated pike-like fish that during pre-development times 

may have grown as large as six feet in length and weighed nearly one hundred pounds (Behnke and 

Benson 1983). Today, Ptychocheilus lucius rarely exceed three feet in length or weigh more than 18 

pounds; such fish are estimated to be forty-five to fifty-five years old (Osmundson et al. 1997). The 

mouth of this species is large and nearly horizontal with long slender pharyngeal teeth (located in the 

throat), adapted for grasping and holding prey. Adults are strongly counter shaded with a dark, olive 

back, and a white belly. Young Ptychocheilus lucius are silvery and usually have a dark, wedgeshaped spot at the base of the caudal fin. 

Ptychocheilus lucius are long-distance migrators. They live in warm-water reaches of river main 

stems and larger tributaries, and require uninterrupted stream passage for spawning migrations and 

dispersal of young. The species is adapted to a hydrologic cycle characterized by large spring peaks 

of snow-melt runoff and low, relatively stable base flows (Junk et al. 1989; Johnson et al. 1995). 

Ptychocheilus lucius use relatively deep, low-velocity eddies, pools, and runs that occur in nearshore areas of main river channels (Tyus and McAda 1984; Valdez and Masslich 1989; Tyus 1990, 

1991; Osmundson et al. 1995). In spring, Ptychocheilus lucius use floodplain habitats, flooded 

tributary mouths, flooded side canyons, and eddies that are available only during high flows (Tyus 

1990, 1991; Osmundson et al. 1995). Gravel and cobble deposits are usually found in the habitat to 

be used for spawning. 

Life History 

The diet of Ptychocheilus lucius longer than 7.6 to 10.2 cm (three to four in) consists almost entirely 

of other fish. (Vanicek and Kramer 1969). Males become sexually mature earlier and at a smaller 

size than do females, though all are mature by about age 7 and 500 mm (20 in) in length (Vanicek 

and Kramer 1969; Seethaler 1978; Hamman 1981). 

Ptychocheilus lucius are long-distance migrators; adults move hundreds of miles to and from 

spawning areas, and require long sections of river with unimpeded passage. Adults require pools, 

deep runs, and eddy habitats maintained by high spring flows. High spring flows provide an 

important cue to prepare adults for migration (Harvey et al. 1993). These high spring flows maintain 

channel and habitat diversity, flush sediments from spawning areas, rejuvenate food production, 

form gravel and cobble deposits used for spawning, and rejuvenate backwater nursery habitats. 

Spawning occurs in the Ptychocheilus lucius after spring runoff at water temperatures typically 

between eighteen and twenty three degrees Celsius (64.4°F and 73.4°F). It has occurred as early as 

June 15th in some years and as late as August 15th. Although direct observation of Ptychocheilus 

lucius spawning is not possible, in one study, radio telemetry indicated spawning may occur over 

cobble-bottomed riffles (Tyus 1990). 

301 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Known spawning sites are also in canyon-bound reaches (McAda 2000). Because of their mobility 

and environmental tolerances, adult Ptychocheilus lucius are more widely distributed than other life 

stages. Distribution patterns of adults are stable during most of the year (Tyus 1990, 1991; Irving 

and Modde 2000), but distribution of adults change in late spring and early summer due to migration 

to spawning (Tyus and McAda 1984; Tyus 1985, 1990, 1991; Irving and Modde 2000). 

After hatching and emerging from the spawning substrate, Ptychocheilus lucius larvae drift 

downstream to backwaters in sandy, alluvial regions, where they remain through most of their first 

year of life (Holden 1977; Tyus and Haines 1991; Muth and Snyder 1995). Backwaters and the 

physical factors that create them are vital to successful recruitment of early life stages of 

Ptychocheilus lucius. It is important to note that these backwaters are formed after cessation of 

spring runoff within the active channel and are not floodplain features. Ptychocheilus lucius larvae 

occupy these in-channel backwaters soon after hatching. They tend to occur in backwaters that are 

large, warm, deep (average, about 0.3 m or 1 foot in the Green River), and turbid (Tyus and Haines 

1991). Recent research (Day et al. 1999a, 1999b; Trammell and Chart 1999) has confirmed these 

preferences and suggested that a particular type of backwater is preferred by Ptychocheilus lucius 

larvae and juveniles. 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

The Ptychocheilus lucius was first listed on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001). Full protection under the 

Act of 1973 occurred on January 4, 1974. It is currently designated as endangered throughout its 

range, except in the Salt and Verde River drainages in Arizona. Based on early fish collection 

records, archaeological finds, and other observations, the Ptychocheilus lucius was once found 

throughout warm water reaches of the entire Colorado River Basin down to the Gulf of California, 

and including reaches of the upper Colorado River and its major tributaries, the Green River and its 

major tributaries, and the Gila River system in Arizona (Seethaler 1978). Ptychocheilus lucius have 

never been found in colder, headwater areas. 

Major declines in Ptychocheilus lucius populations occurred during the dam-building era of the 

1930s through the 1960s. Behnke and Benson (1983) summarized the decline of the natural 

ecosystem, pointing out that dam, impoundments, and water use practices drastically modified the 

river’s natural hydrology and channel characteristics throughout the Colorado River Basin. Dams on 

the main stem broke the natural continuum of the river ecosystem into a series of disjunct segments, 

blocking native fish migrations, reducing temperatures downstream of dams, creating lacustrine 

habitat, and providing conditions that allowed competitive and predatory nonnative fishes to thrive 

both within the impounded reservoirs and in the modified river segments that connect them. This has 

reduced the ideal habitat of the species. The highly modified flow regime in the lower basin coupled 

with the introduction of nonnative fishes decimated populations of native fish. 

No self-sustaining populations of this species are currently known to exist in Wyoming. No recent 

sightings have been reported in Wyoming. However, in 1988, an individual was captured from the 

Little Snake River in Wyoming, which is a tributary to the Yampa River in Colorado where 

populations are known to exist. Management actions that involve water depletions in Wyoming may 

affect critical habitat for the species in states located downstream. 

Threats 

The primary threats to Ptychocheilus lucius are stream flow regulation and habitat modification; 

competition with and predation by nonnative fishes; and pesticides and pollutants (USFWS 2002). 

The existing habitat, altered by these threats, has been modified to the extent that it impairs essential 

302 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

behavior patterns, such as breeding, feeding, and sheltering. These impairments are described in 

further detail below. Data collected by Osmundson and Kaeding (1991) indicated that during low 

water year’s nonnative minnows capable of preying on or competing with larval endangered fishes 

greatly increased in numbers. 

Threats from pesticides and pollutants include accidental spills of petroleum products and hazardous 

materials; discharge of pollutants from uranium mill tailings; and high selenium concentration in the 

water and food chain (USFWS 2002). Accidental spills of hazardous material into critical habitat can 

cause immediate mortality when lethal toxicity levels are exceeded. Pollutants from uranium mill 

tailings cause high levels of ammonia that exceed water quality standards. High selenium levels may 

adversely affect reproduction and recruitment (Hamilton and Wiedmeyer 1990; Stephens et al. 1992; 

Hamilton and Waddell 1994; Hamilton et al. 1996; Stephens and Waddell 1998). 

6.8 Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) - Endangered 

Species/Habitat Description 

Gila cypha, the humpback chub, is a medium-sized freshwater fish (less than 500 mm or 19.7 in) of 

the minnow family. The adults have a pronounced dorsal hump, a narrow flattened head, a fleshy 

snout with an inferior-subterminal mouth, and small eyes. It has silvery sides with a brown or olive 

colored back. 

Backwaters, eddies, and runs have been reported as common capture locations for young-of-year 

Gila cypha (Valdez and Clemmer 1982). Data indicates that young utilize shallow areas. Habitat 

suitability index curves developed by Valdez et al. (1990) indicate young-of-year prefer average 

depths of 0.64 m (2.1 ft.) with a maximum of 1.55 m (5.1 ft.). Average velocities were reported at 

0.06 meters per second (0.2 feet per second). Valdez et al. (1982), Wick et al. (1979), and Wick et al. 

(1981) found adult Gila cypha in water averaging fifty feet in depth with a maximum depth of ninety 

two feet. In these localities, humpback chub were associated with large boulders and steep cliffs. 

Gorman and Stone (1999) reported that ripe male Gila cypha aggregated in areas of complex habitat 

structure (i.e., matrix of large boulders and travertine masses combined with chutes, runs, eddies, 

0.5–2.0 m deep) and were associated with deposits of clean gravel. Generally, Gila cypha show 

fidelity for canyon reaches and move very little (Miller et al. 1982; Archer et al. 1985; Burdick and 

Kaeding 1985; Kaeding et al. 1990). Tyus and Karp (1989) reported that Gila cypha occupy 

shoreline eddy habitats. They also reported that spring peak flows were important for reproductive 

success because availability of these habitats is greatest during spring runoff. 

Life History 

Tyus and Karp (1991) found that Gila cypha spawn during spring and early summer following peak 

flows at water temperatures of about twenty degrees Celsius (68°F). They estimated that the 

spawning period for humpback chub ranges from May into July, with spawning occurring earlier in 

low-flow years and later in high-flow years; spawning was thought to occur only during a four to 

five week period (Karp and Tyus 1990). Peak hatch of Gila larvae occur on the descending limb of 

the hydrograph following spring runoff at maximum daily water temperatures of approximately 20 

to 21°C (68 to 69.8°F) (Chart and Lentsch 1999). Although Gila cypha are believed to broadcast 

eggs over mid-channel cobble and gravel bars, spawning in the wild has not been observed for this 

species. 

Gila cypha do not make extensive migrations (Karp and Tyus 1990). In some areas the Gila cypha 

were essentially restricted to a 1.6 km (1 mi) reach. These results were based on the recapture of 

303 
 

 

 

 

Carlin-tagged fish and radio telemetry studies conducted from 1979 to 1981 (Valdez et al. 1982) and 

1983 to 1985 (Archer et al. 1985; USFWS 1986; Kaeding et al. 1990). 

Chart and Lentsch (1999) estimated hatching dates for young Gila between 1992 and 1995. They 

determined that hatching occurred on the descending limb of the hydrograph as early as 9 June 1992 

at a flow of 139 cubic meters per second (m3/s) (4908.7 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) and as late as 

July 1, 1995 at a flow of 731 m3/s (25,815 ft3/s). Instantaneous daily river temperatures on hatching 

dates overall years ranged from twenty to twenty two degrees Celsius (68 to 71.6°F). Newly hatched 

larvae average 6.3–7.5 mm (0.25-0.3 in) total length (TL) (Holden 1973; Suttkus and Clemmer 

1977; Minckley 1973; Snyder 1981; Hamman 1982; Behnke and Benson 1983; Muth 1990), and 1-

month-old fish are approximately 20 mm (0.79 in) long (Hamman 1982). No evidence exists of 

long-distance larval drift (Miller and Hubert 1990; Robinson et al. 1998). Upon emergence from 

spawning gravels, Gila cypha larvae remain in the vicinity of bottom surfaces (Marsh 1985) near 

spawning areas (Chart and Lentsch 1999). 

High spring flows that simulate the magnitude and timing of the natural hydrograph provide a 

number of benefits to Gila cypha. Bank-full and over-bank flows provide allochthonous energy input 

to the system in the form of terrestrial organic matter and insects that are utilized as food. High 

spring flows clean spawning substrates of fine sediments and provides physical cues for spawning. 

High flows also form large re-circulating eddies used by adult fish (Chart and Lentsch 1999). High 

spring flows (50 percent exceedance or greater) have been correlated with increased recruitment of 

Gila cypha (Chart and Lentsch 1999). 

Status, Distribution and Designated Critical Habitat 

Gila cypha was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967. The USFWS designated critical habitat for 

the Gila cypha on March 21, 1994 (59 FR 13374). Historic abundance of the Gila cypha are 

unknown and historic distribution is surmised from various reports and collections that indicate the 

species presently occupies about 68% of its historic habitat (Tyus 1998). 

There are no known occurrences of Gilia cypha in Wyoming (USFWS 2002). However, the species 

is included in the document because management actions in Wyoming may affect critical habitat for 

the species by extension through water depletions. 

Threats 

The primary threats to Gila cypha are stream flow regulation and habitat modification; competition 

with and predation by nonnative fishes; parasitism (Asian tapeworm); hybridization with other 

native Gila species; pesticides and pollutants (USFWS 2002). The existing habitat, altered by these 

threats, has been modified to the extent that it impairs essential behavior patterns, such as breeding, 

feeding, and sheltering. Threats to Gila cypha are flow regulation and habitat modification, predation 

by nonnative fishes, and pesticides and pollutants. Although historic data are limited, the apparent 

range-wide decline in Gila cypha is likely due to a combination of factors including alteration of 

river habitats by reservoir inundation, changes in stream discharge and temperature, competition 

with and predation by introduced fish species, and other factors such as changes in food resources 

resulting from stream alterations (USFWS 1990). Also, extensive human alterations throughout the 

basin prior to faunal surveys may have depleted or eliminated the species from some river reaches 

before its occurrence was documented. 

6.9 Kendall Warm Springs Dace (Rhinichthys osculus thermalis) - Endangered 

304 
 

 

 

 

 

Species/Habitat Description 

Rhinichthys osculus thermalis, the Kendal warm springs dace, belongs to the Cyprinidae family. It is 

the only fish species to inhabit the eighty five degrees Fahrenheit spring water of Kendall Warm 

Springs in the Bridger Teton National Forest in Wyoming. Adults range from one to two inches in 

length. They have a greyish-green body with dark blotches and a dark lateral stripe on their sides. 

Rhinichthys osculus thermalis, Kendall warm springs dace, habitat is limited to only one area. 

Rhinichthys osculus thermalis are confined to one stream approximately three hundred meters (328 

yards) in length. It originates at a series of thermal springs near the base of a bluff. The Kendall 

Warm Springs are located at 2,390 meters (7,840 ft.) in elevation. The springs flow southwest 

towards the Green River for a distance of 300m (984.25 ft.), before it cascades into the river over a 

travertine embankment. (Binns 1978). 

Life History 

Rhinichthys osculus thermalis spawn year-round, however, Gryska and Hubert (1997) found 

evidence that reproduction decreases in the winter. Researchers witnessed fewer larval fish drifting 

in January than in May through August. Rhinichthys osculus thermalis inhabit fairly shallow pools 

and stream not more than 0.31 meters (1 ft.) in depth. Plant growth within the water is necessary for 

escape cover and protection from the current. Fry also utilize the vegetation as nursery areas 

(USFWS 1982). 

Stomach analysis of Rhinichthys osculus thermalis indicates they feed on benthic invertebrates and 

epiphytic organisms (Gryska and Hubert 1997). They suck and scrape invertebrates from the 

substrate by using a subterminal mouth specialized for benthic foraging. Benthic invertebrates 

occurring in the Kendall Warm Springs stream include Odonata (Argia, Erythemis), Trichoptera 

(Cheumatopsyche, Hydroptila), Coleoptera (Elmidae, Hydrophilidae), Diptera (Heleidae, 

Stratiomyiidae, Tendipedidae, Tipulidae), Amphipoda (Hyalella azteca), Hydracarina, and 

Gastropoda (Lymnaea, Planorbidae) (Binns 1978). 

Status, Distribution 

On October 13, 1970 (35 FR 6047) Rhinichthys osculus thermalis was listed as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 926; 16 U.S.C. 668aa(c)). On January 4, 

1974 (39 FR 1171) the species was “grandfathered” into the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (ESA). 

Rhinichthys osculus thermalis is only known to occur in the Bridger-Teton field office in Sublette 

County Wyoming. Rhinichthys osculus thermalis are confined to one stream approximately three 

hundred meters (328 yd.) in length which originates at a series of thermal springs. When the species 

was first listed, its habitat was fragmented into two sections by a road built across the stream prior to 

1934. The road culvert bisected the stream downstream from the stream’s origin. Since the listing, 

the road culvert has since been removed and replaced with a bridge which spans the stream (USFS 

1997) allowing reconnection of the habitat. The habitat ends with a waterfall which plunges 

downward to the non-thermal Green River below. Rhinichthys osculus thermalis are believed to 

occupy their entire historic range (Hubbs and Kuhne 1937; Kaya et al. 1992). 

Threats 

The habitat remains in relatively good condition. However, alterations by recreational users have 

occurred through the construction of a series of dams/pools near the springs and also through the 

contamination of the springs and stream by soaps, shampoos, and detergents. Bathing, wading, and 

305 
 

 

 

 

washing clothes in the Kendall Warm Springs area is currently prohibited, but some illegal activities 

have continued to occur. Other threats to the species include research efforts, oil and gas 

development, livestock grazing, recreation, reservoir construction, wildfire, acid rain, and 

herbicide/pesticide use (USFWS, 2007). 

A number of natural predators of Rhinichthys osculus thermalis are present in its habitat. Dragonfly 

nymphs prey on larvae and small juvenile Rhinichthys osculus thermalis (Gryska and Hubert 1997). 

Other potential predators are dippers (Cinclus mexicana), Brewer’s blackbirds (Euphagus 

cyanocephalus), great blue herons (Ardea herodias), and wandering garter snakes (Thamnophis 

elegans vagrans) (USFWS, 2007). 

6.10 Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus)-Endangered 

Species/Habitat Description 

Scaphirhynchus albus, the pallid sturgeon, is an ancient species that has existed during the dinosaur 

era Scaphirhynchus albus are considered to be one of the most poorly known and infrequently seen 

freshwater fishes in North America. Scaphirhynchus albus are one of the largest (76 to 172 cm, 30 to 

60 in) fishes found in the Missouri-Mississippi River drainage. They weigh up to thirty-nine 

kilograms (85 pounds). They are typically light brown on the dorsal surface and white underneath. It 

has a flattened, shovel-shaped snout. Fleshy chin barbels are located about one third the distance 

between the mouth and snout. They also have inner barbels which are located about one half the 

length of the outer barbels. Scaphirhynchus albus have a long, slender, flattened and armored region 

from the dorsal fin to the tail fin (caudal peduncle), which has a long upper lobe. 

Scaphirhynchus albus is a bottom dweller, found in areas of strong current and firm sand bottom in 

the main channel of large turbid rivers. Little is known about pallid sturgeon life requirements; 

however, we do know that they prefer large, turbid, free-flowing riverine habitats with rocky 

substrates. Pallid sturgeons are well adapted to life on the river bottom and inhabit areas of swifter 

water. 

Life History 

Scaphirhynchus albus grow very slowly, and mature late. They feed on small fishes and immature 

aquatic insects. Spawning occurs from June through August. The barbels, used to sense the river 

bottom and identify prey, allow the mouth to quickly capture it. Prey consists of aquatic insects and 

small bottom dwelling fish. Scaphirhynchus albus have been known to live beyond sixty years of 

age. They do not reach sexual maturity until about age twenty. 

Scaphirhynchus albus are known to hybridize in nature with the closely related sturgeon, and it is 

thought that loss of habitat and reproductive cues (water level raises) are the likely causes. Since 

their former unique spawning habitats have been altered or lost largely due to damming, altered 

hydrology, and channelization, both species are forced to spawn at the few remaining acceptable 

locations. Fertilization occurs externally, and hybridization occurs when eggs and sperm of the two 

species are mixed in the river water as it flows over the gravelly spawning beds. 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

Scaphirhynchus albus was listed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as endangered on September 6, 

1990, in accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 

The range of Scaphirhynchus albus includes the headwaters of the Missouri River (Fort BentonGreat Falls, Montana) through the Mississippi River to New Orleans, Louisiana. Scaphirhynchus 

306 
 

 

 

albus has not been documented in Wyoming. However, the species is included in the document 

because management actions in Wyoming may affect critical habitat for the species by extension 

through water depletions within the Platt River drainage basin. 

Threats 

Because the species does not occur in the state of Wyoming, threats to the species within the state 

would only occur from water depletions. Since 1978, the FWS has consistently found through formal 

section 7 consultations with Federal agencies that actions resulting in depletions to flows in the 

Platte River system are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of one or more federally-listed 

threatened or endangered species and adversely modify critical habitat (Instruction Memorandum 

No. WY-2007-039). 

6.11 Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) - Endangered 

Species/Habitat Description 

Xyrauchen texanus, the razorback sucker, is a fish belonging to the family Catostomidae (meaning 

“down mouth”). The Xyrauchen texanus have ventral mouths with thick lips covered with papillae 

and no scales on its head. Suckers are bottom browsers, sucking up or scraping off small 

invertebrates, algae, and organic matter with their fleshy, protrusible lips (Moyle 1976). Xyrauchen 

texanus are the only sucker with an abrupt sharp-edged dorsal keel behind its head. The keel 

becomes larger with age. The head and keel are dark, the back is olive-colored, the sides are 

brownish or reddish, and the abdomen is yellowish white (Sublette et al. 1990). Adults often exceed 

three kg (six lb.) in weight and six hundred mm (two feet) in length. Xyrauchen texanus are longlived. The Xyrauchen texanus adult can live forty-four to fifty years. Xyrauchen texanus reaches 

maturity between two and seven years of age (Minckley 1983). They can produce viable gametes 

even when quite old. Survival adaptations include the ability to spawn in a variety of habitats and 

flows regimes, and over a long season. 

Outside of the spawning season, adult Xyrauchen texanus occupy a variety of shoreline and main 

channel habitats including slow runs, shallow to deep pools, backwaters, eddies, and other relatively 

slow velocity areas associated with sand substrates (Tyus 1987; Tyus and Karp 1989; Osmundson 

and Kaeding 1989; Valdez and Masslich 1989; Osmundson and Kaeding 1991; Tyus and Karp 

1990). Xyrauchen texanus are also known to be in off-channel habitats, flooded side canyons, 

washes, side channels and tributaries (Muth et al. 1998). Habitat requirements of young and juvenile 

Xyrauchen texanus in the wild are not yet well known, particularly in native riverine environments. 

Life History 

Xyrauchen texanus can spawn as early as age 3 or 4, when they are 35.6 cm (14.4 in) or more long. 

Depending on water temperature, spawning can take place as early as November or as late as June. 

In the upper Colorado River basin, razorbacks typically spawn between mid-April and mid-June. 

These fish reportedly migrate long distances to spawn, congregating in large numbers in spawning 

areas. Sexually mature Xyrauchen texanus are generally collected on the ascending limb of the 

hydrograph from mid-April through June (depending on the specific location). Tyus and Karp (1990) 

and Osmundson and Kaeding (1991) reported off-channel habitats to be much warmer than the main 

stem river. Xyrauchen texanus presumably moved to these areas for feeding, resting, sexual 

maturation, spawning, and other activities associated with their reproductive cycle. 

307 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

The Xyrauchen texanus was first listed on October 23, 1991 (56 FR 54957). It is currently 

designated as endangered throughout the entire range of the species. On March 14, 1989, the 

USFWS was petitioned to conduct a status review of the Xyrauchen texanus (56 FR 54957). The 

final rule stated, “Little evidence of natural recruitment has been found in the past thirty years, and 

numbers of adult fish captured in the last 10 years demonstrate a downward trend relative to historic 

abundance.” 

Critical habitat was designated for Xyrauchen texanus on March 21, 1994 (59 FR 13374). 

Historically, Xyrauchen texanus were found in the main stem Colorado River and major tributaries 

in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and in Mexico (Ellis 1914; Minckley 

1983). Between 1992 and 1995 larval Xyrauchen texanus were collected in the middle and lower 

Green River and within the Colorado River inflow to Lake Powell (Muth 1995). Average fecundity 

recorded in studies ranged from 100,800 to 46,740 eggs per female (Bestgen 1990). 

Although the species has not been found in Wyoming, there is potential for the species to travel up 

the Little Snake River, which flows into Colorado from Wyoming and ends up in the Yampa River 

(USFWS 2002). The main reason this species is included in the document is because management 

actions in Wyoming may affect critical habitat for the species by extension through water depletions. 

Threats 

The primary threats to Xyrauchen texanus are stream flow regulation and habitat modification; 

competition with and predation by nonnative fishes; and pesticides and pollutants (USFWS 2002). 

The existing habitat, altered by these threats, has been modified to the extent that it impairs essential 

behavior patterns, such as breeding, feeding, and sheltering Significant changes have occurred in 

Xyrauchen texanus habitat through diversion and depletion of water, introduction of nonnative 

fishes, and construction and operation of dams” (56 FR 54957) and reservoirs. Dams on the main 

stem of the river and its major tributaries have segmented the river system, blocked migration routes, 

and changed much of the river habitat into lake habitat. Dams have also drastically altered flows, 

temperatures, and channel geomorphology. 

Wydoski and Wick (1998) identified starvation of larval Xyrauchen texanus due to low zooplankton 

densities in the main channel and loss of seasonal floodplain habitats which provide adequate 

zooplankton densities for larval food as one of the most important factors limiting recruitment. 

Lower regulated river discharges, channelization, and levee construction has restricted access to 

those floodplain habitats. Reduction in spring peak flows may hinder the ability of Xyrauchen 

texanus to form spawning aggregations, because spawning cues are reduced (Modde and Irving 

1998). 

6.12 Wyoming Toad (Bufo baxteri) - Endangered 

Species/Habitat Description 

Bufo baxteri (Wyoming toad) adults have a snout-vent length that averages about 5.6 cm (2.2 in). 

Female Bufo baxteri grow slightly larger than males. The dorsal surface of the body has rounded 

warts intermediate in size. The cranial crests fuse medially to form an elongated boss-a ridge with a 

median groove. Cutting tubercles on the hind foot are well developed. Background color is dark 

brown, gray, or greenish with small dark blotches and a rather indistinct median line. Some Bufo 

baxteri have well defined light lateral stripes. The belly is spotted; males have a dark throat. This 

308 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

toad can be distinguished by other toad species present in Wyoming by the small adult size and 

fused cranial crests. 

Historically, Bufo baxteri habitat included floodplain ponds, small ponds and lakes produced by 

irrigation runoff, and many small seepage lakes within the Laramie Basin (Jennings et al. 2001). 

Currently, Bufo baxteri are found in sedge and grass wet meadows at the margins of lakes and ponds 

on the floodplain of streams in the Basin. The habitat has been described as bogs created by 

underground water collecting into seepage lakes (Baxter 1987). Bufo baxteri typically breed within 

the edges of bays, ponds, and irrigated meadows where water is shallow and vegetation is plentiful. 

The abundant vegetative cover provides important protection from summer evaporation. Numerous 

small seepage lakes, river courses, and irrigation water provide the moist areas essential to Bufo 

baxteri survival (USFWS 1991). 

Life History 

Bufo baxteri is endemic to Wyoming. It is believed to be a glacial relict found only in the Laramie 

Basin (Jennings et al. 2001). Adult Bufo baxteri are insectivorous. They eat ants, beetles, and other 

invertebrates (USFWS 1991). Tadpoles primarily feed on algae. 

In early summer, Bufo baxteri are active during the daylight hours. In late July, toad activity during 

the daylight hours is less common. It is thought that Bufo baxteri become nocturnal during the dry 

portion of summer (starting late July) and remains mostly underground during the day. It is thought 

that Bufo baxteri burrow into softer soils such as areas that have been tilled by pocket gophers for 

hibernation (USFWS 1991). Toads have been observed using rodent burrows and areas of high 

vegetation at night. During warm afternoons Bufo baxteri were observed digging shallow 

impressions in the open substrate possibly for thermo- and osmo-regulation and predator avoidance 

(Parker 2000). 

Breeding generally occurs in water that is less than 15.2 centimeters (6 in) deep. Adult Bufo baxteri 

typically appear at breeding sites from mid-May to mid-June when daytime temperatures reach 

Twenty-one degrees Celsius (70°F). Males appear first and call to attract females. Breeding typically 

occurs. Tadpoles usually complete their development by late August. Males begin breeding at three 

years of age while females begin breeding at two years of age (USFWS 1991). 

Status, Distribution 

Bufo baxteri was listed as federally endangered on February 16, 1984 (USFWS 1984). A recovery 

plan for the species was approved in 1991. 

Dr. George Baxter of the University of Wyoming first discovered the Bufo baxteri in 1946. At that 

time, Bufo baxteri was considered abundant, although it was restricted to a relatively small range of 

less than 1,554 square kilometers (600 mi2

). Bufo baxteri was originally found from many breeding 

sites in the floodplains of the Big and Little Laramie rivers. During the 1970s, Bufo baxteri 

populations declined drastically. An extensive survey of the Laramie Basin in 1980 found only one 

population (Jennings et al. 2001). Since 1983, all Wyoming toad observations have come from an 

area approximately 77.7 square kilometers (30 mi2), located 16 to 24 kilometers (ten to 15 mi) 

southwest of Laramie around Mortenson Lake (USFWS 1991). The species is found within the 

Rawlins field office in Wyoming. Attempts to introduce the Bufo baxteri at several locations, 

including Mortenson Lake in the Mortenson Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Lake George, 

and Rush Lake at the Hutton Lake NWR (Jennings et al. 1991) have been made. 

309 
 

 

Threats 

The primary threat to Bufo baxteri is the amphibian chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium 

dendrobatidis). Chytrid fungus has been implicated in declines and extinctions of amphibian species 

worldwide. Several other diseases have also been observed affecting Bufo baxteri, including “redleg,” “short tongue syndrome” and adult enema syndrome. Red-leg symptoms include red legs and 

anus. Red leg is a fatal bacterial infection. Short tongue syndrome is a disease that causes toads to 

miss their target when attempting to capture food items (Geraud and Keinath 2004). 

Water diversions, quantity and quality of water, infectious disease, predation, pesticide use, grazing 

and irrigation practices, weather events, climate changes and lack of genetic diversity may also 

affect species survival and abundance. Pesticide use may also affect food sources for Bufo baxteri 

(Geraud and Keinath 2004). 

6.13 Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)-Endangered 

Species/Habitat Description 

Least tern (Sterna antillarum) is the smallest member of the gull and tern family. They measure 20 

to 23 cm (eight to nine in) long and having a 51 cm (20 in) wingspread. Males and females appear 

identical. They have a black crown, white forehead, gray back, gray wings above with white below, 

orange legs and a black-tipped yellow bill. Immature Sterna antillarum have darker feathers, a dark 

bill and dark eye stripes on white heads. 

Least tern nests in small groups on barren beaches of sand, gravel or shells, on dry mudflats and saltencrusted soils (salt flats) and at sand and gravel pits along rivers. Nesting locations are usually at 

higher elevations and away from the water edge. This is because nesting starts when the river flows 

are high and small amounts of sand are exposed. Nests are often several hundred meters from the 

water (Rumancik 1987, 1988). 

Life History 

Least tern feed on small fish and crustaceans. The food is taken by diving from the air into shallow 

water. They also feed on insects, mollusks, and annelids (Whiteman 1988). During the breeding 

season, Sterna antillarum usually feed within a few hundred meters of the nesting colony. 

Least tern arrives on breeding grounds in early May. Nesting success depends on the presence of 

bare or nearly barren sandbars, favorable water levels during nesting and food abundance. Sterna 

antillarum spend four to five months at their breeding sites. They arrive at breeding areas from late 

April to early June (Faanes, 1983). The nest is an inconspicuous, unlined scrape usually containing 

three brown spotted eggs. Egg-laying and incubation occur from late May through early August. 

Eggs hatch in about twenty days and chicks are typically fledged in another twenty days. 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

On May 28, 1985 Sterna antillarum was listed as endangered in accordance with provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 

Historically, Sterna antillarum nested along the Colorado (in Texas), Red, Rio Grande, Arkansas, 

Missouri, Ohio and Mississippi River systems. Currently, they are known to nest in the Mississippi 

and Rio Grande River basins from Montana south to Texas and from eastern New Mexico and 

Colorado to Indiana and Louisiana(Campbell 1935; Janssen1986). The species has not been known 

to occur in Wyoming. However, the species is included in the document because management 

310 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

actions in Wyoming may affect critical habitat for the species by extension through water depletions 

within the Platte River drainage basin. 

Threats 

Because the species does not occur in the state of Wyoming, threats to the species within the state 

would only occur from water depletions. Since 1978, the FWS has consistently found through formal 

section 7 consultations with Federal agencies that actions resulting in depletions to flows in the 

Platte River system are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of one or more federally-listed 

threatened or endangered species and adversely modify critical habitat (Instruction Memorandum 

No. WY-2007-039). 

6.14 Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) -Endangered 

Species/Habitat Description 

The Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is a sandy-gray, robin-sized shorebird with one dark breast 

band (Wilcox 1959; Haig 1992). It has a dark stripe across the crown during the breeding season. 

Other characteristics include a white wing stripe and a white rump that is visible in flight. 

Piping plover nest on sandbars and sand and gravel beaches with short, sparse vegetation along 

inland lakes, on natural and dredge islands in rivers, in gravel pits along rivers and on salt-encrusted 

bare areas of sand, gravel or pebbly mud on interior alkali ponds and lakes. 

Life History 

Piping plovers feed along the water's edge on small insects, worms, terrestrial insects, crustaceans 

and mollusks (Haig 1992). 

Piping plover is present on breeding grounds from late March through August. Nests are shallow, 

scraped depressions occasionally lined with small pebbles, shells or other material. A clutch of four 

eggs is usually laid in late May or early June with hatching in twenty seven to thirty one days. 

Charadrius melodus are considered monogamous, but because nests are often destroyed at the 

beginning of the breeding season, new mates are known to have been chosen. One brood per year is 

characteristic of Charadrius melodus; however, females are capable of laying several clutches if a 

nest is destroyed (Haig 1992). Both eggs and young are tended by both parents. 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

On December 11, 1985, Charadrius melodus was listed as endangered in the Great Lakes watershed 

of both the United States and Canada, and as threatened in the remainder of its range in the U.S. 

(Northern Great Plains, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands), Canada, Mexico, 

Bahamas, and the West Indies, (USFWS 1985, COSEWIC 2001). 

Charadrius melodus occur along shorelines around alkaline lakes as well as reservoir beaches, river 

islands and adjacent sand pits and beaches on large lakes (Haig and Pilsner 1993). The species has 

not been known to occur in Wyoming. However, the species is included in the document because 

management actions in Wyoming may affect critical habitat for the species by extension through 

water depletions. 

Threats 

Because the species does not occur in the state of Wyoming, threats to the species within the state 

would only occur from water depletions. Since 1978, the FWS has consistently found through formal 

section 7 consultations with Federal agencies that actions resulting in depletions to flows in the 

311 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Platte River system are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of one or more federally-listed 

threatened or endangered species and adversely modify critical habitat (Instruction Memorandum 

No. WY-2007-039). 

6.15 Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) - Threatened 

Species/Habitat Description 

The western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), is a medium-sized bird of about thirty 

centimeters (12 in) in length, and weighing about sixty grams (two ounces). The species has a 

slender, long-tailed profile with a fairly stout and slightly down-curved bill which is blue-black with 

yellow on the basal half of the lower mandible. The feathers are grayish-brown above and white 

below with rufous primary flight feathers. The tail feathers are boldly patterned with black and white 

below. The legs are short and bluish-gray and adults have a narrow, yellow eye ring. Juveniles 

resemble adults; however, the tail patterning is less distinct, and the lower bill may have little or no 

yellow. Males and females differ slightly. Males tend to have a slightly larger bill, and the white in 

the tail tends to form oval spots, whereas in females, the white spots tend to be connected and less 

distinct (Hughes 1999). 

Coccyzus americanus, is one of two subspecies of the Western yellow-billed cuckoo (UDWR 2003). 

The western subspecies is found intermittently throughout the western United States in dense 

riparian vegetation, including cottonwood and willow stands, tamarisk thickets, Russian olive, 

willows, and orchards. 

Two hectares of dense riparian vegetation is considered the absolute minimum size for cuckoo 

occupancy, as no cuckoos have been detected successfully nesting in patches smaller than two 

hectares."(Corman and Magill 2000, Halterman et al 2001). 

Life History 

The breeding season is in late spring. Nests are generally built from four to ten feet off the ground in 

riparian vegetation. Both the male and the female incubate the three to four eggs for nine to eleven 

days. Both parents feed the young which fledge in approximately three weeks (Kaufmann 1996). 

Western yellow-billed cuckoos primarily consume insects such as caterpillars, cicadas, beetles, 

grasshoppers, and katydids, as well as lizards, frogs, eggs of other birds, berries, and small fruits. 

Population density appears to rise and fall in relation to insect outbreaks (Kaufmann 1996). 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

In 2012, the western subspecies of the yellow-billed cuckoo was proposed as threatened under the 

ESA (78 Federal Register 61621-61666). The USFWS has found that the species population status 

warrants listing. 

In Wyoming, the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, WYNDD, ranks the State Abundance of 

Yellow-billed Cuckoos, as ‘Very Rare’ - fewer than 1000 resident individuals (Keinath and Beauvais 

2002). Others consider it an uncommon summer resident (WGFD 1997, Dorn and Dorn 1999). The 

accuracy of these designations is still unclear given the lack of survey data. There have been very 

few observations reported in Wyoming and fewer still that have documented breeding. Breeding was 

documented within the city limits of Sheridan in 1980 (Downing 1990). Within the last twenty-five 

years breeding was suspected along East Wolf Creek and Big Goose Creek near Sheridan, along the 

North Platte River in Rawhide Wildlife Habitat Management Area (WHMA), near Springer WHMA 

in Goshen County and along the South Fork Miller Creek north of Sundance. 

312 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Threats 

Threats Coccyzus americanus face are related to habitat destruction and degradation, livestock use of 

riparian areas, water withdrawals, and human development. Hughes (1999) also summarized effects 

of heavy pesticide use during the last fifty years, which has likely contributed to population declines 

by removing and/or poisoning prey. The pesticide use may have also resulted in directly poisoning 

birds and causing egg shell thinning. 

6.16 Whooping Crane (Grus americana) - Endangered 

Species/Habitat Description 

Grus Americana (Whooping crane) adults are snow white, except for black primary feathers on the 

wings, and a bare red face and crown. The bill is a dark olive-gray which will turn lighter during the 

breeding season. The eyes are yellow and the legs and feet are gray-black. The neck is long; the bill 

is long, dark and pointed; and the legs are long, thin and black. There is a patch of reddish-black 

bristly feathers on the top and back of the head. Black feathers on the side of the head below the 

yellow eye look like a long, dark moustache. Grus Americana is the only large white bird with black 

wingtips that flies with its neck straight out in front and the legs trailing far behind. It also is the only 

one that walks or stands on long thin legs and does not swim. 

Immature cranes are a reddish cinnamon color that results in a mottled appearance as the white 

feather bases extend. The juvenile plumage is gradually replaced through the winter months and 

becomes predominantly white by the following spring as the dark red crown and face appear. 

Yearlings achieve the typical adult appearance late in their second summer or fall. 

Grus Americana continue to use ancestral breeding areas, migration routes and wintering grounds. 

Over the last fifty years, there has been little natural dispersal of the species. Low population 

numbers likely have contributed to this lack of dispersal into new habitats and territories. 

The breeding habitat for Grus americana is typically poorly drained wetlands in the headwaters of 

the Nyarling, Sass, Klewi, and Little Buffalo rivers. The area is poorly drained and interspersed with 

multiple shallow-water wetlands of various sizes, shapes and depths. The wetlands are separated by 

narrow ridges that are vegetated with white spruce (Picea glauca), black spruce (P. mariana), 

tamarack (Larix laricina), willows (Salix spp.) and an understory of dwarf birch (Betula glandulosa), 

Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum) and bear berry (Arctostaphylos uvalursi). Bulrush (Scirpus 

validus) is the dominant plant in the potholes used for nesting; although cattail (Typha spp.), sedge 

(Carex aquatilis), musk-grass (Chara spp.), and other aquatic plants are common (Lewis 1995). 

Life History 

Grus Americana are omnivorous, obtaining foods from soil, water, and vegetation. At their grounds, 

they feed primarily on mollusks, crustaceans, aquatic insects, minnows, frogs, and snakes (Allen 

1956, Novakowski 1966). During migration, frogs, fish, plant tubers, crayfish, insects, and waste 

grains in harvested fields comprise the whooper’s diet. In winter, Grus Americana feed primarily on 

crabs and clams. They will wander into upland areas following flooding by rain to feed on acorns, 

snails, mice, voles, crayfish, grasshoppers, and snakes (Bishop and Blankinship 1982, Hunt 1987). 

Grus Americana are monogamous and form life-long pair bonds but will re-mate following the death 

of a mate. Typically they construct nests of bulrush and lay one to three eggs in late April and early 

May. The incubation period is about twenty nine to thirty one days. Grus Americana will re-nest if 

the first clutch is lost or destroyed before mid-incubation. Both sexes share incubation and brood313 
 

 

 

 

rearing obligations. Even though most pairs lay two eggs, seldom does more than one chick reach 

fledging. 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

On March 11, 1967, Grus Americana were listed as an endangered species under the Endangered 

Species Preservation Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 926; 16 U.S.C. 668aa(c)). On January 4, 1974 (39 FR 

1171) the species was “grandfathered” into the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). 

Grus Americana occur exclusively in North America and were likely never very common in historic 

times. The principal historic breeding range stretched across central North America from central 

Alberta through southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba, northeastern North Dakota, western 

Minnesota, southern Wisconsin, northern Iowa, and northern Illinois (Allen 1952). In 1975 the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service tried to establish an experimental 

Whooping crane population within the Rocky Mountains. Whooping crane eggs were placed in the 

nests of Sandhill cranes. The experiment did not work because the Whooping cranes thought they 

were Sandhill cranes and they didn't breed or establish a new population. No Whooping cranes are 

known to occur in Wyoming at this time. The species is included in the document because 

management actions in Wyoming may affect critical habitat for the species by extension through 

water depletions. 

Threats 

Because the species does not occur in the state of Wyoming, threats to the species within the state 

would only occur from water depletions. Since 1978, the FWS has consistently found through formal 

section 7 consultations with Federal agencies that actions resulting in depletions to flows in the 

Platte River system are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of one or more federally-listed 

threatened or endangered species and adversely modify critical habitat (Instruction Memorandum 

No. WY-2007-039). 

6.17 Black-Footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) - Endangered 

Species/Habitat Description 

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is the only species of ferret native to North America (USFWS 

2012a) These slender mustelids are distinguished by their black feet, tail tip, and “mask” across their 

eyes that contrast the yellowish buff to white coloring of their upper bodies and nearly white 

forehead, muzzle and throat (USFWS 2012b). Mustela nigripes are medium-sized, typically 

weighing between 0.64 to 1.13 kilograms (1.4 to 2.5 lb.) and measuring 48.26 to 61 centimeters (19 

to 24 in) in length, including a 12.7 to 15.23 cm (five to six in) tail with males being slightly larger 

than the females. They also have large front paws, with claws for digging, as well as large ears and 

eyes (USFWS 2012a, USFWS 2012b). 

The Mustela nigripes is intrinsically linked to the prairie dog (USFWS 2000). They require 

established prairie dog towns for food and shelter (Hoffmeister 1986), which primarily occur in 

grassland and sagebrush habitats in Wyoming. Such areas are characteristic of prairie, grassland 

plains, and surrounding mountain basins up to 3,200 meters (10,500 ft.) (USFWS 2003). All active 

prairie dog towns or complexes of towns, large enough to support ferrets are considered potential 

Mustela nigripes habitat. Although other factor, such as disease potential, may alter the suitability of 

the habitat for black-footed ferret. 

314 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Life History 

Mustela nigripes live in prairie dog colonies year-round and are solitary, except during brief periods 

of the breeding season and when kits are still trailing their mothers. They are strongly nocturnal and 

spend much of the day below ground, appearing aboveground mostly at night. They exhibit a 

bimodal activity pattern, being most active in the first few hours after sundown (1700-2400) and in 

the early morning (0300-0600), but can be found aboveground any time of night (Clark et al. 1983, 

Clark 1989, Marinari 1992). Individual Mustela nigripes usually do not return to the same burrow 

every morning, but rather relocate frequently. 

Breeding season for the Mustela nigripes occurs during March and April, with the female producing 

four to five young per year in May or June. The young ferrets do not come above ground until they 

are six weeks old (Adult 1996). The young become increasingly solitary from August through early 

September, and are self-sufficient from early October. 

The size and shape of Mustela nigripes home ranges are strongly determined by distribution and 

density of prairie dogs. This appears to be especially true of females. Male home ranges, while 

tracking prairie dogs as well, also appear to be positioned to overlap the home ranges of several 

females. Home range boundaries are typically well-defined and individuals attempt to exclude others 

of the same gender. Boundaries are delineated by scent-marking, which expresses the individual’s 

identity, sexual condition, and social status. Males will mark and patrol their home ranges more 

diligently in February and March as breeding season approaches. This causes them to spend more 

time and travel greater distances on the surface, making them more vulnerable to predation (Miller et 

al. 1996). Aggression is rarely observed in the Mustela nigripes, suggesting that scent marks are 

effective signals. 

Their diet primarily consists of prairie dog (90%), and secondarily of mice, rabbits, birds, reptiles, 

and insects (10%) (Andelt 1996). The species is opportunistic and will feed on carrion. Mustela 

nigripes require a large amount of food due to a high metabolism. Hunting takes place at night, 

although females with young may hunt during the day. 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

Mustela nigripes were listed as endangered in 1967 under a precursor to the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973 (32 FR 4001, March 1967). On March 6, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

issued a letter acknowledging ‘block clearance’ for the State of Wyoming in response to a request 

from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. This letter provides acknowledgement that the 

likelihood of identifying wild ferrets in Wyoming, outside of those resulting from reintroductions, is 

distinctly minimal. As a result, black footed ferrets in Wyoming are treated as experimental. 

Mustela nigripes were probably never abundant, although they originally inhabited extensive 

grassland areas of the Great Plains, from Texas to southern Saskatchewan, Canada (USFWS 2000). 

Their range extended from the Rocky Mountains east through the Dakotas and south through 

Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. 

Currently, free-ranging Mustela nigripes occur only in eight reintroduction sites established by the 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service since 1991 (Figure 3): Shirley Basin (Wyoming); Badlands National 

Park/ Conata Basin/ Buffalo Gap National Grassland (South Dakota); Charles M. Russell National 

Wildlife Refuge/ neighboring lands (Montana); Fort Belknap Indian Reservation (Montana); Aubrey 

Valley (Arizona); Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal lands (South Dakota); Coyote Basin (Colorado/ 

Utah); and Janos (Chihuahua, Mexico) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). 

315 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Threats 

Threats to the species include habitat loss and fragmentation, sylvatic plague, genetic drift, canine 

distemper, deliberate poisoning, and shootings (K. Esch et. al. 2005). 

6.18 Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) - Threatened 

Species/Habitat Description 

Lynx Canadensis (Canada lynx) are medium-sized cats with an average adult male weighing ten 

kilograms (22 lb.) and measuring eighty-five centimeters (33.5 in) in length, including the tail. Adult 

females average slightly smaller weighing 8.5 kilograms (19 lb.) and measuring eighty-two 

centimeters (32 in) in length, including the tail. Lynx Canadensis are distinguished by long tufts on 

their ears, as well as large, well-furred paws, and a short, black-tipped tail. During the summer 

months, their pelage is reddish to gray-brown; whereas in winter, their pelage is more grayish-brown 

mixed with buff or pale brown with grayish-white or buff-white fur on their torso, legs, and feet 

(USFWS 2005, USFWS 2012c). 

Lynx Canadensis inhabit forests with cold, snowy winters that offer snowshoe hare as the primary 

prey base. In North America, these forests are classified as boreal forests (taiga) consisting mainly of 

cold tolerant mixed conifers; primarily spruce (Picea spp.) and fir (Abies spp.) (USFWS 2005). 

Precipitation is mainly in the form of snow. Snow conditions are an important factor in the location 

of Lynx Canadensis since they are well adapted to surviving cold winters in deep snow. Lynx 

Canadensis lives in the boreal forests of North America from Alaska to Newfoundland, descending 

into the lower 48 states in northern New England (Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont), 

the Western Great Lakes region (Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin), the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, 

Utah, Washington), and the Rocky Mountains (Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming) (McCord and 

Cardoza 1982). In lower latitudes, less than 50 degrees north, boreal forests transition to deciduous 

temperate forest in the Northeast and Great Lakes, and to subalpine forest in the West. Potentially 

suitable habitat may occur in high elevation spruce-fir habitat throughout Wyoming (USFWS 2005). 

Life History 

Lynx Canadensis are solitary carnivores with the ability to change reproductive output in accordance 

with variable, and sometimes cyclical, food availability. Adult Lynx canadensis are social only 

during the breeding season, between February and early April, when they form breeding pairs. They 

are polygamous and seasonally polyestrous; females cycle continuously until bred during the 

breeding season. Females typically give birth to one to five kittens (mean = 3.7 kittens) (McCord and 

Cardoza 1982). 

Studies of Lynx Canadensis from Montana and Wyoming show that they have two different types of 

movement: daily and exploratory. Daily movements, typically within the home range, average two to 

four kilometers. Exploratory or dispersal movements can range from seven to thirty-nine kilometers 

and take the animal outside their home range territory (Squires and Laurion 2000). However, 

fragmentation of habitat in southern regions may lead to increased ranges of movement between 

suitable foraging and denning sites (Kochler and Brittell 1990). Lynx Canadensis will occasionally 

abandon established home ranges and become nomadic when prey is extremely scarce (McCord and 

Cardoza 1982). 

Lynx hunt by night for their most common prey, the snowshoe hare, which can make up 70 percent 

of their diet (Zeveloff 1988). In Canada, Alaska, and Washington snowshoe hares comprised 35-

97% of Lynx canadensis diet (Koehler and Aubry 1994). Secondary prey includes red squirrels, 

316 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ground squirrels, grouse, porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat 

(Ondatra zibethicus), deer mice (Peromyscus spp.), voles (Microtus spp.), shrews (Sorex spp.), and 

even some fish. Deer (Odocoileus spp.) and moose (Alces alces) occasionally appear in Lynx 

canadensis diets, mostly as carrion (Tumlison 1987, Ruediger et al. 2000). 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

On March 24, 2000 Lynx Canadensis was federally listed as threatened by the USFWS (65 FR 

16052) in accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 

Lynx Canadensis occupied Wyoming prehistorically (Kurten and Anderson 1980), as well as 

historically and into the present (Reeve et al. 1986). The best contiguous Lynx Canadensis habitat in 

Wyoming is in the northwestern and western portion of the state. The remainder is highly 

fragmented, widely dispersed, and typically isolated by large expanses of arid shrubland (Ehle and 

Keinath 2002). The distribution of documented Lynx Canadensis specimens and observations in 

Wyoming indicate that they most consistently occupy the Salt River, Wyoming, Teton, Wind River, 

Gros Ventre, and Absaroka mountain ranges (Reeve et al. 1986). 

Critical habitat for the Canada lynx (50 CFR 17.95(a)) has been designated for portions of Fremont, 

Lincoln, Park, Sublette, and Teton Counties, including parts of Yellowstone National Park and the 

Bridger-Teton and Shoshone National Forests. 

Threats 

Threats to the species include but are not limited to habitat fragmentation, habitat destruction which 

reduces habitat for potential prey, deforestation, fire, predators, human interactions, vehicle 

collisions, disease, poaching and oil and mineral developments (Meaney and Beauvais 2004). 

6.19 Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) - Threatened 

Species/Habitat Description 

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) is large, powerful bear with a massive head, small eyes, prominent nose, 

small rounded ears, and short tail (Pasitschniak-Arts 1993). The species is recognized by its dished 

facial profile, prominent shoulder hump, and long, slender, slightly re-curved fore claws twice the 

length of the hind claws (Pasitschniak-Arts 1993, Wilson and Ruff 1999). Dorsal guard hairs of 

some individuals from western North America are variegated and show a silver tipped or grizzled 

appearance, hence the name grizzly. 

Ursus arctos occupy a variety of habitats throughout their range. They are highly adaptable and are 

capable of exploiting different landscapes given their lifestyle and intelligence. Ursus arctos habitat 

in the lower 48 States is characterized by extensive forest cover often interspersed with grasslands 

and meadows. In Wyoming these habitats are typically above 1,500 m (932 mi) (Schwartz et al. 

2002). Home ranges must include sites suitable for hibernation. Denning sites are most commonly 

located in the subalpine fir stands on north-facing exposures (Craighead et al. 1995). 

Life History 

Except for mating and caring for the young, Ursus arctos primarily lead solitary lives, spending most 

of their time foraging, or looking for food. Mating occurs from June through July. Ursus arctos 

embryos do not begin to develop until the mother begins her winter hibernation, although mating 

may have taken place up to 6 months before. As with other bears, if the mother has not accumulated 

enough fat to sustain her as well as developing cubs, the embryos typically do not develop. Cubs 

317 
 

 

 

 

 

depend upon their mother’s milk for almost a year, stay with their mother for up to 3 years, and 

reach breeding maturity at about 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 years. 

Prior to the growing season, grizzly bears congregated on ruminant wintering grounds. As succulent 

plant species became available, bears concentrate their activity at feeding sites in open areas near 

cover. After the growing season, bears will move to moist sites where succulent grasses and forbs 

remained available throughout the season. As valley vegetation declined, bears moved to the 

lodgepole pine forests to exploit late season foods such as whitebark pine seeds, berries, mushrooms 

(Russula spp.), and smilacina rhizomes. 

Ursus arctos utilize a variety of foods including whitebark pine seeds, army cutworm moths, ants, 

earthworms, rodents, spawning cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), ungulates (winter-killed or 

weakened animals, young in the spring and summer, bull elk weakened by the rut in the fall, and 

wolf kills), gut piles of hunter killed elk and moose, fungal sporocarps, horsetails (Equisetum 

arvense), graminoids, forbs, berries, roots (especially roots of the biscuitroot) and anthropogenic 

foods such as garbage, pet food, and livestock (Kendall 1980, Mace et al. 1997, Mattson 2001, 

Mattson et al. 1991a, Mattson et al. 1991b, Mattson et al. 2002a, Mattson et al. 2002b, Mattson and 

Reinhardt 1995, Mattson and Reinhardt 1997, Schwartz et al. 2003). Researchers believe ungulates 

and whitebark pine seeds appear to be the two most important foods for Ursus arctos, followed by 

army cutworm moths and spawning cutthroat trout (Mattson et al. 1991a, Mattson et al. 1991b, 

Mattson et al. 1992). On average, ungulate meat comprises nearly half of the annual energy intake 

for adult females and more than half for adult males (Reinhardt et al. 2001). 

Intensive feeding occurs in autumn prior to denning. The most frequently used denning habitat is 

located in subalpine fir forest (Craighead et al. 1995). Mean den emergence among males was the 

fourth week in March and ranged from the first week in February to the fourth week in May. 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

The grizzly bear was listed as threatened in the lower 48 States under the Endangered Species Act by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1975 (Fed. Reg. 40:145, 31734-31736). 

Historically, the range of the grizzly in North America extended south from Alaska to northern 

Mexico and east from the Pacific coast to the Canadian Prairies and U.S. Great Plains west of the 

Mississippi River (Hall and Kelson 1959, Schwartz et al. 2003). They also occurred throughout most 

of Wyoming (Long 1965). Currently, five populations remain below the Canadian border. The 

population in Wyoming is located in the northwestern portion of the state (Servheen 1999). In 

Wyoming and elsewhere the grizzly bear has expanded its range in the past two decades and has 

reoccupied historic habitats. Current range expansion of the Ursus arctos population is particularly 

evident in the southern portion of the ecosystem in Wyoming (Schwartz et al. 2002). 

Threats 

The primary reasons for the decline of grizzly bear in North America are excessive human-caused 

mortality and habitat loss (Schwartz et al. 2003). Displacement of Ursus arctos from quality 

habitats, resulting from roads and other mad-made structures such as fences and buildings may 

prevent dispersal; force bears to use poorer quality sites, increase intraspecific competition by further 

forcing more bears into limited remote habitat, and may cause social disruption in areas away from 

developments and roads (Kasworm and Manley 1989, McLellen 1989). These disturbances may 

result in displacement and/or disruption of normal behavior patterns such as copulation, movement, 

denning, foraging, physiological arousal without overt behavioral response, and even direct loss of 

habitat via avoidance. 

318 
 

 

 

 

 

Environmental events, such as drought and climate change may also pose significant threats to longterm persistence of small isolated populations and are therefore real threats to persistence of the 

grizzly bear population in Wyoming. Researchers are particularly concerned about impacts of future 

climate warming on two very important foods, seeds of whitebark pine and aggregated army 

cutworm moths. These two species occur at high elevations and are therefore particularly susceptible 

to climate warming. 

6.20 Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudonius preblei) - Threatened 

Species/Habitat Description 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudonius preblei) is a relatively small rodent with an 

extremely long tail, large hind feet and long hind legs. The tail is bicolored, lightly-furred and 

typically twice as long as the body. They have a distinct, dark, broad stripe on its back that runs from 

head to tail and is bordered on either side by gray to orange-brown fur. The hair on the back of all 

jumping mice appears coarse compared to other mice. The underside fur is white and much finer in 

texture (Krutzsch 1954, Fitzgerald et al. 1994). 

Zapus hudonius preblei is generally found at elevations between 2,318 m (7,600 ft.) and 1,418 m 

(4,650 ft.) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). They inhabit well developed riparian habitat with 

adjacent, relatively undisturbed, grassland communities and a nearby water source (Bakeman 1997). 

Well-developed riparian habitat includes a dense combination of grasses, forbs and shrubs; a taller 

shrub and tree canopy may be present. The shrub canopy is often willow (Salix spp.); However, 

other shrub species, such as snowberry (Symphoricarpus sp.), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), 

hawthorn (Crataegus sp.), Gambel’s oak (Quercus gambelli), alder (Alnus incana), river birch 

(Betula fontinalis), skunkbrush (Rhus trilobata), wild plum (Prunus americana), lead plant 

(Amorpha fruticosa), dogwood (Cornus sericea) and others also may occur (Bakeman 1997, Shenk 

and Eussen 1998). 

Life History 

Zapus hudonius preblei are able to travel long distances (Ryon 1999, Shenk and Sivert 1999a). 

Zapus hudonius preblei constructs day nests composed of grasses, forbs, sedges, rushes, and other 

available plant material. Nests are typically globular in shape or simply raised mats of litter and are 

most commonly above ground but have also been observed below ground. Nests are generally found 

under debris at the base of shrubs and trees or in open grasslands. An individual mouse can have 

multiple day nests in both riparian and grassland communities and have been observed abandoning a 

nest after approximately a week of use. Hibernation nests occur underground both within and outside 

of the one hundred year floodplain. Zapus hudonius preblei typically enter hibernation nests between 

September and October and emerge the following May. Zapus hudonius preblei does not store food. 

They survive on fat stores accumulated prior to hibernation. 

Fecal analyses conducted on the species show that their diet consists primarily of insects and fungi 

after emerging from hibernation. In May, their diet shifts to fungi, moss, and pollen during midsummer (July and August), with insects again added in September. The shift in diet, along with 

shifts in mouse movements, suggests that the Zapus hudonius preblei may require specific seasonal 

diets. Perhaps the diet is related to the physiological constraints imposed by hibernation. Zapus 

hudonius preblei have also been observed climbing grass stalks to forage on the seed heads. 

319 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Status, Distribution and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat 

Zapus hudonius preblei was listed as a threatened subspecies under the ESA in May of 1998 (63 FR 

26517). Zapus hudonius preblei is found in both the North and South Platte River basins, from the 

eastern flank of the Laramie Mountains and the Laramie Plains in southeastern Wyoming, south 

along the eastern flank of the Front Range in Colorado and into the headwaters of the Arkansas 

River Basin near Colorado Springs, Colorado (Long 1965; Hall 1981 Fitzgerald et al. 1994). The 

semi-arid climate of southeastern Wyoming and eastern Colorado limits the extent of riparian (river) 

corridors and restricts the range of Zapus hudonius preblei within this region. 

Zapus hudonius preblei has not been found east of Cheyenne, Wyoming or on the extreme eastern 

plains in Colorado (Beauvais 2001). The eastern boundary for the subspecies is likely defined by the 

dry short grass prairie which may present a barrier to eastward expansion (Beauvais 2001). 

Threats 

Zapus hudonius preblei have numerous predators including garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.), prairie 

rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridus), bullfrogs (Rana catesbiana), foxes (Vulpes vulpes and/or Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus), house cats (Felis catus), long-tailed weasels (Mustela frenata), and raptors 

(Shenk and Sivert 1999, Schorr 2001). Other potential predators of jumping mice include coyotes 

(Canis latrans), barn owls (Tyto alba), great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), western screech owls 

(Otus kennicottii), long-eared owls (Asio otus), northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), northern pike 

(Esox lucius) and creek chub (Semolitus atromaculatus) (Whitaker 1963). 

Other mortality factors for Zapus hudonius preblei include drowning and occasional losses 

associated with vehicles (Shenk and Sivert 1999, Schorr 2001). 

Habitat loss, alteration, degradation, and fragmentation resulting from urban development, flood 

control, water development and other human land uses, especially in riparian habitat, have adversely 

impacted Zapus hudonius preblei populations. 

6.21 Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis ) - Proposed 

Species/Habitat Description 

A medium-sized bat species, the northern long-eared bat adult body weight averages 5 to 8 g, with 

females tending to be slightly larger than males. Fur is medium to dark brown on its back, dark 

brown, but not black, ears and wing membranes, and tawny to pale-brown fur on the ventral side. 

The northern long-eared bat is distinguished from other Myotis species by its long ears (average 17 

mm (0.7 in)) that, when laid forward, extend beyond the nose but less than 5 mm (0.2 in) beyond the 

muzzle. The tragus is long, pointed, and symmetrical. Within its range, the northern long-eared bat 

can be confused with the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) or the western long-eared myotis 

(Myotis evotis). 

Northern long-eared bats forage primarily in coniferous or deciduous forests. They are short-distance 

migrants, the distance between summer habitat and the hibernaculum typically being 56 km (35 mi) 

(Hester and Grenier 2005) to 89 km (55 mi) (USFWS 2014) or less. 

Northern long-eared bats predominantly overwinter in hibernacula that include caves and abandoned 

mines. Hibernacula used by northern long-eared bats are typically large, with large passages and 

entrances, relatively constant, cooler temperatures, and with high humidity and no air currents. They 

are typically found roosting in small crevices or cracks in cave or mine walls or ceilings, often with 

only the nose and ears visible, thus are easily overlooked during surveys. To a lesser extent, northern 

320 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

long-eared bats have been found overwintering in other types of habitat including abandoned 

railroad tunnels, more frequently in the northeast portion of the range. 

During the summer, northern long-eared bats typically roost singly or in colonies underneath bark or 

in cavities or crevices of both live trees and snags. Males and non-reproductive females' summer 

roost sites may also include cooler locations, including caves and mines. Northern long-eared bats 

have also been observed roosting in colonies in human made structures, such as buildings, barns, 

park pavilions, sheds, cabins, under eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, and in bat houses. 

Northern long-eared bats most likely are not dependent on a certain species of trees for roosts 

throughout their range; rather, certain tree species will form suitable cavities or retain bark and the 

bats will use them opportunistically. Structural complexity of habitat or available roosting resources 

may be more important factors. The species appears to favor areas with greater canopy cover, and 

often roosts below the canopy, but higher on slopes. Northern long-eared bats switch roosts often, 

typically every 2-3 days. Bats switch roosts for a variety of reasons, including, temperature, 

precipitation, predation, parasitism, and ephemeral roost sites. 

Life History 

Northern long-eared bats hibernate during the winter months to conserve energy from increased 

thermoregulatory demands and reduced food resources. In general, northern long-eared bats arrive at 

hibernacula in August or September, enter hibernation in October and November, and leave the 

hibernacula in March or April. In the Black Hills northern long-eared bats typically enter 

hibernacula by October 1 and depart before May 15 (Reeves pers. Comm). Northern long-eared bats 

have shown a high degree of philopatry (using the same site multiple years) for a hibernaculum, 

although they may not return to the same hibernaculum in successive seasons. 

Typically, northern long-eared bats are not abundant and compose a small proportion of the total 

number of bats hibernating in a hibernaculum. Although usually found in small numbers, the species 

typically inhabits the same hibernacula with large numbers of other bat species, and occasionally are 

found in clusters with these other bat species. Other species that commonly occupy the same habitat 

include: little brown bat, big brown bat, eastern small-footed bat, tri-colored bat, and Indiana bat. 

Northern long-eared bats exhibit significant weight loss during hibernation. The northern long-eared 

bat is not considered a long-distance migratory species; short migratory movements between 

summer roost and winter hibernacula have been documented. Movements from hibernacula to 

summer colonies may be further. Several studies show a strong homing ability of northern longeared bats in terms of return rates to a specific hibernaculum, although bats may not return to the 

same hibernaculum in successive winters. 

Breeding occurs from late July in northern regions to early October in southern regions and 

commences when males begin to swarm hibernacula and initiate copulation activity. Hibernating 

females store sperm until spring, exhibiting a delayed fertilization strategy. Ovulation takes place at 

the time of emergence from the hibernaculum, followed by fertilization of a single egg, resulting in a 

single embryo; gestation is approximately 60 days. Maternity colonies, consisting of females and 

young, are generally small, numbering from about 30 to 60 individuals. Adult females give birth to a 

single pup typically in late May or early June, but may occur as late as July. Juveniles typically start 

flying at 21 days. Adult longevity is estimated to be up to 18.5 years. 

The northern long-eared bat has a diverse diet including moths, flies, leafhoppers, caddisflies, and 

beetles, with diet composition differing geographically and seasonally. Foraging techniques include 

hawking (catching insects in flight) and gleaning in conjunction with passive acoustic cues. 

321 
 

 

 

 

Emerging at dusk, most hunting occurs above the understory, but under the canopy on forested 

hillsides and ridges, rather than along riparian areas. This coincides with data indicating that mature 

forests are an important habitat type for foraging. 

Map 2. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database Predicted Northern-Long-Eared Bat 

Distribution in Wyoming. 

Status, Distribution 

On October 2, 2013, the USFWS proposed the northern long-eared bat for listing as Endangered 

under the ESA (USFWS 2013a). Unless otherwise referenced, the species information in this BA 

came from the Proposed Rule in the FR notice (USFWS 2013a). It was determined that the northern 

long-eared bat is in danger of extinction, predominantly due to the threat of white-nose syndrome 

(WNS). However, other threats (the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 

its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 

other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence) when combined with WNS 

heighten the level of risk to the species. 

NatureServe gives this species a global conservation rank G2/G3, meaning that the species is 

imperiled, with a high to moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to restricted range, relatively 

322 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors 

(NatureServe 2013). 

Most BLM field offices have not inventoried for presence of northern long-eared bat. As further 

surveys are conducted, previous and current factors affecting areas with northern long-eared bat will 

be addressed on a case-by-case basis. 

Regional and Local Distribution 

The northern long-eared bat ranges across much of the eastern and north central U.S., and all 

Canadian provinces west to the southern Yukon Territory and eastern British Columbia. In the U.S., 

the species' range reaches from Maine west to Montana, south to eastern Kansas, eastern Oklahoma, 

Arkansas, and east to the Florida panhandle. Throughout the majority of the species' range it is 

patchily distributed, and historically was less common in the southern and western portions of the 

range than in the northern portion of the range. Although they are typically found in low numbers in 

inconspicuous roosts, most records of northern long-eared bats are from winter hibernacula surveys. 

Wyoming has no known hibernacula (likely due to lack of survey effort, suitability of habitat, and 

extent of range) (Hester and Grenier 2005). 

The U.S. portion of the northern long-eared bat's range can be described in four parts: the eastern 

population, Midwestern population, the southern population, and the western population. 

Historically, the northern long-eared bat was most abundant in the eastern portion of its range. 

The northern long-eared bat is generally less common in the western portion of its range (Map 2); it 

is considered common in only small portions of the western range (e.g., Black Hills) and uncommon 

or rare in the western extremes of the range (e.g., Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska). The northern longeared bat is considered abundant in the Black Hills having been observed hibernating and during the 

summer. 

Threats 

It was determined that the northern long-eared bat is in danger of extinction, predominantly due to 

the threat of WNS. WNS is a disease caused by the cold-loving fungus, Psuedogymnoascus 

(Geomyces) destructans. First observed in New York in 2006, WNS has spread rapidly across the 

Northeast and into the Midwest and Southeast. Throughout the range of WNS, up to 99 percent of 

infected bats die from the disease. Although there is uncertainty about the spread of WNS, experts 

agree that the fungus will likely spread throughout the United States (USFWS 2013b). 

The northern long-eared bat is also threatened by the loss and degradation of summer habitat caused 

by human development, and by collision with or barotrauma (injury to the lungs due to a change in 

air pressure) caused by wind turbines. Mine closures and vandalism of winter roosts and hibernacula 

also pose threats to this species (USFWS 2013b). These additional threats (the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; other natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence) when combined with WNS heighten the level of risk to the species (USFWS 

2013a). 

6.22 Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus) – Non-essential experimental 

Species/habitat Description 

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is the largest of the wild canids. It has a long bushy tail and erect, 

slightly rounded ears. Its legs are longer, feet larger, and chest narrower than a dog of similar size. 

323 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The wolf has long, thick, coarse fur that is typically grizzled gray but that can vary from black 

through white. The most common pelt colors in the northern Rocky Mountains are grizzled gray and 

black (USFWS 1994). Average height at the shoulders is 65-80 cm; total length (nose to tip of tail) is 

1.3 to 1.5m with some individuals approaching 1.8m; and weight ranges from 36-41 kg for females 

and 41-50 kg for males (Ginsberg and Macdonald 1990). 

Wolves are habitat generalists and historically occupied most habitats in the Northern Hemisphere 

including all of Wyoming, and populations flourished in areas with plentiful large prey (Fitzgerald et 

al. 1994, Long 1965, Mech 1970). The presence of abundant prey, which in Wyoming is elk, and 

relatively low levels of human activity are the main habitat requirements for wolves. 

Human activities associated with highways, roads, and other linear corridors cause fragmentation of 

wolf ranges and result in the death of wolves (Paquet and Carbyn 2003). Persistent occupancy of 

wolves is usually assured at road densities below 0.6-0.7 km/km2. Road density is the measurable 

manifestation of human activity and the mortality of wolves is caused by the humans using the 

roads, rather than road density per se. Roads with low use can provide travel corridors for wolves. 

Life History 

Wolves are social animals that live in groups, called packs, which typically include a breeding pair 

(the alpha pair), their offspring, and other non-breeding adults. Wolves are capable of mating by age 

two or three and sometimes form a lifelong bond. They can live 13 years and breed past 10 years of 

age. On the average, five pups are born in early spring and are cared for by the entire pack. For the 

first six weeks, pups are reared in dens. Dens are often used year after year, but wolves may also dig 

new ones or use some other type of shelter, such as a cave. 

Pups depend on their mother’s milk for the first month, then are gradually weaned and fed 

regurgitated meat brought by pack members. By the time pups are seven to eight months old they are 

almost fully grown and begin traveling with the adults. After a year or two, young wolves may leave 

to try to find a mate and form a pack. Lone, dispersing wolves have traveled as far as 600 miles in 

search of a mate or territory. 

Wolf packs live within territories, which they defend from other wolves. Their territories range in 

size from 50 square miles to more than 1,000 square miles, depending on the available prey and their 

seasonal movements. Wolves travel over large areas to hunt, as far as 30 miles in a day. Although 

they usually trot along at five miles per hour, wolves can run as fast as 40 miles per hour for short 

distances. 

Regional and Local Distribution 

As recently as the mid-nineteenth, century gray wolves existed throughout most of North America 

(Nowak 1983, Young and Goldman 1944). Wolves were present throughout the northern Rocky 

Mountain region prior to colonization by Europeans which resulted in reduction of native ungulate 

populations, introduction of livestock, and persecution of wolves (Lopez 1978, Young 1944). By the 

1940s, wolves persisted only in isolated locations in the United States. In the late 1970s wolves were 

dispersing into the mountainous areas near Glacier-Waterton Lakes National Parks in Alberta, 

Canada, just across the border (Ream and Mattson 1982). And then in 1985 a pack of 12 wolves 

crossed the border from Alberta to Glacier National Park (Robbins 1986). Breeding was documented 

in 1986, for the first time in 50 years in the U.S. (Ream et al. 1989), and by 1992 at least 50 

individuals were known to reside in at least four packs along the continental divide of Montana 

(Fritts et al. 1995, Pletscher et al. 1997, Ream et al. 1991). Wolves were documented from Idaho 

since the early 1980s. Prior to reintroduction, lone wolves have ventured into the GYA on a number 

324 
 

 

 

 

of occasions (USFWS 1994), and a single wolf was documented in northwestern Wyoming in 1992 

(Fritts et al. 1995). 

After many years of effort and planning, wolves were reintroduced into the Greater Yellowstone 

Area (GYA) in 1995-1996 (USFWS 1994). This effort targeted large tracts of federal public lands 

(Yellowstone National Park (YNP) and the surrounding U.S. Forest Service wilderness areas) that 

supported large populations of wild ungulates and had a relatively low likelihood for wolf-human 

conflicts. Today wolves are found in the northwestern portion of Wyoming, largely in the GYA 

(Maps 2-6). There are 14 packs in YNP and 7 that spend most of their time in Wyoming (WGFD 

2003). Numerous sightings of wolves suggest that they roam over much of western Wyoming. The 

known distributional extent of these wandering wolves is the Bighorn Mountains and Ten Sleep to 

the east, Morgan, Utah (outside Ogden) to the south and into Idaho to the west (Jimenez 2004). 

Wolves have been sighted southwest of Meeteetse and around Worland and Thermopolis. Wolves 

are also routinely seen around Kemmerer and Cokeville, and Lander, and have shown up east of 

Rock Springs. In these southern portions of the Red Desert, the wild prey density is very low and 

cattle and sheep density is higher; the wolves switch to the available prey and conflicts result. 

Although wolves can prey on pronghorn, these ungulates do not constitute consistent dietary items. 

Threats 

Human-caused mortality including legal and illegal harvest, depredation control, and vehicle 

collisions are the largest cause of mortality and is the only source of mortality that can significantly 

affect wolf populations at recovery levels (USFWS 2000). In the GYA, of 20 documented wolf 

mortalities in 2000, nine were human-caused (six control actions, two vehicle collisions, and one 

illegal take), six resulted from natural causes, and five were of unknown cause (USFWS et al. 2001). 

Researchers have found that if annual mortality exceeds 30-40%, population growth of wolves may 

be suppressed (Ballard et al. 1987, Fuller 1989, Keith 1983). The response of wolves to humans is 

variable, as can be expected in a long-lived animal with a large degree of social transmission. 

Wolves are sensitive to human predation and harassment, which influence the distribution and 

survival of wolves. However, human-caused mortality is consistently noted as the major problem 

(Paquet and Carbyn 2003). Loss of habitat is a trend to be expected as human populations increase 

and more development occurs. 

In unexploited populations annual mortality is 45% for yearlings and 10% for adults (USFWS 1994). 

Intraspecific conflict between neighboring packs, starvation, disease and injury are the primary 

causes of mortality (Mech et al. 1998). However, natural mortality does not regulate populations in 

the northern Rockies (USFWS 2000). 

Flexible food habits, high annual productivity, and dispersal capabilities enable wolves to respond to 

natural and human-induced disturbances. These traits confer a high degree of resiliency on wolves 

(Weaver et al. 1996). Wolf distribution will ultimately be defined by the interaction of wolves’ 

ecological requirements and human tolerance (Paquet et al. 2001), not by artificial delineations that 

are administratively determined. In short, ungulate abundance and distribution and human settlement 

patterns will define wolf habitat. The network of public lands in western Montana, central Idaho, and 

northwest Wyoming facilitates connectivity between the three sub-populations and the public lands 

in the rest of the Rocky Mountain west will provide dispersal routes. Wolf populations will fluctuate 

as a result of management actions, natural mortality, legal harvest, illegal take, wolf productivity, 

and ungulate population fluctuations. 

325 
 

 

 

 

Gray wolves occur in disjunct populations in the conterminous United States, and management goals 

will be set to maintain this population structure. Computer simulations of disjunct wolf populations 

indicate that these populations can survive as long as there is at least occasional movement between 

populations, and human persecution is not excessive and prey is sufficiently abundant (Callaghan 

2002, Haight et al. 1998). Furthermore, it is the long-term levels of mortality and immigration that 

are important, more so than the short-term fluctuations in dispersal and mortality. However, one 

ultimate factor that will determine whether wolves persist where they have been reintroduced, and 

where they disperse, is human attitude. This will require a concerted effort on the part of federal and 

state agencies and of nongovernmental groups. Another significant factor is stochastic: fire, weather 

(drought and/or hard winters), and disease. These unpredictable and often uncontrollable factors can 

create unforeseen circumstances and results on recovering wolf populations. 

The Yellowstone fires of 1988 took out old growth, which caused a decline in the moose population. 

The hard winter of 1996-1997 caused a decline in the elk populations, as has the current drought. 

Disease can present a surprising vulnerability. The introduction in the early 1980s of a humanintroduced canine parvovirus to the wolves at Isle Royale caused a crash in the wolf population from 

50 to 14 animals in a period of two years (Smith et al. 2003). The effect of epizootoics and enzootics 

on wolf population dynamics is not well documented. Where information is available, an estimated 

2–21% of wolf mortality is due to disease. The transmission of disease from domestic dogs, e.g. 

parvovirus, is a grave conservation concern (Paquet and Carbyn 2003). Rabies is infrequent in wolf 

populations. Sarcoptic mange is an epizootic of concern, and some researchers suggest that it could 

be a regulating factor in canid populations. Other arthropod parasites are known but do not cause 

significant problems. Viral infections of concern are distemper and canine hepatitis. 

The economic forces present often drive decisions that affect the status of wolves. Market interests 

usually run counter to conservation and restoration activities because the former cater to short-term 

financial gain rather than long-term sustainability of the environment. Wolves and their protection 

may encourage society to value biological diversity and the tangible and intangible benefits of such a 

species in our lives (Paquet and Carbyn 2003). 

7.0 Effects of Selected Alternative 

This Biological Assessment only addresses changes in management that will occur from the 

Amendment. Existing management conditions that would not be changed as a result of the 

Amendment will not be analyzed in this document. 

7.1 Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) - Endangered 

7.1.1 Effects of Selected Alternative 

Lands and Realty 

Amendment changes conducted under the lands and realty management program would only prove 

to benefit the blowout penstemon. Activities under the lands and realty program include: manage 

sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 30), seasonal timing constraints (Action 31), restrictions which protect 

sage-grouse on new right-of-way corridors in greater sage-grouse habitat (Action 32), designing of 

powerlines and guy wires to minimize wildlife related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC 

standards (Action 34, 35, 38), reclamation of sites (Action 35), prohibition of wind turbines in 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 36), avoidance of MET tower supports in PHMA (Action 38), 

retention of PHMAs (Action 40), identification of sage-grouse habitat in mineral right areas or 

326 
 

 

 

 

conservation easement areas (Action 41), acquisition of Greater Sage-Grouse lands (Action 42), and 

consideration of non-mineral withdrawal actions to protect the species (Action 43). 

Lands and realty management actions included in the Amendment are not likely to occur in the dunal 

habitats of the blowout penstemon because Greater Sage-Grouse occur in lands dominated by large 

sagebrush stands. Actions that would not affect the species include the management of sage-grouse 

PHMAs and the installation of perch deterrents. However, changes in some of the lands and realty 

management actions included in the 9-plan Amendment may inadvertently protect the species 

through land acquisitions, retentions, and reclamations. 

Livestock 

All of the documented occurrences of blowout penstemon reside within sand dune habitats included 

in the Rawlins field office. Many of the livestock management actions in the Amendment include 

habitat improvements for greater sage-grouse through the following: evaluation of opportunities to 

coordinate management plans and strategies under a single management plan with other agencies 

and stake holders and include sage-grouse management (Action 22), develop voluntary grazing 

strategies that improve sage-grouse populations and habitat(Action 45), adjustments to grazing 

management (Action 46, 139), sage-grouse habitat objectives and management would be 

incorporated into all grazing permit renewals (Action 48), progress toward achieving land health 

standards in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 49), management of voluntarily relinquished permits or 

preferences (Action 50), coordinate with permittees/lessees to develop drought contingency plans 

(Action 52), evaluate and modify existing range improvements to improve sage-grouse habitat 

(Action 53), designate specific routes and timeframes for trailing which includes the avoidance of 

stopovers in sage-grouse leks (Action 54), promote balanced grazing between upland and riparian 

areas (Action 55), manage range improvements in a way that promotes sage-grouse and its habitats 

(Action 56), and evaluate and modify effects on sage-grouse from spring and seep developments 

such as pipelines and structures (Action 57). 

Livestock management actions included in the Amendment are not likely to occur in the dunal 

habitats of the blowout penstemon because Greater Sage-Grouse occur in lands dominated by large 

sagebrush stands. Actions that would not affect the species include Action 22, 45, 46, 139, 48, 49, 

50, 53, 54, 56, and 57. However, changes in some of the Livestock management program may 

inadvertently protect the species through the development of a drought contingency plan (Action 

52), which could reduce grazing pressure in nearby blowout penstemon habitats and the promotion 

of balanced grazing (Action 55) which could also alleviate heavy grazing impact in one specific 

area. 

Mineral Resources 

Minerals management actions in the Amendment include the following: designing roads which 

minimize impacts in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 20), protective modifications to lease stipulations 

within sage-grouse habitat (Action 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81). Other 

actions include, proposed withdrawal recommendations of some areas of PHMA from mineral 

exploration (Action 79, 139), minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances(Action 79 ), 

prohibit strip mining near sage-grouse(Action 76), prohibition of geophysical operations near sagegrouse, right-of-way and vehicle limitations, timing restrictions during breeding season(Action 60), 

working with permittees/lessees to apply sage-grouse conservation measures, distance limitations 

(Action 60, 66) minimization of habitat fragmentation (Action 62, 67), noise reduction, and 

minimize impacts to related sensitive resources. 

327 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning measures which consider the construction of a master a plan for development or leasing 

when impacts to sage-grouse could occur (Action 66), noise, timing and distance restrictions (Action 

60), requiring reclamation plans (Action 69a), and implementing a reclamation bond in sage-grouse 

areas (Action 69) would not affect the blowout penstemon because no surface disturbing activities 

would occur. 

Because greater sage-grouse do not reside in the same habitat required by blowout penstemon, 

management actions intended to protect sage-grouse would not directly affect blowout penstemon. 

Since the species may occur in the same geographical area, some management actions may 

indirectly affect the species. No negative effects are anticipated to occur. Inadvertent, beneficial 

actions may include limitations or exclusion of road developments, minimization and avoidance of 

surface disturbances, minimization of habitat fragmentation, and implementing measures to reduce 

pollutants. These actions could reduce overall impacts and limit road access within or leading to 

blowout penstemon habitat which would benefit the species. 

Recreation 

BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs would be continued to be allowed in sage-grouse 

PHMA, unless negative impacts to sage-grouse cannot be adequately mitigated (Action 82). 

The issuance of BLM SRP’s and Forest Service recreation SUA’s has already been consulted on 

during the planning process of their respective land use plans. However, the change in this document 

and the area which needs to be consulted on would be the closing of SRP’s and SUA’s in PHMAs 

sage-grouse habitats when negative impacts cannot be mitigated. The closing of any BLM SRP or 

Forest Service Recreation SUA in PHMAs would not directly affect the blowout penstemon. 

Special Designations 

No new special designation actions are included in Amendment (Action 84). As such, special 

management actions would not affect the blowout penstemon. 

Special Status Species 

Special status species management action include the collection of sage-grouse baseline data during 

project planning (Action 4), the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact 

PHMAs (Action 12), agencies will meet annually to coordinate and review sage-grouse data (Action 

16), development of adaptive management strategies in support of the population management 

objectives for sage-grouse (Action 137), maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 Greater SageGrouse PHMA population within the State of Wyoming (Action 138), and all existing planning 

decision will be retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this plan amendment (Action 

25). 

Actions included in the special species management program such as the collection of data (Action 

4), agencies meeting annually to coordinate sage-grouse data (Action 16), and the development of 

adaptive management strategies (Action 137), retainment of existing plans unless modified in the 

Amendment (Action 25), would not affect the blowout penstemon because no surface disturbing 

actions would occur. However, Action 12 which includes the modification of existing notices and 

plans to minimally impact PHMAs may indirectly benefit the species by reducing impacts to 

PHMAs. The reduction of impacts in PHMAs may also indirectly benefit blowout penstemon which 

may occur in nearby habitats. 

328 
 

 

 

 

 

Travel Management 

Travel management actions described in the Amendment include restricting motorized travel to 

existing roads and trails, until route designations are made during subsequent implementation of 

travel management planning (Action 18), designate routes with priority habitat and assess existing 

plans for consistency with sage-grouse conservation objectives (Action 19), non-sand dune portions 

of the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to 

existing roads and trails(Action 86, 87), avoidance of new road construction within 1.9 miles of 

habitat(Action 88), restricting upgrades or new road construction within greater sage-grouse 

habitat(Action 89), development of new roads would be constructed to the absolute minimum value 

(Action 90), natural reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in travel management plans 

within sage-grouse PHMAs, in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not 

foreseeable (Action 91), when reseeding roads and trails within sage-grouse PHMAs, appropriate 

seed mixtures would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered (Action 92). 

Travel management actions such as the minimization, reclamation, avoidance, restriction and closure 

of various roads may inadvertently benefit the species even though greater sage-grouse do not occur 

in the same habitat as the blowout penstemon (Action 18, 86, 88, 89). For example, blowout 

penstemon may be protected if a road restriction or closure in sage-grouse habitat blocks access to a 

road which leads to dunal habitat. The use of approved seed mixtures (Action 92) and 

implementation of travel management plans (Action 18) would likely have no effect on the blowout 

penstemon. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation management actions include, the application of seasonal restrictions for implementing 

vegetation management treatments and monitoring to benefit sage-grouse (Action 6), design range 

projects in a manner that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment and to monitor and 

treat invasive species associated with existing range improvements (Action 9), vegetation 

management would be used to control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive 

species (Action 11), work with various agencies and stake holders to coordinate and enhance Greater 

Sage-Grouse population and habitat (Action 22), improvement of vegetation composition and 

structure to benefit sage-grouse (Action 93, 95, 100, 107), restrict sagebrush activities that reduces 

sagebrush canopy to less than 15% (Action 94), development of recommended protocols and 

treatments to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (Action 95, 96), deferment of livestock 

grazing on vegetative treatments to improve habitat (Action 97), recommendations on vegetative 

treatments (Action 98, 100, 101, 104, 105), reclamation or restoration of surface disturbances in 

sage-grouse habitats (Action 99, 100, 101, 103, 106), the use of native seeds which are certified 

weed free for fuels treatments (Action 100, 102, 103, 104), pest treatments to control Wyoming 

grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA areas (Action 108). 

The use of herbicide on noxious and invasive species (Action 11), vegetation treatments (Actions 93, 

94, 95, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107) and pest control treatments for Wyoming grass hopper and 

Mormon crickets (Action 108) have already been consulted on in their respective Land Use plans 

using agency approved protocols. However, the changes in the amendment would direct managers to 

use updated sage-grouse information which would benefit the sage-grouse. For example, managers 

can better control insect outbreaks in PHMAs if the PHMAs are identified. 

Vegetation management actions such as season restrictions (Action 6), monitoring efforts (Action 9), 

and working collaboratively with various agencies (Action 22) are not expected to directly or 

indirectly impact occupied or potential blowout penstemon habitat because no surface disturbing 

329 
 

 

 

 

 

actions would occur. However, actions that minimize the potential for the spread of noxious and 

invasive weeds (Action 9), deferment of livestock (Action 97), and the improvement of vegetative 

composition (Action 93, 95, 100, 107) may inadvertently benefit the species through improve habitat 

conditions. 

Wild Horses 

Wild horse management action include incorporating rangeland improvements for wild horses in 

greater sage-grouse PHMA habitats(Action 109), consideration of sage-grouse PHMAs when 

evaluating AML’s (Action 110), considering sage-grouse PHMAs when conducting land health 

assessments (Action 111), addressing direct and indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and 

habitats when conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and burro management activities (Action 

112), and to coordinate with all other resources to conduct land health assessments within all BLM 

HMAs (Action 113). 

All the wild horse management actions discussed in the Amendment include protective measures 

such as the consideration of sage-grouse when conducting land health assessments (Action 111) and 

during AML evaluation (Action 110). It also includes identifying direct and indirect effect of sagegrouse during NEPA analysis when water or range improvements are necessary (Action 112). Based 

on known locations of blowout penstemon as shown on USFWS maps (USFWS 2013), none of the 

known blowout penstemon sites are located in herd management areas. As such, none of these 

actions would occur within or near blowout penstemon habitat because wild horse HMA’s do not 

occur within blowout penstemon habitat. 

Wildland Fire 

Wildland fire management actions included in the Amendment include, fire and fuels management 

which contributes to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse 

populations (Action 26), complete and continue to update Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire 

& Invasive necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting sage-grouse 

populations which includes identification of annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species 

management as identified in local unit level Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments 

(Action 27), implementation of coordinated inter-agency approach to fire restrictions for sage-grouse 

(Action 28), utilization of fire management strategies and tactics to achieve sage-grouse resource 

objectives (Action 29), fuel treatments would be implemented with an emphasis of protecting and 

enhancing PHMAs (Action 114), restoring burned areas within PHMAs (Action 115), post fuels 

management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment 

native plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat(Action 117), avoiding treatments in areas 

containing old trees or persistent woodlands (Action 118), and management actions to benefit sagegrouse during fire suppression activities (Action 124). 

Wildland fire management actions are not expected to directly impact occupied or potential blowout 

penstemon habitat. Preferred habitat for the plant is sparsely vegetated sand dunes, which generally 

do not burn and it is not likely that fires associated with wildland fire management would be 

prescribed in such areas. Also, because greater sage-grouse do not reside in the same habitat required 

by blowout penstemon, wildland fire management actions intended to protect sage-grouse would not 

affect blowout penstemon. No surface disturbing wildfire resource actions which are pre-planned 

such as the use of prescribed burns would occur without proper analysis and implementation of all 

appropriate conservation measures in order to ensure the protection of the Blowout penstemon. 

330 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions described in the Amendment include protocols for sagegrouse monitoring(Actions 1, 3,125), development of landscape level restoration, conservation and 

maintenance strategies (Actions 8, 14, 15,21) application of required design features (Action 10), 

addition of new sage-grouse habitat (Action 13), limitation of oil and gas development densities 

(Action 126), limitation of all surface disturbances to 5% per 640 acres (Action 127), mitigation 

protocol (Actions 5,7,128), prohibition of surface disturbing activities within 0.6 mile radius of 

occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMAs (Action 129), prohibition of surface disturbing activities 

within 0.25 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks outside PHMAs (Action 130), timing 

restrictions in breeding, nesting, and brooding PHMA habitat (Actions 17,131, 132, 133, 134), 

promote control of predators to sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat (Action 135), and implementation 

of noise restrictions (Action 136). 

Because greater sage-grouse do not reside in the same habitat required by blowout penstemon, 

management actions intended to protect sage-grouse would not adversely affect blowout penstemon. 

However, because the species may occur in the same geographical area, some management actions 

may inadvertently benefit the species. Beneficial actions may include restrictions on oil and mineral 

developments, restrictions of surface disturbing activities, and increased mitigation protocol. Other 

management actions such as the implementation of noise restrictions (Action 135) and timing 

restrictions (Actions 17, 131, 132, 133 and 134) would have no effect on blowout penstemon. 

Cumulative Effects 

The following analysis focuses on cumulative impacts according to the ESA, Section 7 Consultation 

Handbook definition (USFWS 1998a); the incremental impacts of future State, or private activities 

(i.e., excluding federal activities), that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the 

Federal action subject to consultation. 

Existing and proposed activities on non-federal lands in the planning area that have the potential to 

cumulatively affect the species include but are not limited to the following: 

• Non-discretionary livestock grazing 

• Non-discretionary ORV use 

• Non-discretionary development of energy and mineral resources 

• Non-discretionary herbicide and insecticide treatments 

• Other non-discretionary surface disturbing activities 

Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation are reasonably certain to occur on non-federal lands. 

Impacts to habitat would likely result from ground disturbing activities that remove or stabilize dune 

systems or exacerbate the spread of noxious and invasive weeds into dune areas. These impacts are 

likely to be attributed to human activities such as urbanization, oil and gas developments, or the lack 

of prescribed fires. Additionally, the surge of interest in wind energy development on non-federal 

lands is likely to impact blowout penstemon habitat. Construction and maintenance of access roads, 

facilities, and turbine pads will result in the direct loss and fragmentation of habitat, and downwind 

impacts from operant wind developments could alter sand erosion patterns and soil-water 

evaporation rates. 

There is also potential for direct harm, such as tissue damage or uprooting of plants, to occur on nonfederal lands. OHV use and livestock grazing and management are likely to occur in areas with 

occupied or potential habitat. The intensity of direct harm caused by such activities could be severe 

331 
 

 

on non-federal lands since there are no protections afforded to the species, such as restrictive buffers, 

to minimize impacts from activities that could result in repeated and intense damage to the plants. 

7.1.2 Effects Determination 

The effects determination only addresses changes in management that would occur from the 

Amendment. Existing management conditions which are not changed as a result of the Amendment, 

such as livestock grazing and road developments have already been consulted on using agency 

approved methods and are not analyzed in this document. 

Management actions included in the Amendment are largely supportive in nature and guide or advise 

other program actions and activities in a manner conducive to maintaining and/or promoting 

population growth and habitat for the sage-grouse. Management actions included in the Amendment 

such as increased monitoring, data collection, greater coordination and review, and noise, distance, 

and timing restrictions, would have no effect on the blowout penstemon. Also, because sage-grouse 

utilize upland sagebrush dominated habitats, management actions included in the Amendment would 

not occur in the dunal habitat where blowout penstemon habitat exists. In addition, where Greatersage-grouse habitats may be located adjacent to dunal blowout penstemon habitats, some of the 

measures meant to protect sage-grouse may also indirectly protect the blowout penstemon. 

Protective measures include, surface restricting actions, retentions, reclamations, road closures, 

reductions of pollutants, reduction of impacts and deferment of livestock grazing. Furthermore, 

protective conservation measures found in the Amendment and maintained as part of the existing 

BLM and FS RMPs would further reduce the potential for adverse effects for the species. No actions 

included in the Amendment are anticipated to negatively affect the blowout penstemon, however, 

some of the actions may have unintentional beneficial effects. Based on the above analysis of 

effects, implementation of the Amendment, “May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect” 

blowout penstemon within the Rawlins Field Office. 

Blowout penstemon are only located in the Rawlins field office. As a result, implementation of the 

Amendment would have “No Effect” on the blowout penstemon within the Bridger Teton NF, 

Pinedale, Kemmerer, Rock Springs, Medicine-Bow NF, Casper, Thunder Basin Grasslands, Casper 

and Newcastle Field Offices. 

332 
 

 

 

Table 4-Summary and Determination of Effects for the Blowout penstemon 

NLAA= May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect 

NE = No effect 

NJ = No Jeopardy 

7.2 Colorado Butterfly Plant (Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis) - Threatened 

7.2.1 Effects of Selected Alternative 

Lands and Realty 

Amendment changes conducted under the lands and realty management program would not affect 

the Colorado butterfly plant. Activities under the lands and realty program include, manage sagegrouse PHMAs (Action 30), seasonal timing constraints (Action 31), restrictions which protect sagegrouse on new right-of-way corridors in greater sage-grouse habitat (Action 32), designing of 

powerlines and guy wires to minimize wildlife related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC 

standards (Action 34, 35, 38), reclamation of sites (Action 35), prohibition of wind turbines in 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 36), avoidance of MET tower supports in PHMA (Action 38), 

retention of PHMA (Action 40), identification of sage-grouse habitat in mineral right areas or 

conservation easement areas (Action 41), acquisition of Greater Sage-Grouse lands (Action 42), and 

consideration of non-mineral withdrawal actions to protect the species (Action 43). 

333 
 

 

 

 

Wyoming Colorado butterfly plants are located outside of the range for the sage-grouse. No known 

occurrences of the Colorado butterfly plant in Wyoming are located on BLM or FS public lands. 

Two occurrences are known on the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, while other occurrences are on 

private or state lands. As a result, lands and realty management actions would not affect the 

Colorado butterfly plant or its designated critical habitat. 

Livestock 

Livestock management actions in the Amendment include habitat improvements for Greater SageGrouse through the following: evaluation of opportunities to coordinate management plans and 

strategies under a single management plan with other agencies and stake holders and include sagegrouse management (Action 22), develop voluntary grazing strategies that improve sage-grouse 

populations and habitat (Action 45, 139), adjustments to grazing management (Action 46, 139), 

sage-grouse habitat objectives and management would be incorporated into all grazing permit 

renewals (Action 48), progress toward achieving land health standards in sage-grouse PHMAs 

(Action 49), management of voluntarily relinquished permits or preferences (Action 50), coordinate 

with permittees/lessees to develop drought contingency plans (Action 52), evaluate and modify 

existing range improvements to improve sage-grouse habitat (Action 53), designate specific routes 

and timeframes for trailing which includes the avoidance of stopovers in sage-grouse leks (Action 

54), promote balanced grazing between upland and riparian areas (Action 55), manage range 

improvements in a way that promotes sage-grouse and its habitats (Action 56), and evaluate and 

modify effects on sage-grouse from spring and seep developments such as pipelines and structures 

(Action 57). 

Wyoming Colorado butterfly plant populations are located outside of the range for the sage-grouse. 

No known occurrences of the Colorado butterfly plant in Wyoming are located on BLM or FS public 

lands. Two occurrences are known on the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, while other occurrences are 

on private or state lands. As a result, livestock management actions would not affect the Colorado 

butterfly plant or its designated critical habitat. 

Mineral Resources 

Minerals management actions included in the Amendment include the following: designing roads in 

a way which minimize impacts in sage-grouse priority/PHMAs (Action 20), protective modifications 

to lease stipulations within sage-grouse habitat (Action 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 

80, 81). Other actions include, proposed withdrawal recommendations of some areas of PHMA from 

mineral exploration (Action 79, 139), minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances (Action 

79 ), prohibit strip mining near sage-grouse(Action 76), prohibition of geophysical operations near 

Greater Sage-Grouse, right-of-way and vehicle limitations, timing restrictions during breeding 

season(Action 60), working with permittees/lessees to apply sage-grouse conservation measures, 

distance limitations (Action 60, 66) minimization of habitat fragmentation (Action 62, 67), requiring 

reclamation plans (Action 69a), noise reduction, and minimize impacts to related sensitive resources. 

All Wyoming Colorado butterfly plant populations are located outside of the range for the Sagegrouse. No known occurrences of the Colorado butterfly plant in Wyoming are located on BLM or 

FS public lands. Two occurrences are known on the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, while other 

occurrences are on private or state lands. As a result, mineral resource management actions would 

not affect the Colorado butterfly plant or its designated critical habitat. 

334 
 

 

 

 

Recreation 

With the implementation of the Amendment, BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs would 

be continued to be allowed in sage-grouse PHMA habitat, unless negative impacts to sage-grouse 

cannot be adequately mitigated (Action 82). 

Wyoming Colorado butterfly plant populations are located outside of the range for the sage-grouse. 

No known occurrences of the Colorado butterfly plant in Wyoming are located on BLM or FS public 

lands. Two occurrences are known on the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, while other occurrences are 

on private or state lands. As a result, recreation management actions would not affect the Colorado 

butterfly plant or its designated critical habitat. 

Special Designations 

No new special designation actions are included in the Amendment (Action 84). As such, special 

designations management actions would not affect Colorado butterfly plant or its designated critical 

habitat. 

Special Status Species 

Special status species management action include the collection of sage-grouse baseline data during 

project planning (Action 4), the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact 

PHMAs (Action 12), agencies will meet annually to coordinate and review sage-grouse data (Action 

16), development of adaptive management strategies in support of the population management 

objectives for sage-grouse (Action 137), maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 Sage-grouse PHMA 

population within the State of Wyoming (Action 138), and all existing planning decision will be 

retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this plan amendment (Action 25). 

Wyoming Colorado butterfly plant populations are located outside of the range for the Sage-grouse. 

No known occurrences of the Colorado butterfly plant in Wyoming are located on BLM or FS public 

lands. Two occurrences are known on the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, while other occurrences are 

on private or state lands. As a result, special status species management actions would not affect the 

Colorado butterfly plant or its designated critical habitat. 

Travel Management 

Travel management actions included in the Amendment, include restricting motorized travel to 

existing roads and trails, until route designations are made during subsequent implementation of 

travel management planning (Action 18), designate routes with priority habitat and assess existing 

plans for consistency with sage-grouse conservation objectives (Action 19), non-sand dune portions 

of the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to 

existing roads and trails (Action 86), avoidance of new road construction within 1.9 miles of habitat 

(Action 88), restricting upgrades or new road construction within sage-grouse habitat (Action 89), 

development of new roads would be constructed to the absolute minimum value (Action 90), natural 

reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in travel management plans within sage-grouse 

PHMAs, in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not foreseeable (Action 91), 

when reseeding roads and trails within sage-grouse PHMAs, appropriate seed mixtures would be 

used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered (Action 92). 

Wyoming Colorado butterfly plant populations are located outside of the range for the Sage-grouse. 

No known occurrences of the Colorado butterfly plant in Wyoming are located on BLM or FS public 

lands. Two occurrences are known on the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, while other occurrences are 

335 
 

 

 

 

on private or state lands. As a result, travel management actions would not affect the Colorado 

butterfly plant or its designated critical habitat. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation management actions include, the application of seasonal restrictions for implementing 

vegetation management treatments and monitoring to benefit sage-grouse (Action 6), design range 

projects in a manner that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment and to monitor and 

treat invasive species associated with existing range improvements (Action 9), vegetation 

management would be used to control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive 

species (Action 11), work with various agencies and stake holders to coordinate and enhance 

Greater-sage-grouse population and habitat (Action 22), improvement of vegetation composition and 

structure to benefit sage-grouse (Action 93, 95, 100, 107), restrict sagebrush activities that reduces 

sagebrush canopy to less than 15% (Action 94), development of recommended protocols and 

treatments to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (Action 95, 96), deferment of livestock 

grazing on vegetative treatments to improve habitat (Action 97), recommendations on vegetative 

treatments (Action 98, 100, 101, 104, 105), reclamation or restoration of surface disturbances in 

sage-grouse habitats (Action 99, 100, 101, 103, 106), the use of native seeds which are certified 

weed free for fuels treatments (Action 100, 102, 103, 104), pest treatments to control Wyoming 

grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Action 108). 

The use of herbicide on noxious and invasive species (Action 11), vegetation treatments (Actions 93, 

94, 95, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107) and pest control treatments for Wyoming grass hopper and 

Mormon crickets (Action 108) have already been consulted on in their respective Land Use plans 

using agency approved protocols. However, the changes in the amendment would direct managers to 

use updated sage-grouse information which would benefit the sage-grouse. For example, managers 

can better control insect outbreaks in PHMAs if the PHMAs are identified. 

Wyoming Colorado butterfly plant populations are located outside of the range for the sage-grouse. 

No known occurrences of the Colorado butterfly plant in Wyoming are located on BLM or FS public 

lands. Two occurrences are known on the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, while other occurrences are 

on private or state lands. As a result, vegetation management actions would not affect the Colorado 

butterfly plant or its designated critical habitat. 

Wild Horses 

Wild horse management action include incorporating rangeland improvements for wild horses in 

sage-grouse PHMA (Action 109), consideration of sage-grouse PHMAs when evaluating AML’s 

(Action 110), considering sage-grouse PHMAs when conducting land health assessments (Action 

111), addressing direct and indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitats when conducting 

NEPA analysis for wild horse and burro management activities (Action 112), and to coordinate with 

all other resources to conduct land health assessments within all BLM HMAs (Action 113). 

Based on known locations of Colorado butterfly plant as shown on USFWS maps (USFWS 2013), 

none of the known Colorado butterfly plant populations are located in herd management areas. In 

addition, Wyoming Colorado butterfly plant populations are located outside of the range for the 

Sage-grouse. No known occurrences of the Colorado butterfly plant in Wyoming are located on 

BLM or FS public lands. Two occurrences are known on the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, while 

other occurrences are on private or state lands. As a result, wild horse management actions would 

not affect the Colorado butterfly plant or its designated critical habitat. 

336 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wildland Fire 

Wildland fire management actions included in the Amendment, fire and fuels management which 

contributes to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse 

populations (Action 26), complete and continue to update Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire 

& Invasive necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting sage-grouse 

populations which includes identification of annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species 

management as identified in local unit level Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments 

(Action 27), implementation of coordinated inter-agency approach to fire restrictions for Sagegrouse (Action 28), utilization of fire management strategies and tactics to achieve sage-grouse 

resource objectives (Action 29), fuel treatments would be implemented with an emphasis of 

protecting and enhancing PHMAs (Action 114), restoring burned areas within PHMAs (Action 115), 

post fuels management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pretreatment native plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat (Action 117), and management 

actions to benefit sage-grouse during fire suppression activities (Action 124). 

Wyoming Colorado butterfly plant populations are located outside of the range for the sage-grouse. 

No known occurrences of the Colorado butterfly plant in Wyoming are located on BLM or FS public 

lands. Two occurrences are known on the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, while other occurrences are 

on private or state lands. As a result, wildland fire management actions would not affect the 

Colorado butterfly plant or its designated critical habitat. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions described in the Amendment include protocols for sagegrouse monitoring (Actions 1, 3,125), development of landscape level restoration, conservation and 

maintenance strategies (Actions 8, 14, 15,21) application of required design features (Action 10), 

addition of new sage-grouse habitat (Action 13), limitation of oil and gas development densities 

(Action 126), limitation of all surface disturbances to 5% per 640 acres (Action 127), mitigation 

protocol (Actions 5,7,128), prohibition of surface disturbing activities within 0.6 mile radius of 

occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMAs (Action 129), prohibition of surface disturbing activities 

within 0.25 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks outside PHMAs (Action 130), timing 

restrictions in breeding, nesting, and brooding PHMA habitat (Actions 17,131, 132, 133, 134), 

promote control of predators to sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat (Action 135), and implementation 

of noise restrictions (Action 136). 

Wyoming Colorado butterfly plant populations are located outside of the range for the Sage-grouse. 

No known occurrences of the Colorado butterfly plant in Wyoming are located on BLM or FS public 

lands. Two occurrences are known on the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, while other occurrences are 

on private or state lands. As a result, wildlife and fisheries management actions would not affect the 

Colorado butterfly plant or its designated critical habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

The following analysis focuses on cumulative impacts according to the ESA, Section 7 Consultation 

Handbook definition (USFWS 1998a); the incremental impacts of future State, or private activities 

(i.e., excluding federal activities), that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the 

Federal action subject to consultation. 

Existing and proposed activities on non-federal lands in the planning area that have the potential to 

cumulatively affect the species include but are not limited to the following: 

• Non-discretionary livestock grazing 

337 
 

 

 

 

 

 i 

 

• Non-discretionary ORV use

• Non-discretionary development of energy and mineral resources

• Non-discretionary herbicide and insecticide treatments

• Other non-discretionary surface disturbing activities

• Water depletions from irrigation diversions and dams

• Livestock grazing on private lands

• Sand and gravel operations

• Existing and proposed wind farms

• Hard rock mining (including coal, trona, and phosphates)

• Bentonite mining

The USFWS has designated critical habitat for the Colorado butterfly plant. One unit of designated 

critical habitat is located within the Casper FO. This area consists of 107 acres long 1.5 stream miles 

of Tepee Ring Creek in Platte County, Wyoming and is under private land ownership (USFWS 

2005). This area surrounds the one known population of Colorado butterfly plant within the Casper 

FO. This amendment would not contribute to cumulative effects on the area designated as critical 

habitat for the Colorado butterfly plant. 

7.2.2 Effects Determination 

The effects determination only addresses changes in management that would occur from the 

Amendment. Existing management conditions which are not changed as a result of the Amendment 

such as livestock grazing and road developments have already been consulted on using agency 

approved methods and are not analyzed in this document. In addition, Wyoming Colorado butterfly 

plant are located outside of the range for the Sage-grouse. No known occurrences of the Colorado 

butterfly plant in Wyoming are located on BLM or FS public lands within the planning area. Two 

occurrences are known on the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, while other occurrences are on private or 

state lands. Because no known occurrences of the Colorado butterfly plant are found within the 

planning area, implementation of the Amendment, would have “No Effect” on the Colorado 

butterfly plant or its designated critical habitat, within the Bridger Teton, Rawlins, Pinedale, 

Kemmerer, Rock Springs, Medicine-Bow, Casper, Thunder Basin and Newcastle Field Offices. 

Table 5-Summary and Determination of Effects for the Colorado butterfly plant 

338 
 

 

 

 

 

 

NLAA= May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect 

NE = No effect (No Adverse Modification for critical habitat) 

NJ = No Jeopardy7.3 Desert yellowhead (Yermo xanthocephalus) – Threatened

7.3 Desert yellowhead (Yermo xanthocephalus) – Threatened 

7.3.1 Effects of Selected Alternative 

Lands and Realty 

Activities under the lands and realty program include, manage sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 30), 

seasonal timing constraints (Action 31), restrictions which protect sage-grouse on new right-of-way 

corridors in sage-grouse habitat (Action 32), designing of powerlines and guy wires to minimize 

wildlife related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC standards (Action 34, 35, 38), 

reclamation of sites (Action 35), prohibition of wind turbines in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 

36), avoidance of MET tower supports in PHMA (Action 38), retention of PHMA (Action 40), 

identification of sage-grouse habitat in mineral right areas or conservation easement areas (Action 

41), acquisition of Greater Sage-Grouse lands (Action 42), and consideration of non-mineral 

withdrawal actions to protect the species (Action 43). 

The desert yellowhead is not known to occur in any areas covered by the Amendment. The species 

known locations occur entirely on land managed by the BLM Lander field office in the Beaver Rim 

area approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of Sweetwater Station in southern Fremont County, 

Wyoming. Because the species is not known to occur in the Amendment boundary, lands and realty 

management actions would not affect the desert yellowhead. 

Livestock 

Many of the livestock management actions in the Amendment include habitat improvements for 

sage-grouse through the following: evaluation of opportunities to coordinate management plans and 

strategies under a single management plan with other agencies and stake holders and include sagegrouse management (Action 22), develop voluntary grazing strategies that improve sage-grouse 

populations and habitat(Action 45), adjustments to grazing management (Action 46,139), sagegrouse habitat objectives and management would be incorporated into all grazing permit renewals 

(Action 48), progress toward achieving land health standards in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 49), 

management of voluntarily relinquished permits or preferences (Action 50), coordinate with 

permittees/lessees to develop drought contingency plans (Action 52), evaluate and modify existing 

339 
 

 

 

 

range improvements to improve sage-grouse habitat (Action 53), designate specific routes and 

timeframes for trailing which includes the avoidance of stopovers in sage-grouse leks (Action 54), 

promote balanced grazing between upland and riparian areas (Action 55), manage range 

improvements in a way that promotes sage-grouse and its habitats (Action 56), and evaluate and 

modify effects on sage-grouse from spring and seep developments such as pipelines and structures 

(Action 57). 

The desert yellowhead is not known to occur in any areas covered by the Amendment. The species 

known locations occur entirely on land managed by the BLM Lander field office in the Beaver Rim 

area approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of Sweetwater Station in southern Fremont County, 

Wyoming. Because the species is not known to occur in the Amendment boundary, livestock 

management activities would not affect the desert yellowhead. 

Mineral Resources 

Minerals management actions included in the Amendment include the following: designing roads 

which minimize impacts in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 20), protective modifications to lease 

stipulations within sage-grouse habitat (Action 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81). 

Other actions include, proposed withdrawal recommendations of some areas of PHMA from mineral 

exploration (Action 79, 139), minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances (Action 79 ), 

prohibit strip mining near sage-grouse(Action 76), prohibition of geophysical operations near sagegrouse, right-of-way and vehicle limitations, timing restrictions during breeding season(Action 60), 

working with permittees/lessees to apply sage-grouse conservation measures, distance limitations 

(Action 60, 66) minimization of habitat fragmentation (Action 62, 67), requiring reclamation plans 

(Action 69a), noise reduction, and minimize impacts to related sensitive resources. 

The desert yellowhead is not known to occur in any areas covered by the Amendment. The species 

known locations occur entirely on land managed by the BLM Lander field office in the Beaver Rim 

area approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of Sweetwater Station in southern Fremont County, 

Wyoming. Because the species is not known to occur in the Amendment boundary, mineral resource 

management actions would not affect the desert yellowhead. 

Recreation 

BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs would be continued to be allowed in sage-grouse 

PHMA, unless negative impacts to sage-grouse cannot be adequately mitigated (Action 82). 

The desert yellowhead is not known to occur in any areas covered by the Amendment. The species 

known locations occur entirely on land managed by the BLM Lander field office in the Beaver Rim 

area approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of Sweetwater Station in southern Fremont County, 

Wyoming. Because the species is not known to occur in the Amendment boundary, recreation 

management actions would not affect the desert yellowhead. 

Special Designations 

No new special designation actions are included in Amendment (Action 84). As such, special 

management actions would not affect desert yellowhead. In addition, desert yellowhead is not 

known to occur in any areas covered by the Amendment. The species known locations occur entirely 

on land managed by the BLM Lander field office in the Beaver Rim area approximately 10 km (6 

mi) north of Sweetwater Station in southern Fremont County, Wyoming. Because the species is not 

known to occur in the Amendment boundary, special designations management actions would not 

affect the desert yellowhead. 

340 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Status Species 

Special status species management action include the collection of sage-grouse baseline data during 

project planning (Action 4), the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact 

PHMAs (Action 12), agencies will meet annually to coordinate and review sage-grouse data (Action 

16), development of adaptive management strategies in support of the population management 

objectives for sage-grouse (Action 137), maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 sage-grouse PHMA 

population within the State of Wyoming (Action 138), and all existing planning decision will be 

retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this plan amendment (Action 25). 

The desert yellowhead is not known to occur in any areas covered by the Amendment. The species 

known locations occur entirely on land managed by the BLM Lander field office in the Beaver Rim 

area approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of Sweetwater Station in southern Fremont County, 

Wyoming. Because the species is not known to occur in the Amendment boundary, special status 

species management actions would not affect the desert yellowhead. 

Travel Management 

Travel management actions included in the Amendment, include restricting motorized travel to 

existing roads and trails, until route designations are made during subsequent implementation of 

travel management planning (Action 18), designate routes with priority habitat and assess existing 

plans for consistency with sage-grouse conservation objectives (Action 19), non-sand dune portions 

of the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to 

existing roads and trails(Action 86, 87), avoidance of new road construction within 1.9 miles of 

habitat(Action 88), restricting upgrades or new road construction within sage-grouse habitat(Action 

89), development of new roads would be constructed to the absolute minimum value (Action 90), 

natural reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in travel management plans within sagegrouse PHMAs, in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not foreseeable 

(Action 91), when reseeding roads and trails within sage-grouse PHMAs, appropriate seed mixtures 

would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered (Action 92). 

The desert yellowhead is not known to occur in any areas covered by the Amendment. The species 

known locations occur entirely on land managed by the BLM Lander field office in the Beaver Rim 

area approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of Sweetwater Station in southern Fremont County, 

Wyoming. Because the species is not known to occur in the Amendment boundary, travel 

management actions would not affect the desert yellowhead. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation management actions include, the application of seasonal restrictions for implementing 

vegetation management treatments and monitoring to benefit sage-grouse (Action 6), design range 

projects in a manner that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment and to monitor and 

treat invasive species associated with existing range improvements (Action 9), vegetation 

management would be used to control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive 

species (Action 11), work with various agencies and stake holders to coordinate and enhance Greater 

Sage-Grouse population and habitat (Action 22), improvement of vegetation composition and 

structure to benefit sage-grouse (Action 93, 95, 100, 107), restrict sagebrush activities that reduces 

sagebrush canopy to less than 15% (Action 94), development of recommended protocols and 

treatments to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (Action 95, 96), deferment of livestock 

grazing on vegetative treatments to improve habitat (Action 97), recommendations on vegetative 

treatments (Action 98, 100, 101, 104, 105), reclamation or restoration of surface disturbances in 

341 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sage-grouse habitats (Action 99, 100, 101, 103, 106), the use of native seeds which are certified 

weed free for fuels treatments (Action 100, 102, 103, 104), pest treatments to control Wyoming 

grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Action 108). 

The desert yellowhead is not known to occur in any areas covered by the Amendment. The species 

known locations occur entirely on land managed by the BLM Lander field office in the Beaver Rim 

area approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of Sweetwater Station in southern Fremont County, 

Wyoming. Because the species is not known to occur in the Amendment boundary, vegetation 

management actions would not affect the desert yellowhead. 

Wild Horses 

Wild horse management action include incorporating rangeland improvements for wild horses in 

sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 109), consideration of sage-grouse PHMAs when evaluating AML’s 

(Action 110), considering sage-grouse PHMAs when conducting land health assessments (Action 

111), addressing direct and indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitats when conducting 

NEPA analysis for wild horse and burro management activities (Action 112), and to coordinate with 

all other resources to conduct land health assessments within all BLM HMAs (Action 113). 

The desert yellowhead is not known to occur in any areas covered by the Amendment. The species 

known locations occur entirely on land managed by the BLM Lander field office in the Beaver Rim 

area approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of Sweetwater Station in southern Fremont County, 

Wyoming. Because the species is not known to occur in the Amendment boundary, wild horse 

management actions would not affect the desert yellowhead. 

Wildland Fire 

Wildland fire management actions included in the Amendment, fire and fuels management which 

contributes to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse 

populations (Action 26), complete and continue to update sage-grouse Landscape Wildfire & 

Invasive necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting sage-grouse populations 

which includes identification of annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species 

management as identified in local unit level Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments 

(Action 27), implementation of coordinated inter-agency approach to fire restrictions for sage-grouse 

(Action 28), utilization of fire management strategies and tactics to achieve sage-grouse resource 

objectives (Action 29), fuel treatments would be implemented with an emphasis of protecting and 

enhancing PHMAs (Action 114), restoring burned areas within PHMAs (Action 115), post fuels 

management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment 

native plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat(Action 117), avoiding treatments in areas 

containing old trees or persistent woodlands (Action 118), and management actions to benefit sagegrouse during fire suppression activities (Action 124). 

The desert yellowhead is not known to occur in any areas covered by the Amendment. The species 

known locations occur entirely on land managed by the BLM Lander field office in the Beaver Rim 

area approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of Sweetwater Station in southern Fremont County, 

Wyoming. Because the species is not known to occur in the Amendment boundary, wildland fire 

management actions would not affect the desert yellowhead. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions described in the Amendment include protocols for sagegrouse monitoring (Actions 1, 3, 125), development of landscape level restoration, conservation and 

342 
 

 

 

 

 

maintenance strategies (Actions 8, 14, 15, 21) application of required design features (Action 10), 

addition of new sage-grouse habitat (Action 13), limitation of oil and gas development densities 

(Action 126), limitation of all surface disturbances to 5% per 640 acres (Action 127), mitigation 

protocol (Actions 5,7, 128), prohibition of surface disturbing activities within 0.6 mile radius of 

occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMAs (Action 129), prohibition of surface disturbing activities 

within 0.25 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks outside PHMAs (Action 130), timing 

restrictions in breeding, nesting, and brooding PHMA habitat (Actions 17,131, 132, 133, 134), 

promote control of predators to sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat (Action 135), and implementation 

of noise restrictions (Action 136). 

The desert yellowhead is not known to occur in any areas covered by the Amendment. The species 

known locations occur entirely on land managed by the BLM Lander field office in the Beaver Rim 

area approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of Sweetwater Station in southern Fremont County, 

Wyoming. Because the species is not known to occur in the Amendment boundary, wildlife and 

fisheries management actions would not affect the desert yellowhead. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts according to the ESA, Section 7 Consultation Handbook definition (USFWS 

1998a) include the incremental impacts of future State, or private activities (i.e., excluding federal 

activities), that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to 

consultation. 

Because the desert yellowhead site is only known to occur in the Beaver Rim area and is entirely 

located on federal surface, there is little or no potential for direct cumulative effects from future 

state, local, or private actions to affect the species. 

7.3.2 Effects Determination 

The effects determination only addresses changes in management that will occur from the 

Amendment. Existing management conditions that would not be changed as a result of the 

Amendment have already been consulted on using agency approved methods and will not be 

analyzed in this document. 

Activities included in the Amendment are not anticipated to affect the species. The desert 

yellowhead is not known to occur in any areas covered by the Amendment. The species known 

locations occur entirely on land managed by the BLM Lander field office in the Beaver Rim area 

approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of Sweetwater Station in southern Fremont County, Wyoming. 

Because the species is not known to occur in the Amendment boundary, wildlife and fisheries 

management actions would not affect the desert yellowhead. 

Desert yellowhead are only located in the Lander BLM field office, which is not included in the 9 

plan Amendment boundary. As a result, implementation of the Amendment would have “No Effect” 

on the desert yellowhead or its designated critical habitat within the Bridger Teton, Pinedale, 

Kemmerer, Rawlins, Medicine-Bow, Casper, Rock Springs, Thunder Basin and Newcastle Field 

Offices. 

343 
H bi

H bi

i

 

Table 6- Summary and Determination of Effects for Desert yellowhead 

NLAA= May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect 

NE = No effect (No Adverse Modification for critical habitat) 

NJ = No Jeopardy 

344 
 

 

 

 

 

 

7.4 Ute Ladies’ -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) - Threatened 

7.4.1 Effects of Selected Alternative 

Lands and Realty 

Activities under the lands and realty program described in the Amendment include, management of 

sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 30), seasonal timing constraints (Action 31), restrictions which protect 

sage-grouse on new right-of-way corridors in sage-grouse habitat (Action 32), designing of 

powerlines and guy wires to minimize wildlife related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC 

standards (Action 34, 35, 38), reclamation of sites (Action 35), prohibition of wind turbines in 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 36), avoidance of MET tower supports in PHMA (Action 38), 

retention of PHMA (Action 40), identification of sage-grouse habitat in mineral right areas or 

conservation easement areas (Action 41), acquisition of Greater Sage-Grouse lands (Action 42), and 

consideration of non-mineral withdrawal actions to protect the species (Action 43). 

Lands and realty management actions included in the Amendment are not likely to occur in the 

wetland habitats of the Ute ladies’- tresses because Greater Sage-Grouse occur in lands dominated 

by large sagebrush stands. However, sagebrush dominated stands may be located adjacent to wetland 

habitats. 

Management actions that would not affect the Ute ladies’- tresses include the management of sagegrouse PHMAs, and the installation of perch deterrents. However, changes in some of the lands and 

realty management actions included in the Amendment may inadvertently protect the species 

through land acquisitions, retentions, and reclamations. Restrictions of right-of-way corridors could 

also benefit the species by reducing or prohibiting ground disturbances in habitat occupied by the 

Ute ladies’-tresses. Road closures would reduce the number of people within Ute ladies’- tresses 

habitat and the resulting impacts on the species and habitat. 

Livestock 

Livestock management actions described in the Amendment include the following: evaluation of 

opportunities to coordinate management plans and strategies under a single management plan with 

other agencies and stake holders and include sage-grouse management (Action 22), develop 

voluntary grazing strategies that improve sage-grouse populations and habitat(Action 45), 

adjustments to grazing management (Action 46,139), sage-grouse habitat objectives and 

management would be incorporated into all grazing permit renewals (Action 48), progress toward 

achieving land health standards in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 49), management of voluntarily 

relinquished permits or preferences (Action 50), coordinate with permittees/lessees/lessees to 

develop drought contingency plans (Action 52), evaluate and modify existing range improvements to 

improve sage-grouse habitat (Action 53), designate specific routes and timeframes for trailing which 

includes the avoidance of stopovers in sage-grouse leks (Action 54), promote balanced grazing 

between upland and riparian areas (Action 55), manage range improvements in a way that promotes 

Sage-grouse and its habitats (Action 56), and evaluate and modify effects on sage-grouse from 

spring and seep developments such as pipelines and structures (Action 57). 

All of the documented occurrences of Ute ladies’-tresses reside within wetland habitats in Wyoming. 

Because Greater Sage-Grouse occur in lands dominated by large sagebrush stands, livestock 

management actions meant to benefit sage-grouse would not occur in Ute ladies’-tresses habitat. 

Actions that would not affect Ute ladies’-tresses include Action 22, 45, 48, 49, 53, 54, 56, 57). 

However, because the species may occur in the same geographical area as sage-grouse, changes in 

345 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

some of the Livestock management program may inadvertently protect the species through the 

development of a drought contingency plan (Action 52), which could reduce grazing pressure near 

Ute ladies’-tresses habitats; the promotion of balanced grazing (Action 55) could also alleviate 

heavy grazing impact in wetland areas. 

Mineral Resources 

Minerals management actions included in the Amendment include the following: designing roads 

which minimize impacts in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 20), protective modifications to lease 

stipulations within sage-grouse habitat (Action 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81). 

Other actions include, proposed withdrawal recommendations of some areas of PHMA from mineral 

exploration (Action 79, 139), minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances(Action 79), 

prohibit strip mining near sage-grouse(Action 76), prohibition of geophysical operations near sagegrouse, right-of-way and vehicle limitations, timing restrictions during breeding season(Action 60), 

working with permittees/lessees/lessees to apply sage-grouse conservation measures, distance 

limitations (Action 60, 66), requiring reclamation plans (Action 69a), minimization of habitat 

fragmentation (Action 62, 67), noise reduction, and minimize impacts to related sensitive resources. 

Planning measures which do not cause surface disturbing actions such as the consideration of a 

master a plan for development or leasing when impacts to sage-grouse could occur (Action 66), 

noise, timing and distance restrictions (Action 60), implementing a reclamation bond in sage-grouse 

areas (Action 66)and requiring reclamation plans (Action 69a) would not affect Ute ladies’-tresses. 

Because sage-grouse do not reside in the same habitat required by Ute ladies’-tresses, management 

actions intended to protect sage-grouse would not directly affect Ute ladies’-tresses. However, 

because the species may occur in the same geographical area, some management actions may 

inadvertently benefit the species. Beneficial actions may include limitations of road developments 

and implementing measures to reduce pollutants. These actions could limit road access within Ute 

ladies’- tresses habitat which would benefit the species. It is not anticipated that the management 

actions would negatively affect the species. 

No surface disturbing mineral resource actions would occur without proper analysis and 

implementation of all appropriate conservation measures in order to ensure the protection of the Ute 

ladies’-tresses. It is anticipated that new proposals of mineral management actions would result in 

the development of additional protection measures, and coordination with the USFWS. 

Recreation 

Recreation management actions include BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs would be 

allowed in sage-grouse PHMA habitat, unless negative impacts to sage-grouse cannot be adequately 

mitigated (Action 82). 

The issuance of BLM SRP’s and Forest Service recreation SUA’s has already been consulted on 

during the planning process of their respective land use plans. However, the change in the 

Amendment and the area which needs to be consulted on would be the closing of SRP’s and SUA’s 

in PHMAs when negative impacts cannot be mitigated. The closing of any BLM SRP or Forest 

Service Recreation SUA in PHMAs would not directly affect the Ute ladies’-tresses. In fact, the 

closing of SRP’s and SUA’s may benefit the species and protect it from potentially negative impacts 

from recreation. 

346 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Designations 

No new special designation actions are included in the Amendment (Action 84). As such, special 

management actions would not affect the Ute ladies’-tresses. 

Special Status Species 

Special status species management action include the collection of sage-grouse baseline data during 

project planning (Action 4), the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact 

PHMAs (Action 12), agencies will meet annually to coordinate and review sage-grouse data (Action 

16), development of adaptive management strategies in support of the population management 

objectives for sage-grouse (Action 137), maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 Sage-grouse PHMA 

population within the State of Wyoming (Action 138), and all existing planning decision will be 

retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this plan amendment (Action 25). 

Actions included in the special species management program such as the collection of data (Action 

4), agencies meeting annually to coordinate sage-grouse data (Action 16), and the development of 

adaptive management strategies (Action 137), retainment of existing plans unless modified in the 

Amendment (Action 25), would not have any effect on the Ute ladies’-tresses because no surface 

disturbing actions would take place. However, Action 12 which includes the modification of existing 

notices and plans to minimally impact PHMAs may indirectly benefit the species by reducing 

impacts to PHMAs. The reduction of impacts in PHMAs may also indirectly benefit Ute ladies’-

tresses which may occur in adjacent habitats. 

Travel Management 

Travel management actions described in the Amendment, include restricting motorized travel to 

existing roads and trails, until route designations are made during subsequent implementation of 

travel management planning (Action 18), designate routes with priority habitat and assess existing 

plans for consistency with sage-grouse conservation objectives (Action 19), non-sand dune portions 

of the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to 

existing roads and trails(Action 86, 87), avoidance of new road construction within 1.9 miles of 

habitat(Action 88), restricting upgrades or new road construction within sage-grouse habitat (Action 

89), development of new roads would be constructed to the absolute minimum value (Action 90), 

natural reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in travel management plans within sagegrouse PHMAs, in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not foreseeable 

(Action 91), when reseeding roads and trails within sage-grouse PHMAs, appropriate seed mixtures 

would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered (Action 92). 

Travel management actions such as the minimization, reclamation, avoidance, restriction and closure 

of various roads may inadvertently benefit the species even though sage-grouse do not occur in the 

same habitat as the Ute ladies’-tresses (Action 18, 86, 88, 89). For example, Ute ladies’-tresses may 

be protected if a road restriction or closure in sage-grouse habitat blocks access to a road which leads 

to wetland habitat. The use of approved seed mixtures (Action 92) and implementation of travel 

management plans (Action 18) would likely have no effect on the Ute ladies’-tresses. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation management actions include, the application of seasonal restrictions for implementing 

vegetation management treatments and monitoring to benefit sage-grouse (Action 6), design range 

projects in a manner that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment and to monitor and 

treat invasive species associated with existing range improvements (Action 9), vegetation 

management would be used to control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive 

347 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

species (Action 11), work with various agencies and stake holders to coordinate and enhance Greater 

Sage-Grouse population and habitat (Action 22), improvement of vegetation composition and 

structure to benefit sage-grouse (Action 93, 95, 100, 107), restrict sagebrush activities that reduces 

sagebrush canopy to less than 15% (Action 94), development of recommended protocols and 

treatments to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (Action 95, 96), deferment of livestock 

grazing on vegetative treatments to improve habitat (Action 97), recommendations on vegetative 

treatments (Action 98, 100, 101, 104, 105), reclamation or restoration of surface disturbances in 

sage-grouse habitats (Action 99, 100, 101, 103, 106), the use of native seeds which are certified 

weed free for fuels treatments (Action 100, 102, 103, 104), pest treatments to control Wyoming 

grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Action 108). 

The use of herbicide on noxious and invasive species (Action 11), vegetation treatments (Actions 93, 

94, 95, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107) and pest control treatments for Wyoming grass hopper and 

Mormon crickets (Action 108) have already been consulted on in their respective Land Use plans 

using agency approved protocols. However, the actions in the Amendment would direct managers to 

use updated sage-grouse information which would benefit the sage-grouse. 

Vegetation management actions are not expected to directly impact occupied or potential Ute 

ladies’- tresses habitat. Because sage-grouse do not reside in the same habitat required by Ute 

ladies’- tresses. Vegetation management actions intended to protect sage-grouse would occur in 

upland sage-grouse habitat areas. Vegetation management actions such as season restrictions (Action 

6), monitoring efforts (Action 9), and working collaboratively with various agencies (Action 22) are 

not expected to directly or indirectly impact occupied or potential Ute ladies’-tresses habitat because 

no surface disturbing management action would result. However, actions that minimize the potential 

for the spread of noxious and invasive weeds (Action 9), deferment of livestock (Action 97), and the 

improvement of vegetative composition (Action 93, 95, 100, 107) may inadvertently benefit the 

species through improved habitat conditions. 

Wild Horses 

Wild horse management action include incorporating rangeland improvements for wild horses in 

sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 109), consideration of sage-grouse PHMAs when evaluating AML’s 

(Action 110), considering sage-grouse PHMAs when conducting land health assessments (Action 

111), addressing direct and indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitats when conducting 

NEPA analysis for wild horse and burro management activities (Action 112), and to coordinate with 

all other resources to conduct land health assessments within all BLM HMAs (Action 113). 

Based on known locations of Ute ladies’- tresses as shown on USFWS maps (USFWS 2013), none 

of the known Ute ladies’- tresses sites are located in herd management areas. In addition, all the 

wild horse management actions discussed in the Amendment only include protective measures such 

as Herd management plan amendments which protect sage-grouse and the requirement of NEPA 

analysis when water or range improvements are necessary. None of these actions would occur within 

or near Ute ladies’- tresses habitat. The management actions are also not expected to inadvertently 

affect nearby habitat. 

Wildland Fire 

Wildland fire management actions outlined in the Amendment include, fire and fuels management 

which contributes to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse 

populations (Action 26), complete and continue to update Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire 

& Invasive necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting sage-grouse 

348 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

populations which includes identification of annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive 

species management as identified in local unit level Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species 

Assessments (Action 27), implementation of coordinated inter-agency approach to fire restrictions 

for Sage-grouse (Action 28), utilization of fire management strategies and tactics to achieve sagegrouse resource objectives (Action 29), fuel treatments would be implemented with an emphasis of 

protecting and enhancing PHMAs (Action 114), restoring burned areas within PHMAs (Action 115), 

post fuels management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pretreatment native plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat (Action 117), avoiding treatments in 

areas containing old trees or persistent woodlands (Action 118), and management actions which 

benefit sage-grouse during fire suppression activities (Action 124). 

Changes to existing wildland fire management are not expected to directly impact occupied or 

potential Ute ladies’- tresses habitat. Preferred habitat for the plant is wetland habitats comprised of 

sub-irrigated, alluvial soils, which generally do not burn and it is not likely that fires associated with 

sage-grouse wildland fire management would be prescribed in such areas. Also, because sage-grouse 

do not reside in the same habitat required by Ute ladies’- tresses, most of the wildland fire 

management actions intended to protect sage-grouse would not affect Ute ladies’- tresses. Beneficial 

effects to the species may inadvertently result through avoidance and protective measures for the 

sage-grouse. 

No surface disturbing wildland fire management actions would occur without proper analysis and 

implementation of all appropriate conservation measures in order to ensure the protection of the Ute 

ladies’- tresses. It is anticipated that new proposals of fire management actions would result. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions described in the Amendment include protocols for sagegrouse monitoring (Actions 1, 3,125), development of landscape level restoration, conservation and 

maintenance strategies (Actions 8, 14, 15,21) application of required design features (Action 10), 

addition of new sage-grouse habitat (Action 13), limitation of oil and gas development densities 

(Action 126), limitation of all surface disturbances to 5% per 640 acres (Action 127), mitigation 

protocol (Actions 5,7,128), prohibition of surface disturbing activities within 0.6 mile radius of 

occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMAs (Action 129), prohibition of surface disturbing activities 

within 0.25 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks outside PHMAs (Action 130), timing 

restrictions in breeding, nesting, and brooding PHMA (Actions 17,131, 132, 133, 134), promote 

control of predators to sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat (Action 135), and implementation of noise 

restrictions (Action 136). 

Because sage-grouse do not reside in the same habitat required by Ute ladies’-tresses, management 

actions intended to protect sage-grouse would not directly affect Ute ladies’-tresses. However, 

because the species may occur in the same geographical area, some management actions may 

inadvertently benefit the species. Beneficial actions may include limitation of oil and gas 

development densities, restrictions of surface disturbing activities, and increased mitigation protocol. 

Other management actions such as the implementation of noise restrictions (Action 135) and timing 

restrictions (Actions 17, 131, 132, 133 and 134) would have no effect on Ute ladies’-tresses because 

no surface disturbing actions would occur. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts according to the ESA, Section 7 Consultation Handbook definition (USFWS 

1998a) include the incremental impacts of future State, or private activities (i.e., excluding federal 

349 
 

 

 

 

activities), that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to 

consultation. 

Existing and proposed activities on non-federal lands in the planning area that have the potential to 

cumulatively affect the species include but are not limited to the following: 

•	 Non-Federal oil and gas and related energy development 

•	 Water depletions from irrigation diversions and dams 

•	 Livestock grazing on private lands 

•	 Sand and gravel operations along major river corridors 

•	 Existing and proposed wind farms 

•	 Hard rock mining (including coal, trona, and phosphates) 

•	 Bentonite mining 

•	 Subdivision development along rivers 

•	 Recreation along rivers and river corridors (including camping, rafting, hunting, and golf course 

development) 

•	 Coal mine operations 

•	 Transmission lines 

•	 Seismic exploration 

•	 Trona (soda ash) mining 

•	 Municipal dump expansions 

Implementation of the Amendment would not change any potential effect s to the Ute ladies’-tresses 

orchid that may result from current or projected future non-Federal actions. 

7.4.2 Effects Determination 

The effects determination only addresses changes in management that would occur from the 

Amendment. Existing management conditions which are not changed as a result of the Amendment, 

such as livestock grazing and road developments have already been consulted on using agency 

approved methods and are not analyzed in this document. 

Management actions included in the Amendment are largely supportive in nature and guide or advise 

other program actions and activities in a manner conducive to maintaining and/or promoting 

population growth and habitat for the sage-grouse. Management actions included in the Amendment 

such as increased monitoring, data collection, greater coordination and review, and noise, distance, 

and timing restrictions, would have no effect on the Ute ladies’- tresses. Also, because sage-grouse 

utilize upland sagebrush dominated habitats, management actions included in the Amendment may 

indirectly benefit the Ute ladies’-tresses by avoiding actions that may impact wetlands or riparian 

through sedimentation or other human interferences. Protective measures include, surface restricting 

actions, retentions, reclamations, road closures, reductions of pollutants, reduction of impacts and 

deferment of livestock grazing. Furthermore, protective conservation measures found in the 

Amendment and maintained as part of the existing BLM and FS RMPs would further reduce the 

potential for adverse effects for the species. No actions included in the Amendment are anticipated to 

negatively affect the Ute ladies’-tresses. Based on the above analysis of effects, implementation of 

the Amendment “May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect” the Ute ladies’- tresses 

within the Bridger Teton, Pinedale, Kemmerer, Rawlins, Medicine-Bow, Casper, Rock Springs, 

Thunder Basin and Newcastle Field Offices. 

350 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7- Summary and Determination of Effects for Ute ladies’- tresses 

NLAA= May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect 

NE = No effect 

NJ = No Jeopardy 

351 
 

 

 

 

7.5 Platte River Species- Western prairie-Fringed Orchid (Platanthera 

praeclara)-Endangered, Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus)-Endangered, 

Least tern (Sterna antillarum)-Endangered, Piping Plover (Charradrius melodus) 

–Endangered, Whooping crane (Grus americana) - Endangered 

7.5.1 Effects of Selected Alternative 

Lands and Realty 

Activities under the lands and realty program include, manage sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 30), 

seasonal timing constraints (Action 31), restrictions which protect sage-grouse on new right-of-way 

corridors in greater sage-grouse habitat (Action 32), designing of powerlines and guy wires to 

minimize wildlife related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC standards (Action 34, 35, 38), 

reclamation of sites (Action 35), prohibition of wind turbines in greater sage-grouse habitat (Action 

36), avoidance of MET tower supports in PHMA (Action 38), retention of PHMA (Action 40), 

identification of sage-grouse habitat in mineral right areas or conservation easement areas (Action 

41), acquisition of greater sage-grouse lands (Action 42), and consideration of non-mineral 

withdrawal actions to protect the species (Action 43). 

None of the Platte river species or their designated critical habitat occur within Wyoming. The 

primary concern with these species is water depletions which occur in Wyoming, may cause effects 

to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None of the changes in management as a 

result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water depletions or withdrawals. 

Therefore, no effects to the species or associated downstream designated critical habitats are 

anticipated. 

Livestock 

Livestock management actions described in the Amendment include habitat improvements for 

greater sage-grouse through the following: evaluation of opportunities to coordinate management 

plans and strategies under a single management plan with other agencies and stake holders and 

include sage-grouse management (Action 22), develop voluntary grazing strategies that improve 

sage-grouse populations and habitat(Action 45), adjustments to grazing management (Action 

46,139), sage-grouse habitat objectives and management would be incorporated into all grazing 

permit renewals (Action 48), progress toward achieving land health standards in sage-grouse 

PHMAs (Action 49), management of voluntarily relinquished permits or preferences (Action 50), 

coordinate with permittees/lessees/lessees to develop drought contingency plans (Action 52), 

evaluate and modify existing range improvements to improve sage-grouse habitat (Action 53), 

designate specific routes and timeframes for trailing which includes the avoidance of stopovers in 

sage-grouse leks (Action 54), promote balanced grazing between upland and riparian areas (Action 

55), manage range improvements in a way that promotes sage-grouse and its habitats (Action 56), 

and evaluate and modify effects on sage-grouse from spring and seep developments such as 

pipelines and structures (Action 57). 

None of the Platte river species or their designated critical habitat occur within Wyoming. The 

primary concern with these species is water depletions which occur in Wyoming, may cause effects 

to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None of the changes in management as a 

result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water depletions or withdrawals. 

Therefore, no effects to the species or associated downstream designated critical habitats are 

anticipated. 

352 
 

Mineral Resources 

Minerals management actions described in the Amendment include the following: designing roads 

which minimize impacts in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 20), protective modifications to lease 

stipulations within sage-grouse habitat (Action 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81). 

Other actions include, proposed withdrawal recommendations of some areas of PHMA from mineral 

exploration (Action 79, 139), minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances (Action 79), 

prohibit strip mining near sage-grouse (Action 76), prohibition of geophysical operations near sagegrouse, right-of-way and vehicle limitations, timing restrictions during breeding season(Action 60), 

working with permittees/lessees/lessees to apply sage-grouse conservation measures, distance 

limitations (Action 60, 66), requiring reclamation plans (Action 69a), minimization of habitat 

fragmentation (Action 62, 67), noise reduction, and minimize impacts to related sensitive resources. 

None of the Platte river species or their designated critical habitat occur within Wyoming. The 

primary concern with these species is water depletions which occur in Wyoming, may cause effects 

to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None of the changes in management as a 

result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water depletions or withdrawals. 

Therefore, no effects to the species or associated downstream designated critical habitats are 

anticipated. 

Recreation 

BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs would be continued to be allowed in sage-grouse 

PHMA, unless negative impacts to sage-grouse cannot be adequately mitigated (Action 82). 

None of the Platte river species or their designated critical habitat occur within Wyoming. The 

primary concern with these species is water depletions which occur in Wyoming, may cause effects 

to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None of the changes in management as a 

result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water depletions or withdrawals. 

Therefore, no effects to the species or associated downstream designated critical habitats are 

anticipated. 

Special Designations 

No new special designation actions are included in the Amendment (Action 84). As such, special 

management actions would not affect the Platte River Species or associated downstream designated 

critical habitats. 

Special Status Species 

Special status species management action include the collection of sage-grouse baseline data during 

project planning (Action 4), the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact 

PHMAs (Action 12), agencies will meet annually to coordinate and review sage-grouse data (Action 

16), development of adaptive management strategies in support of the population management 

objectives for sage-grouse (Action 137), maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 Greater SageGrouse PHMA population within the State of Wyoming (Action 138), and all existing planning 

decision will be retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this plan amendment (Action 

25). 

None of the Platte river species or their designated critical habitat occur within Wyoming. The 

primary concern with these species is water depletions which occur in Wyoming, may cause effects 

to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None of the changes in management as a 

result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water depletions or withdrawals. 

353 
 

 

 

 

Therefore, no effects to the species or associated downstream designated critical habitats are 

anticipated. 

Travel Management 

Travel management actions included in the Amendment, include restricting motorized travel to 

existing roads and trails, until route designations are made during subsequent implementation of 

travel management planning (Action 18), designate routes with priority habitat and assess existing 

plans for consistency with sage-grouse conservation objectives (Action 19), non-sand dune portions 

of the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to 

existing roads and trails(Action 86, 87), avoidance of new road construction within 1.9 miles of 

habitat(Action 88), restricting upgrades or new road construction within greater sage-grouse 

habitat(Action 89), development of new roads would be constructed to the absolute minimum value 

(Action 90), natural reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in travel management plans 

within sage-grouse PHMAs, in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not 

foreseeable (Action 91), when reseeding roads and trails within sage-grouse PHMAs, appropriate 

seed mixtures would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered (Action 92). 

None of the Platte river species or their designated critical habitat occur within Wyoming. The 

primary concern with these species is water depletions which occur in Wyoming, may cause effects 

to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None of the changes in management as a 

result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water depletions or withdrawals. 

Therefore, no effects to the species or associated downstream designated critical habitats are 

anticipated. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation management actions include, the application of seasonal restrictions for implementing 

vegetation management treatments and monitoring to benefit sage-grouse (Action 6), design range 

projects in a manner that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment and to monitor and 

treat invasive species associated with existing range improvements (Action 9), vegetation 

management would be used to control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive 

species (Action 11), work with various agencies and stake holders to coordinate and enhance 

Greater-Sage-Grouse population and habitat (Action 22), improvement of vegetation composition 

and structure to benefit sage-grouse (Action 93, 95, 100, 107), restrict sagebrush activities that 

reduces sagebrush canopy to less than 15% (Action 94), development of recommended protocols and 

treatments to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (Action 95, 96), deferment of livestock 

grazing on vegetative treatments to improve habitat (Action 97), recommendations on vegetative 

treatments (Action 98, 100, 101, 104, 105), reclamation or restoration of surface disturbances in 

sage-grouse habitats (Action 99, 100, 101, 103, 106), the use of native seeds which are certified 

weed free for fuels treatments (Action 100, 102, 103, 104), pest treatments to control Wyoming 

grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Action 108). 

None of the Platte river species or their designated critical habitat occur within Wyoming. The 

primary concern with these species is water depletions which occur in Wyoming, may cause effects 

to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None of the changes in management as a 

result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water depletions or withdrawals. 

Therefore, no effects to the species or associated downstream designated critical habitats are 

anticipated. 

354 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wild Horses 

Wild horse management action include incorporating rangeland improvements for wild horses in 

Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Action 109), consideration of sage-grouse PHMAs when evaluating 

AML’s (Action 110), considering sage-grouse PHMAs when conducting land health assessments 

(Action 111), addressing direct and indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitats when 

conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and burro management activities (Action 112), and to 

coordinate with all other resources to conduct land health assessments within all BLM HMAs 

(Action 113). 

None of the Platte river species or their designated critical habitat occur within Wyoming. The 

primary concern with these species is water depletions which occur in Wyoming, may cause effects 

to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None of the changes in management as a 

result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water depletions or withdrawals. 

Therefore, no effects to the species or associated downstream designated critical habitats are 

anticipated. 

Wildland Fire 

Wildland fire management actions described in the Amendment include the following, fire and fuels 

management which contributes to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports 

sage-grouse populations (Action 26), complete and continue to update Greater Sage-Grouse 

Landscape Wildfire & Invasive necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting 

sage-grouse populations which includes identification of annual treatment needs for wildfire and 

invasive species management as identified in local unit level Landscape Wildfire and Invasive 

Species Assessments (Action 27), implementation of coordinated inter-agency approach to fire 

restrictions for sage-grouse (Action 28), utilization of fire management strategies and tactics to 

achieve sage-grouse resource objectives (Action 29), fuel treatments would be implemented with an 

emphasis of protecting and enhancing PHMAs (Action 114), restoring burned areas within PHMAs 

(Action 115), post fuels management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of 

seeded or pre-treatment native plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat (Action 117), avoiding 

treatments in areas containing old trees or persistent woodlands (Action 118), and management 

actions to benefit sage-grouse during fire suppression activities (Action 124). 

None of the Platte river species or their designated critical habitat occur within Wyoming. The 

primary concern with these species is water depletions which occur in Wyoming, may cause effects 

to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None of the changes in management as a 

result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water depletions or withdrawals. 

Therefore, no effects to the species or associated downstream designated critical habitats are 

anticipated. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wildland fire management actions included in the Amendment include, fire and fuels management 

which contributes to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse 

populations (Action 26), complete and continue to update Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire 

& Invasive necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting sage-grouse 

populations which includes identification of annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species 

management as identified in local unit level Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments 

(Action 27), implementation of coordinated inter-agency approach to fire restrictions for sage-grouse 

(Action 28), utilization of fire management strategies and tactics to achieve sage-grouse resource 

355 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

objectives (Action 29), fuel treatments would be implemented with an emphasis of protecting and 

enhancing PHMAs (Action 114), restoring burned areas within PHMAs (Action 115), post fuels 

management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment 

native plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat (Action 117), and management actions which 

benefit sage-grouse during fire suppression activities (Action 124). 

None of the Platte River species or their designated critical habitat occur within Wyoming. The 

primary concern with these species is water depletions which occur in Wyoming, may cause effects 

to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None of the changes in management as a 

result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water depletions or withdrawals. 

Therefore, no effects to the species or associated downstream designated critical habitats are 

anticipated. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts according to the ESA, Section 7 Consultation Handbook definition (USFWS 

1998a) include the incremental impacts of future State, or private activities (i.e., excluding federal 

activities), that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to 

consultation. 

Existing and proposed activities on non-federal lands in the planning area that have the potential to 

cumulatively affect the Platte River species within the state of Wyoming which contain water 

depletions include but are not limited to the following: 

• Water irrigation diversions 

• Construction of Dams 

• Consumptive water use 

• Introductions of non-aquatic species 

• Regulated water flow 

Implementation of the Amendment would not change any potential effects to the Platte River species 

that may result from current or projected future non-Federal actions. 

7.5.2 Effects Determination 

The effects determination only addresses changes in management that would occur from the 

Amendment. Existing management conditions which are not changed as a result of the Amendment, 

such as livestock grazing and road developments have already been consulted on using agency 

approved methods and are not analyzed in this document. 

No critical habitat for the Platte River species is specifically designated in Wyoming. The Platte 

River species, the least tern, pallid sturgeon, Western prairie fringed orchid, and whooping crane are 

not known to occur in Wyoming. In addition, the piping plover is considered a rare or accidental 

visitor to the state of Wyoming. 

Implications for the species and their critical habitats are downstream due to effects from water 

depletions or withdrawals. When water depletions or withdrawals occur, the BLM and FWS notify 

the Wyoming State Engineers Office (SEO) when depletions are slated to occur to ensure an 

appropriate accounting of all water depletions and approval of the SEO are obtained in advance of 

concluding section 7 consultation. Because the management actions included in the Amendment 

describe nothing about new depletions, notification is not warranted. Based on the above analysis of 

effects, implementation of the Amendment would have “No Effect” on the Platte River species or 

356 
their associated downstream designated critical habitats for the Bridger-Teton, Pinedale, Kemmerer, 

Rawlins, Medicine-Bow, Casper, Rock Springs, Thunder Basin and Newcastle Field Offices. 

357 
 

H biH bi

i

Table 8- Summary and Determination of Effects for the Platte River Species 

NLAA= May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect 

NE = No effect (No Adverse Modification for critical habitat) 

NJ = No Jeopardy 

358 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.6 Endangered Colorado River Fish Species- Bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado 

pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) Razorback 

sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)-Endangered 

7.6.1 Effects of Selected Alternative 

Lands and Realty 

Activities under the lands and realty program include, management of sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 

30), seasonal timing constraints (Action 31), restrictions which protect sage-grouse on new right-ofway corridors in greater sage-grouse habitat (Action 32), designing of powerlines and guy wires to 

minimize wildlife related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC standards (Action 34, 35, 38), 

reclamation of sites (Action 35), prohibition of wind turbines in greater sage-grouse habitat (Action 

36), avoidance of MET tower supports in PHMA (Action 38), retention of PHMA (Action 40), 

identification of sage-grouse habitat in mineral right areas or conservation easement areas (Action 

41), acquisition of greater sage-grouse lands (Action 42), and consideration of non-mineral 

withdrawal actions to protect the species (Action 43). 

No critical habitat for the endangered Colorado River fish species is specifically designated in 

Wyoming. The primary concern with the Colorado River fish species is water depletions, which 

occur in Wyoming, which may cause effects to the species downstream in their respective habitats. 

None of the changes in management as a result of actions included in the Amendment would cause 

water depletions or withdrawals. Therefore, no effects to the species are anticipated. 

Livestock 

Livestock management actions described in the Amendment include habitat improvements for 

greater sage-grouse through the following: evaluation of opportunities to coordinate management 

plans and strategies under a single management plan with other agencies and stake holders and 

include sage-grouse management (Action 22), develop voluntary grazing strategies that improve 

sage-grouse populations and habitat(Action 45), adjustments to grazing management (Action 

46,139), sage-grouse habitat objectives and management would be incorporated into all grazing 

permit renewals (Action 48), progress toward achieving land health standards in sage-grouse 

PHMAs (Action 49), management of voluntarily relinquished permits or preferences (Action 50), 

coordinate with permittees/lessees/lessees to develop drought contingency plans (Action 52), 

evaluate and modify existing range improvements to improve sage-grouse habitat (Action 53), 

designate specific routes and timeframes for trailing which includes the avoidance of stopovers in 

sage-grouse leks (Action 54), promote balanced grazing between upland and riparian areas (Action 

55), manage range improvements in a way that promotes sage-grouse and its habitats (Action 56), 

and evaluate and modify effects on sage-grouse from spring and seep developments such as 

pipelines and structures (Action 57). 

No critical habitat for the endangered Colorado River fish species is specifically designated in 

Wyoming. The primary concern with the Colorado River fish species is water depletions which 

occur in Wyoming, may cause effects to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None 

of the changes in management as a result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water 

depletions or withdrawals. Therefore, no effects to the species are anticipated. 

Mineral Resources 

Minerals management actions described in the Amendment include the following: designing roads 

which minimize impacts in sage-grouse priority/PHMAs (Action 20), protective modifications to 

359 
 

 

 

 

 

 

lease stipulations within sage-grouse habitat (Action 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 

81). Other actions include, proposed withdrawal recommendations of some areas of PHMA from 

mineral exploration (Action 79, 139), minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances (Action 

79 ), prohibit strip mining near sage-grouse (Action 76), prohibition of geophysical operations near 

sage-grouse, right-of-way and vehicle limitations, timing restrictions during breeding season (Action 

60), working with permittees/lessees/lessees to apply sage-grouse conservation measures, distance 

limitations (Action 60, 66), requiring reclamation plans (Action 69a), minimization of habitat 

fragmentation (Action 62, 67), noise reduction, and minimize impacts to related sensitive resources. 

No critical habitat for the endangered Colorado River fish species is specifically designated in 

Wyoming. The primary concern with the Colorado River fish species is water depletions which 

occur in Wyoming, may cause effects to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None 

of the changes in management as a result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water 

depletions or withdrawals. Therefore, no effects to the species are anticipated. 

Recreation 

BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs would be continued to be allowed in sage-grouse 

PHMA, unless negative impacts to sage-grouse cannot be adequately mitigated (Action 82). 

No critical habitat for the endangered Colorado River fish species is specifically designated in 

Wyoming. The primary concern with the Colorado River fish species is water depletions which 

occur in Wyoming, may cause effects to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None 

of the changes in management as a result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water 

depletions or withdrawals. Therefore, no effects to the species are anticipated. 

Special Designations 

No new special designation actions are included in the Amendment (Action 84). As such, special 

management actions would not affect the endangered Colorado River fish. 

Special Status Species 

Special status species management action include the collection of sage-grouse baseline data during 

project planning (Action 4), the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact 

PHMAs (Action 12), agencies will meet annually to coordinate and review sage-grouse data (Action 

16), development of adaptive management strategies in support of the population management 

objectives for sage-grouse (Action 137), maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 sage-grouse PHMA 

population within the State of Wyoming (Action 138), and all existing planning decision will be 

retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this plan amendment (Action 25). 

No critical habitat for the endangered Colorado River fish species is specifically designated in 

Wyoming. The primary concern with the Colorado River fish species is water depletions which 

occur in Wyoming, may cause effects to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None 

of the changes in management as a result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water 

depletions or withdrawals. Therefore, no effects to the species are anticipated. 

Travel Management 

Travel management actions included in the Amendment include, restricting motorized travel to 

existing roads and trails, until route designations are made during subsequent implementation of 

travel management planning (Action 18), designate routes with priority habitat and assess existing 

plans for consistency with sage-grouse conservation objectives (Action 19), non-sand dune portions 

of the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to 

360 
 

 

 

 

 

existing roads and trails (Action 86, 87), avoidance of new road construction within 1.9 miles of 

habitat (Action 88), restricting upgrades or new road construction within greater sage-grouse habitat 

(Action 89), development of new roads would be constructed to the absolute minimum value (Action 

90), natural reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in travel management plans within 

sage-grouse PHMAs, in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not foreseeable 

(Action 91), when reseeding roads and trails within sage-grouse PHMAs, and appropriate seed 

mixtures would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered (Action 92). 

Changes to existing travel management would not affect the species. No critical habitat for the 

endangered Colorado River fish species is specifically designated in Wyoming. The primary 

concern with the Colorado River fish species is water depletions which occur in Wyoming, may 

cause effects to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None of the changes in 

management as a result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water depletions or 

withdrawals. Therefore, no effects to the species are anticipated. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation management actions include, the application of seasonal restrictions for implementing 

vegetation management treatments and monitoring to benefit sage-grouse (Action 6), design range 

projects in a manner that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment and to monitor and 

treat invasive species associated with existing range improvements (Action 9), vegetation 

management would be used to control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive 

species (Action 11), work with various agencies and stake holders to coordinate and enhance Greater 

Sage-Grouse population and habitat (Action 22), improvement of vegetation composition and 

structure to benefit sage-grouse (Action 93, 95, 100, 107), restrict sagebrush activities that reduces 

sagebrush canopy to less than 15% (Action 94), development of recommended protocols and 

treatments to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (Action 95, 96), deferment of livestock 

grazing on vegetative treatments to improve habitat (Action 97), recommendations on vegetative 

treatments (Action 98, 100, 101, 104, 105), reclamation or restoration of surface disturbances in 

sage-grouse habitats (Action 99, 100, 101, 103, 106), the use of native seeds which are certified 

weed free for fuels treatments (Action 100, 102, 103, 104), pest treatments to control Wyoming 

grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Action 108). 

No critical habitat for the endangered Colorado River fish species is specifically designated in 

Wyoming. The primary concern with the Colorado River fish species is water depletions which 

occur in Wyoming, may cause effects to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None 

of the changes in management as a result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water 

depletions or withdrawals. Therefore, no effects to the species are anticipated. 

Wild Horses 

Wild horse management actions include incorporating rangeland improvements for wild horses in 

Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Action 109), consideration of sage-grouse PHMAs when evaluating 

AML’s (Action 110), considering sage-grouse PHMAs when conducting land health assessments 

(Action 111), addressing direct and indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitats when 

conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and burro management activities (Action 112), and to 

coordinate with all other resources to conduct land health assessments within all BLM HMAs 

(Action 113). 

No critical habitat for the endangered Colorado River fish species is specifically designated in 

Wyoming. The primary concern with the Colorado River fish species is water depletions which 

361 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

occur in Wyoming, may cause effects to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None 

of the changes in management as a result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water 

depletions or withdrawals. Therefore, no effects to the species are anticipated. 

Wildland Fire 

Wildland fire management actions described in the Amendment includes, fire and fuels management 

which contributes to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse 

populations (Action 26), complete and continue to update Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire 

& Invasive necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting sage-grouse 

populations which includes identification of annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species 

management as identified in local unit level Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments 

(Action 27), implementation of coordinated inter-agency approach to fire restrictions for sage-grouse 

(Action 28), utilization of fire management strategies and tactics to achieve sage-grouse resource 

objectives (Action 29), fuel treatments would be implemented with an emphasis of protecting and 

enhancing PHMAs (Action 114), restoring burned areas within PHMAs (Action 115), post fuels 

management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment 

native plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat (Action 117), avoiding treatments in areas 

containing old trees or persistent woodlands (Action 118), and management actions which benefit 

sage-grouse during fire suppression activities (Action 124). 

No critical habitat for the endangered Colorado River fish species is specifically designated in 

Wyoming. The primary concern with the Colorado River fish species is water depletions which 

occur in Wyoming, may cause effects to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None 

of the changes in management as a result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water 

depletions or withdrawals. Therefore, no effects to the species are anticipated. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions described in the Amendment include protocols for sagegrouse monitoring(Actions 1, 3,125), development of landscape level restoration, conservation and 

maintenance strategies (Actions 8, 14, 15,21) application of required design features (Action 10), 

addition of new sage-grouse habitat (Action 13), limitation of oil and gas development densities 

(Action 126), limitation of all surface disturbances to 5% per 640 acres (Action 127), mitigation 

protocol (Actions 5,7,128), prohibition of surface disturbing activities within 0.6 mile radius of 

occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMAs (Action 129), prohibition of surface disturbing activities 

within 0.25 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks outside PHMAs (Action 130), timing 

restrictions in breeding, nesting, and brooding PHMA (Actions 17,131, 132, 133, 134), promote 

control of predators to sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat (Action 135), and implementation of noise 

restrictions (Action 136). 

No critical habitat for the endangered Colorado River fish species is specifically designated in 

Wyoming. The primary concern with the Colorado River fish species is water depletions which 

occur in Wyoming, may cause effects to the species downstream in their respective habitats. None 

of the changes in management as a result of actions included in the Amendment would cause water 

depletions or withdrawals. Therefore, no effects to the species are anticipated. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts according to the ESA, Section 7 Consultation Handbook definition (USFWS 

1998a) include the incremental impacts of future State, or private activities (i.e., excluding federal 

362 
 

 

activities), that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to 

consultation. 

Existing and proposed activities on non-federal lands in the planning area that have the potential to 

cumulatively affect the four endangered Colorado River fish species within the state of Wyoming 

which contain water depletions include but are not limited to the following: 

• Water irrigation diversions 

• Construction of Dams 

• Consumptive water use 

• Introductions of non-aquatic species 

• Regulated water flow 

Implementation of the Amendment would not change any potential effects to the four endangered 

Colorado River fish species that may result from current or projected future non-Federal actions. 

7.6.2 Effects Determination 

The effects determination only addresses changes in management that will occur from the 

Amendment. Existing management conditions that would not be changed as a result of the 

Amendment have already been consulted on using agency approved method and will not be analyzed 

in this document. 

No critical habitat for the four endangered Colorado River fish species is specifically designated in 

Wyoming. The USFWS, in accordance with the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery 

Program, adopted a de minimis policy, which states that water-related activities in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin that result in less than 0.1 acre-foot per year of depletions in flow have no 

effect on the Colorado River endangered fish species, and thus do not require consultation for 

potential effects on those species. None of the management actions included in the Amendment 

would cause water depletions or withdrawals. Based on the above analysis of effects, 

implementation of the Amendment would have “No Effect” on the Endangered Colorado River fish 

or their designated critical habitat. 

363 
H bi

H bi

i

 

Table 9- Summary and Determination of Effects for Endangered Colorado River fish 

NLAA= May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect 

NE = No effect (No Adverse Modification for critical habitat) 

NJ = No Jeopardy 

364 
 

 

 

7.7 Kendall Warm Springs Dace (Rhinichthys osculus thermalis) - Endangered 

7.7.1 Effects of Selected Alternative 

Lands and Realty 

Activities under the lands and realty program include, manage sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 30), 

seasonal timing constraints (Action 31), restrictions which protect sage-grouse on new right-of-way 

corridors in greater sage-grouse habitat (Action 32), designing of powerlines and guy wires to 

minimize wildlife related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC standards (Action 34, 35, 38), 

reclamation of sites (Action 35), prohibition of wind turbines in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 

36), avoidance of MET tower supports in PHMA (Action 38), retention of PHMA (Action 40), 

identification of sage-grouse habitat in mineral right areas or conservation easement areas (Action 

41), acquisition of Greater Sage-Grouse lands (Action 42), and consideration of non-mineral 

withdrawal actions to protect the species (Action 43). 

A Kendall Warm Springs Biological Unit Management Plan was approved by USFS in 1978. The 

area designated by the Biological Unit Management Plan encompasses 160 acres (64.75 ha). In 

1969, the 160 acres were fenced to provide habitat protections. Then in 1977, the fenced area was 

identified as “essential habitat” for the dace. Boundaries include most of the small watershed and 

adjacent terrestrial communities which surrounds and directly affect the spring and stream section. 

The Bridger-Teton National Forest which covers the known population of dace maintains the fence 

(USFS 1990). Because the fence has been erected and protections for the species are already set in 

place, lands and realty management actions could not affect the species. 

Livestock 

Livestock management actions described in the Amendment include the following: evaluation of 

opportunities to coordinate management plans and strategies under a single management plan with 

other agencies and stake holders and include sage-grouse management (Action 22), develop 

voluntary grazing strategies that improve sage-grouse populations and habitat(Action 45), 

adjustments to grazing management (Action 46,139), sage-grouse habitat objectives and 

management would be incorporated into all grazing permit renewals (Action 48), progress toward 

achieving land health standards in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 49), management of voluntarily 

relinquished permits or preferences (Action 50), coordinate with permittees/lessees/lessees to 

develop drought contingency plans (Action 52), evaluate and modify existing range improvements to 

improve sage-grouse habitat (Action 53), designate specific routes and timeframes for trailing which 

includes the avoidance of stopovers in sage-grouse leks (Action 54), promote balanced grazing 

between upland and riparian areas (Action 55), manage range improvements in a way that promotes 

sage-grouse and its habitats (Action 56), and evaluate and modify effects on sage-grouse from 

spring and seep developments such as pipelines and structures (Action 57). 

A Kendall Warm Springs Biological Unit Management Plan was approved by USFS in 1978. The 

area designated by the Biological Unit Management Plan encompasses 160 aces (64.75 ha). In 1969, 

the 160 acres were fenced to provide habitat protections. Then in 1977, the fenced area was 

identified as “essential habitat” for the dace. Boundaries include most of the small watershed and 

adjacent terrestrial communities which surrounds and directly affect the spring and stream section. 

The Bridger-Teton National Forest which covers the known population of dace maintains the fence 

(USFS 1990). Because the fence has been erected and protections for the species are already set in 

place, livestock management actions could not affect the species. 

365 
 

 

 

 

 

Mineral Resources 

Minerals management actions included in the Amendment include the following: designing roads 

which minimize impacts in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 20), protective modifications to lease 

stipulations within sage-grouse habitat (Action 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81). 

Other actions include, proposed withdrawal recommendations of some areas of PHMA from mineral 

exploration (Action 79, 139), minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances (Action 79), 

prohibit strip mining near sage-grouse (Action 76), prohibition of geophysical operations near sagegrouse, right-of-way and vehicle limitations, timing restrictions during breeding season (Action 60), 

working with permittees/lessees/lessees to apply sage-grouse conservation measures, distance 

limitations (Action 60, 66), requiring reclamation plans (Action 69a), minimization of habitat 

fragmentation (Action 62, 67), noise reduction, and minimize impacts to related sensitive resources. 

A Kendall Warm Springs Biological Unit Management Plan was approved by USFS in 1978. The 

area designated by the Biological Unit Management Plan encompasses 160 acres (64.75 ha). In 

1969, the 160 acres were fenced to provide habitat protections. Then in 1977, the fenced area was 

identified as “essential habitat” for the dace. Boundaries include most of the small watershed and 

adjacent terrestrial communities which surrounds and directly affect the spring and stream section. 

The Bridger-Teton National Forest which covers the known population of dace maintains the fence 

(USFS 1990). Because the fence has been erected and protections for the species are already set in 

place, mineral resource management actions could not affect the species. In addition, in 1962, 

Kendall Warm Springs was withdrawn from locatable mineral entry (27 FR 8830, August 28, 1962). 

Recreation 

Recreation management actions include BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs would be 

allowed in sage-grouse PHMA, unless negative impacts to sage-grouse cannot be adequately 

mitigated (Action 82). 

The issuance of BLM SRP’s and Forest Service recreation SUA’s has already been consulted on 

during the planning process of their respective land use plans. However, the change in the 

Amendment and the area which needs to be consulted on, would be the closing of SRP’s and SUA’s 

in PHMAs sage-grouse habitats when negative impacts cannot be mitigated. A Kendall Warm 

Springs Biological Unit Management Plan was approved by USFS in 1978. The area designated by 

the Biological Unit Management Plan encompasses 160 acres (64.75 ha). In 1969, the 160 acres 

were fenced to provide habitat protections. Then in 1977, the fenced area was identified as “essential 

habitat” for the dace. Boundaries include most of the small watershed and adjacent terrestrial 

communities which surrounds and directly affect the spring and stream section. The Bridger-Teton 

National Forest which covers the known population of dace maintains the fence (USFS 1990). 

Recreationists are not allowed in the Kendall warm springs. Finally, because the fence has been 

erected and protections for the species are already set in place, recreation management actions could 

not affect the species. 

Special Designations 

No new special designation actions are included in the Amendment (Action 84). As such, special 

management actions would not affect the Kendall warm springs dace. 

Special Status Species 

Special status species management action include the collection of sage-grouse baseline data during 

project planning (Action 4), the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact 

PHMAs (Action 12), agencies will meet annually to coordinate and review sage-grouse data (Action 

366 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16), development of adaptive management strategies in support of the population management 

objectives for sage-grouse (Action 137), maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 sage-grouse PHMA 

population within the State of Wyoming (Action 138), and all existing planning decision will be 

retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this plan amendment (Action 25). 

A Kendall Warm Springs Biological Unit Management Plan was approved by USFS in 1978. The 

area designated by the Biological Unit Management Plan encompasses 160 acres (64.75 ha). In 

1969, the 160 acres were fenced to provide habitat protections. Then in 1977, the fenced area was 

identified as “essential habitat” for the dace. Boundaries include most of the small watershed and 

adjacent terrestrial communities which surrounds and directly affect the spring and stream section. 

The Bridger-Teton National Forest which covers the known population of dace maintains the fence 

(USFS 1990). Because the fence has been erected and protections for the species are already set in 

place, special status species management actions could not affect the species. 

Travel Management 

Travel management actions included in the Amendment, include restricting motorized travel to 

existing roads and trails, until route designations are made during subsequent implementation of 

travel management planning (Action 18), designate routes with priority habitat and assess existing 

plans for consistency with sage-grouse conservation objectives (Action 19), non-sand dune portions 

of the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to 

existing roads and trails (Action 86, 87), avoidance of new road construction within 1.9 miles of 

habitat (Action 88), restricting upgrades or new road construction within Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat (Action 89), development of new roads would be constructed to the absolute minimum value 

(Action 90), natural reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in travel management plans 

within sage-grouse PHMAs, in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not 

foreseeable (Action 91), when reseeding roads and trails within sage-grouse PHMAs, appropriate 

seed mixtures would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered (Action 92). 

A Kendall Warm Springs Biological Unit Management Plan was approved by USFS in 1978. The 

area designated by the Biological Unit Management Plan encompasses 160 acres (64.75 ha). In 

1969, the 160 acres were fenced to provide habitat protections. Then in 1977, the fenced area was 

identified as “essential habitat” for the dace. Boundaries include most of the small watershed and 

adjacent terrestrial communities which surrounds and directly affect the spring and stream section. 

The Bridger-Teton National Forest which covers the known population of dace maintains the fence 

(USFS 1990). Because the fence has been erected and protections for the species are already set in 

place, travel management actions could not affect the species. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation management actions include, the application of seasonal restrictions for implementing 

vegetation management treatments and monitoring to benefit sage-grouse (Action 6), design range 

projects in a manner that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment and to monitor and 

treat invasive species associated with existing range improvements (Action 9), vegetation 

management would be used to control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive 

species (Action 11), work with various agencies and stake holders to coordinate and enhance Greater 

Sage-Grouse population and habitat (Action 22), improvement of vegetation composition and 

structure to benefit sage-grouse (Action 93, 95, 100, 107), restrict sagebrush activities that reduces 

sagebrush canopy to less than 15% (Action 94), development of recommended protocols and 

treatments to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (Action 95, 96), deferment of livestock 

367 
 

 

 

 

 

 

grazing on vegetative treatments to improve habitat (Action 97), recommendations on vegetative 

treatments (Action 98, 100, 101, 104, 105), reclamation or restoration of surface disturbances in 

sage-grouse habitats (Action 99, 100, 101, 103, 106), the use of native seeds which are certified 

weed free for fuels treatments (Action 100, 102, 103, 104), pest treatments to control Wyoming 

grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Action 108). 

The use of herbicide on noxious and invasive species (Action 11), vegetation treatments (Actions 93, 

94, 95, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107) and pest control treatments for Wyoming grass hopper and 

Mormon crickets (Action 108) have already been consulted on in their respective Land Use plans 

using agency approved protocols. However, the changes in the Amendment would direct managers 

to use updated sage-grouse information which would benefit the sage-grouse. For example, 

managers can better control insect outbreaks in PHMAs if the PHMAs are identified. 

Vegetation management actions are not expected to directly impact Kendall warm spring’s dace. A 

Kendall Warm Springs Biological Unit Management Plan was approved by USFS in 1978. The area 

designated by the Biological Unit Management Plan encompasses 160 acres (64.75 ha). In 1969, the 

160 acres were fenced to provide habitat protections. Then in 1977, the fenced area was identified as 

“essential habitat” for the dace. Boundaries include most of the small watershed and adjacent 

terrestrial communities which surrounds and directly affect the spring and stream section. The 

Bridger-Teton National Forest which covers the known population of dace maintains the fence 

(USFS 1990). Because the fence has been erected and protections for the species are already set in 

place, vegetation management actions could not affect the species. 

Wild Horses 

Wild horse management action include incorporating rangeland improvements for wild horses in 

greater sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 109), consideration of sage-grouse PHMAs when evaluating 

AML’s (Action 110), considering sage-grouse PHMAs when conducting land health assessments 

(Action 111), addressing direct and indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitats when 

conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and burro management activities (Action 112), and to 

coordinate with all other resources to conduct land health assessments within all BLM HMAs 

(Action 113). 

Kendall warm spring’s dace have not been identified within herd management areas within the 

planning area. Also, the Kendall Warm Springs Biological Unit Management Plan was approved by 

USFS in 1978. The area designated by the Biological Unit Management Plan encompasses 160 acres 

(64.75 ha). In 1969, the 160 acres were fenced to provide habitat protections. Then in 1977, the 

fenced area was identified as “essential habitat” for the dace. Boundaries include most of the small 

watershed and adjacent terrestrial communities which surrounds and directly affect the spring and 

stream section. The Bridger-Teton National Forest which covers the known population of dace 

maintains the fence (USFS 1990). Because the fence has been erected and protections for the species 

are already set in place, wild horse management actions could not affect the species. 

Wildland Fire 

Wildland fire management actions described in the Amendment include, fire and fuels management 

which contributes to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse 

populations (Action 26), complete and continue to update Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire 

& Invasive necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting sage-grouse 

populations which includes identification of annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species 

management as identified in local unit level Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments 

368 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Action 27), implementation of coordinated inter-agency approach to fire restrictions for sage-grouse 

(Action 28), utilization of fire management strategies and tactics to achieve sage-grouse resource 

objectives (Action 29), fuel treatments would be implemented with an emphasis of protecting and 

enhancing PHMAs (Action 114), restoring burned areas within PHMAs (Action 115), post fuels 

management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment 

native plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat (Action 117), avoiding treatments in areas 

containing old trees or persistent woodlands (Action 118), and management actions which benefit 

sage-grouse during fire suppression activities (Action 124). 

A Kendall Warm Springs Biological Unit Management Plan was approved by USFS in 1978. The 

area designated by the Biological Unit Management Plan encompasses 160 acres (64.75 ha). In 

1969, the 160 acres were fenced to provide habitat protections. Then in 1977, the fenced area was 

identified as “essential habitat” for the dace. Boundaries include most of the small watershed and 

adjacent terrestrial communities which surrounds and directly affect the spring and stream section. 

The Bridger-Teton National Forest which covers the known population of dace maintains the fence 

(USFS 1990). Because the fence has been erected and protections for the species are already set in 

place, wild fire management actions could not affect the species. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions described in the Amendment include protocols for sagegrouse monitoring(Actions 1, 3,125), development of landscape level restoration, conservation and 

maintenance strategies (Actions 8, 14, 15,21) application of required design features (Action 10), 

addition of new sage-grouse habitat (Action 13), limitation of oil and gas development densities 

(Action 126), limitation of all surface disturbances to 5% per 640 acres (Action 127), mitigation 

protocol (Actions 5,7,128), prohibition of surface disturbing activities within 0.6 mile radius of 

occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMAs (Action 129), prohibition of surface disturbing activities 

within 0.25 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks outside PHMAs (Action 130), timing 

restrictions in breeding, nesting, and brooding PHMA (Actions 17,131, 132, 133, 134), promote 

control of predators to sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat (Action 135), and implementation of noise 

restrictions (Action 136). 

A Kendall Warm Springs Biological Unit Management Plan was approved by USFS in 1978. The 

area designated by the Biological Unit Management Plan encompasses 160 acres (64.75 ha). In 

1969, the 160 acres were fenced to provide habitat protections. Then in 1977, the fenced area was 

identified as “essential habitat” for the dace. Boundaries include most of the small watershed and 

adjacent terrestrial communities which surrounds and directly affect the spring and stream section. 

The Bridger-Teton National Forest which covers the known population of dace maintains the fence 

(USFS 1990). Because the fence has been erected and protections for the species are already set in 

place, wildlife and fisheries management actions could not affect the species. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts according to the ESA, Section 7 Consultation Handbook definition (USFWS 

1998a) include the incremental impacts of future State, or private activities (i.e., excluding federal 

activities), that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to 

consultation. 

Because the entire known population of the Kendall Warm Springs dace is located entirely on 

federal surface lands, there is little or no potential for direct cumulative effects from future state, 

local, or private actions to affect the species. 

369 
 

7.7.2 Effects Determination 

A Kendall Warm Springs Biological Unit Management Plan was approved by USFS in 1978. The 

area designated by the Biological Unit Management Plan encompasses 160 acres (64.75 ha). In 

1969, the 160 acres were fenced to provide habitat protections. Then in 1977, the fenced area was 

identified as “essential habitat” for the dace. Boundaries include most of the small watershed and 

adjacent terrestrial communities which surrounds and directly affect the spring and stream section. 

The Bridger-Teton National Forest which covers the known population of dace maintains the fence 

(USFS 1990). Because the fence has been erected and protections for the species are already set in 

place, implementation of the Amendment would have “No Effect” on the Kendall warm springs 

dace, within the Bridger Teton, Kemmerer, Rawlins, Medicine-Bow, Pinedale, Casper, Thunder 

Basin and Newcastle Field Offices. 

370 
 

Table 10- Summary and Determination of Effects for Kendall Warm Springs Dace 

NLAA= May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect 

NE = No effect 

NJ = No Jeopardy 

7.8 Wyoming Toad (Bufo baxteri) - Endangered 

7.8.1 Effects of Selected Alternative 

Lands and Realty 

Activities under the lands and realty program described in the Amendment include, management of 

sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 30), seasonal timing constraints (Action 31), restrictions which protect 

sage-grouse on new right-of-way corridors in greater sage-grouse habitat (Action 32), designing of 

powerlines and guy wires to minimize wildlife related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC 

standards (Action 34, 35, 38), reclamation of sites (Action 35), prohibition of wind turbines in 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 36), avoidance of MET tower supports in PHMA (Action 38), 

retention of PHMA (Action 40), identification of sage-grouse habitat in mineral right areas or 

conservation easement areas (Action 41), acquisition of Greater Sage-Grouse lands (Action 42), and 

consideration of non-mineral withdrawal actions to protect the species (Action 43). 

371 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Because habitat for the Wyoming toad and the sage-grouse do not overlap, actions included in the 

Amendment would not affect the Wyoming toad. The Wyoming toad is found in the floodplains of 

the Big and Little Laramie rivers where sage-grouse and habitat and populations have not been 

observed. 

Livestock 

Livestock management actions described in the Amendment include the following: evaluation of 

opportunities to coordinate management plans and strategies under a single management plan with 

other agencies and stake holders and include sage-grouse management (Action 22), develop 

voluntary grazing strategies that improve sage-grouse populations and habitat (Action 45), 

adjustments to grazing management (Action 46, 139), sage-grouse habitat objectives and 

management would be incorporated into all grazing permit renewals (Action 48), progress toward 

achieving land health standards in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 49), management of voluntarily 

relinquished permits or preferences (Action 50), coordinate with permittees/lessees/lessees to 

develop drought contingency plans (Action 52), evaluate and modify existing range improvements to 

improve sage-grouse habitat (Action 53), designate specific routes and timeframes for trailing which 

includes the avoidance of stopovers in sage-grouse leks (Action 54), promote balanced grazing 

between upland and riparian areas (Action 55), manage range improvements in a way that promotes 

sage-grouse and its habitats (Action 56), and evaluate and modify effects on sage-grouse from 

spring and seep developments such as pipelines and structures (Action 57). 

Because habitat for the Wyoming toad and the sage-grouse do not overlap, actions included in the 

Amendment would not affect the Wyoming toad. The Wyoming toad is found in the floodplains of 

the Big and Little Laramie rivers where sage-grouse and habitat and populations have not been 

observed. 

Mineral Resources 

Minerals management actions described in the Amendment include the following: designing roads 

which minimize impacts in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 20), protective modifications to lease 

stipulations within sage-grouse habitat (Action 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81). 

Other actions include, proposed withdrawal recommendations of some areas of PHMA from mineral 

exploration (Action 79, 139), minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances (Action 79), 

prohibit strip mining near sage-grouse (Action 76), prohibition of geophysical operations near sagegrouse, right-of-way and vehicle limitations, timing restrictions during breeding season(Action 60), 

working with permittees/lessees/lessees to apply sage-grouse conservation measures, distance 

limitations (Action 60, 66), requiring reclamation plans (Action 69a), minimization of habitat 

fragmentation (Action 62, 67), noise reduction, and minimize impacts to related sensitive resources. 

Because habitat for the Wyoming toad and the sage-grouse do not overlap, actions included in the 

Amendment would not affect the Wyoming toad. The Wyoming toad is found in the floodplains of 

the Big and Little Laramie rivers where sage-grouse populations and habitat have not been observed. 

Recreation 

BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs would be continued to be allowed in sage-grouse 

PHMA, unless negative impacts to sage-grouse cannot be adequately mitigated (Action 82). 

Because habitat for the Wyoming toad and the sage-grouse do not overlap, actions included in the 

Amendment would not affect the Wyoming toad. The Wyoming toad is found in the floodplains of 

the Big and Little Laramie rivers where sage-grouse populations and habitat have not been observed. 

372 
 

 

 

 

Special Designations 

No new special designation actions are included in the Amendment (Action 84). As such, special 

management actions would not affect the Wyoming toad. 

Because habitat for the Wyoming toad and the sage-grouse do not overlap, actions included in the 

Amendment would not affect the Wyoming toad. The Wyoming toad is found in the floodplains of 

the Big and Little Laramie rivers where sage-grouse populations and habitat have not been observed. 

Special Status Species 

No new special designation actions are included in RMP (Action 84). As such, special management 

actions would not affect Wyoming toad. In addition, because habitat for the Wyoming toad and the 

sage-grouse do not overlap, actions included in the Amendment would not affect the Wyoming toad. 

The Wyoming toad is found in the floodplains of the Big and Little Laramie rivers where sagegrouse populations and habitat have not been observed. 

Travel Management 

Travel management actions included in the RMP, include restricting motorized travel to existing 

roads and trails, until route designations are made during subsequent implementation of travel 

management planning (Action 18), designate routes with priority habitat and assess existing plans 

for consistency with sage-grouse conservation objectives (Action 19), non-sand dune portions of the 

Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to existing 

roads and trails (Action 86, 87), avoidance of new road construction within 1.9 miles of habitat 

(Action 88), restricting upgrades or new road construction within greater sage-grouse habitat (Action 

89), development of new roads would be constructed to the absolute minimum value (Action 90), 

natural reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in travel management plans within sagegrouse PHMAs, in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not foreseeable 

(Action 91), when reseeding roads and trails within sage-grouse PHMAs, appropriate seed mixtures 

would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered (Action 92). 

Because habitat for the Wyoming toad and the sage-grouse do not overlap, actions included in the 

Amendment would not affect the Wyoming toad. The Wyoming toad is found in the floodplains of 

the Big and Little Laramie rivers where sage-grouse populations and habitat have not been observed. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation management actions include, the application of seasonal restrictions for implementing 

vegetation management treatments and monitoring to benefit sage-grouse (Action 6), design range 

projects in a manner that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment and to monitor and 

treat invasive species associated with existing range improvements (Action 9), vegetation 

management would be used to control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive 

species (Action 11), work with various agencies and stake holders to coordinate and enhance Greater 

Sage-Grouse population and habitat (Action 22), improvement of vegetation composition and 

structure to benefit sage-grouse (Action 93, 95, 100, 107), restrict sagebrush activities that reduces 

sagebrush canopy to less than 15% (Action 94), development of recommended protocols and 

treatments to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (Action 95, 96), deferment of livestock 

grazing on vegetative treatments to improve habitat (Action 97), recommendations on vegetative 

treatments (Action 98, 100, 101, 104, 105), reclamation or restoration of surface disturbances in 

sage-grouse habitats (Action 99, 100, 101, 103, 106), the use of native seeds which are certified 

weed free for fuels treatments (Action 100, 102, 103, 104), pest treatments to control Wyoming 

grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Action 108). 

373 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because habitat for the Wyoming toad and the sage-grouse do not overlap, actions included in the 

Amendment would not affect the Wyoming toad. The Wyoming toad is found in the floodplains of 

the Big and Little Laramie rivers where sage-grouse populations and habitat have not been observed. 

Wild Horses 

Wild horse management action include incorporating rangeland improvements for wild horses in 

Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Action 109), consideration of sage-grouse PHMAs when evaluating 

AML’s (Action 110), considering sage-grouse PHMAs when conducting land health assessments 

(Action 111), addressing direct and indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitats when 

conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and burro management activities (Action 112), and to 

coordinate with all other resources to conduct land health assessments within all BLM HMAs 

(Action 113). 

Because habitat for the Wyoming toad and the sage-grouse do not overlap, actions included in the 

Amendment would not affect the Wyoming toad. The Wyoming toad is found in the floodplains of 

the Big and Little Laramie rivers where sage-grouse populations and habitat have not been observed. 

Wildland Fire 

Wildland fire management actions described in the Amendment include, fire and fuels management 

which contributes to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse 

populations (Action 26), complete and continue to update sage-grouse Landscape Wildfire & 

Invasive necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting sage-grouse populations 

which includes identification of annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species 

management as identified in local unit level Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments 

(Action 27), implementation of coordinated inter-agency approach to fire restrictions for sage-grouse 

(Action 28), utilization of fire management strategies and tactics to achieve sage-grouse resource 

objectives (Action 29), fuel treatments would be implemented with an emphasis of protecting and 

enhancing PHMAs (Action 114), restoring burned areas within PHMAs (Action 115), post fuels 

management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment 

native plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat (Action 117), avoiding treatments in areas 

containing old trees or persistent woodlands (Action 118), and management actions to benefit sagegrouse during fire suppression activities (Action 124). 

Because habitat for the Wyoming toad and the sage-grouse do not overlap, actions included in the 

Amendment would not affect the Wyoming toad. The Wyoming toad is found in the floodplains of 

the Big and Little Laramie rivers where sage-grouse populations and habitat have not been observed. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions described in the Amendment include protocols for sagegrouse monitoring(Actions 1, 3,125), development of landscape level restoration, conservation and 

maintenance strategies (Actions 8, 14, 15,21) application of required design features (Action 10), 

addition of new sage-grouse habitat (Action 13), limitation of oil and gas development densities 

(Action 126), limitation of all surface disturbances to 5% per 640 acres (Action 127), mitigation 

protocol (Actions 5,7,128), prohibition of surface disturbing activities within 0.6 mile radius of 

occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMAs (Action 129), prohibition of surface disturbing activities 

within 0.25 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks outside PHMAs (Action 130), timing 

restrictions in breeding, nesting, and brooding PHMA (Actions 17,131, 132, 133, 134), promote 

control of predators to sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat (Action 135), and implementation of noise 

restrictions (Action 136). 

374 
 

 

 

Because habitat for the Wyoming toad and the sage-grouse do not overlap, actions included in the 

Amendment would not affect the Wyoming toad. The Wyoming toad is found in the floodplains of 

the Big and Little Laramie rivers where sage-grouse populations and habitat have not been observed. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts according to the ESA, Section 7 Consultation Handbook definition (USFWS 

1998a) include the incremental impacts of future State, or private activities (i.e., excluding federal 

activities), that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to 

consultation. 

Existing and proposed activities on non-federal lands in the planning area that have the potential to 

cumulatively affect the species include but are not limited to the following: 

• Non-Federal oil and gas and related energy development 

• Water depletions from irrigation diversions and dams 

• Livestock grazing on private lands 

• Subdivision development along rivers 

• Recreation along rivers and river corridors (including camping, rafting, and hunting) 

• Transmission lines 

Implementation of the Amendment would not change any potential effects to the Wyoming toad that 

may result from current or projected future non-Federal actions. 

7.8.2 Effects Determination 

The effects determination only addresses changes in management that would occur from the 

Amendment. Existing management conditions that would not be changed as a result of the 

Amendment have already been consulted on using agency approved methods and will not be 

analyzed in this document. 

Because habitat for the Wyoming toad and the sage-grouse do not overlap, actions included in the 

Amendment would not affect the Wyoming toad. The Wyoming toad is found in the floodplains of 

the Big and Little Laramie rivers where sage-grouse and habitat have not been observed. As a result, 

implementation of the Amendment would have “No Effect” on the Wyoming toad within the 

Bridger Teton, Pinedale, Kemmerer, Rawlins, Medicine-Bow, Casper, Rock Springs, Thunder Basin 

and Newcastle Field Offices. 

375 
 

 

 

 

Table 11- Summary and Determination of Effects for the Wyoming Toad 

NLAA= May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect 

NE = No effect 

NJ = No Jeopardy 

7.9 Black-Footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) – Endangered, Experimental 

7.9.1 Effects of Selected Alternative 

Lands and Realty 

Activities under the lands and realty program include, management sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 

30), seasonal timing constraints (Action 31), restrictions which protect sage-grouse on new right-ofway corridors in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 32), designing of powerlines and guy wires to 

minimize wildlife related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC standards (Action 34, 35, 38), 

reclamation of sites (Action 35), prohibition of wind turbines in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 

36), avoidance of MET tower supports in PHMA (Action 38), retention of PHMA (Action 40), 

identification of sage-grouse habitat in mineral right areas or conservation easement areas (Action 

41), acquisition of Greater Sage-Grouse lands (Action 42), and consideration of non-mineral 

withdrawal actions to protect the species (Action 43). 

376 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because only experimental populations of black footed ferret exist in the state of Wyoming, lands 

and realty management actions would not affect extirpated endangered black footed ferret (USFWS 

2013). However, changes in some lands and realty management actions included in the Amendment 

may inadvertently protect the experimental populations located in the Rawlins field office through 

land acquisitions, retentions, and reclamations. 

Livestock 

Livestock management actions described in the Amendment include habitat improvements for 

Greater Sage-Grouse through the following: evaluation of opportunities to coordinate management 

plans and strategies under a single management plan with other agencies and stake holders and 

include sage-grouse management (Action 22), develop voluntary grazing strategies that improve 

sage-grouse populations and habitat (Action 45), adjustments to grazing management (Action 46, 

139), sage-grouse habitat objectives and management would be incorporated into all grazing permit 

renewals (Action 48), progress toward achieving land health standards in sage-grouse PHMAs 

(Action 49), management of voluntarily relinquished permits or preferences (Action 50), coordinate 

with permittees/lessees/lessees to develop drought contingency plans (Action 52), evaluate and 

modify existing range improvements to improve sage-grouse habitat (Action 53), designate specific 

routes and timeframes for trailing which includes the avoidance of stopovers in sage-grouse leks 

(Action 54), promote balanced grazing between upland and riparian areas (Action 55), manage range 

improvements in a way that promotes sage-grouse and its habitats (Action 56), and evaluate and 

modify effects on sage-grouse from spring and seep developments such as pipelines and structures 

(Action 57). 

Because only experimental populations of black footed ferret exist in the state of Wyoming, 

livestock grazing management actions would not affect extirpated endangered black footed ferret 

(USFWS 2013). However, changes in some livestock management actions included in the 

Amendment may inadvertently protect the experimental populations located in the Rawlins field 

office through the development of a drought contingency plan (Action 52), which could reduce 

grazing pressure in black footed ferret habitats and the promotion of balanced grazing (Action 55) 

which could also alleviate heavy grazing impact in ferret habitat. 

Mineral Resources 

Minerals management actions described in the Amendment include the following: designing roads 

which minimize impacts in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 20), protective modifications to lease 

stipulations within sage-grouse habitat (Action 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81). 

Other actions include, proposed withdrawal recommendations of some areas of PHMA from mineral 

exploration (Action 79, 139), minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances (Action 79), 

prohibit strip mining near sage-grouse (Action 76), prohibition of geophysical operations near sagegrouse, right-of-way and vehicle limitations, timing restrictions during breeding season (Action 60), 

working with permittees/lessees/lessees to apply sage-grouse conservation measures, distance 

limitations (Action 60, 66) minimization of habitat fragmentation (Action 62, 67), noise reduction, 

and minimize impacts to related sensitive resources. 

Because only experimental populations of black footed ferret exist in the state of Wyoming, minerals 

resource management actions would not affect extirpated endangered black footed ferret (USFWS 

2013). However, some management actions may indirectly benefit the experimental populations. 

Beneficial actions may include limitations or exclusion of road developments, minimization and 

avoidance of surface disturbances, minimization of habitat fragmentation, and implementing 

377 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

measures to reduce pollutants. These actions could reduce overall impacts and limit road access 

within or leading to black footed ferret habitat which would benefit the species. 

Recreation 

Recreation management actions describe that BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs 

would be continued to be allowed in sage-grouse PHMA, unless negative impacts to sage-grouse 

cannot be adequately mitigated (Action 82). 

Because only experimental populations of black footed ferret exist in the state of Wyoming, 

recreation management actions would not affect extirpated endangered black footed ferret (USFWS 

2013). The issuance of BLM SRP’s and Forest Service recreation SUA’s has already been consulted 

on during the planning process of their respective land use plans. However, the change in this 

document and the area which needs to be consulted, would be the closing of SRP’s and SUA’s in 

PHMAs when negative impacts cannot be mitigated. The closing of any BLM SRP or Forest Service 

Recreation SUA in PHMAs would only benefit black footed ferret by reducing recreational impacts 

in experimental populations. 

Special Designations 

No new special designation actions are included in the Amendment (Action 84). As such, special 

management actions would not affect the Black footed ferret. 

Special Status Species 

Special status species management actions include the collection of sage-grouse baseline data during 

project planning (Action 4), the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact 

PHMAs (Action 12), agencies will meet annually to coordinate and review sage-grouse data (Action 

16), development of adaptive management strategies in support of the population management 

objectives for sage-grouse (Action 137), maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 sage-grouse PHMA 

population within the State of Wyoming (Action 138), and all existing planning decision will be 

retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this plan amendment (Action 25). 

Because only experimental populations of black footed ferret exist in the state of Wyoming, special 

status species management actions would not affect extirpated endangered black footed ferret 

(USFWS 2013). Action 12 which includes the modification of existing notices and plans to 

minimally impact PHMAs may indirectly benefit the experimental populations where the species 

habitats overlap. Other actions which only include greater planning and coordination for the sagegrouse would not affect the black footed ferret. 

Travel Management 

Travel management actions described in the Amendment, include restricting motorized travel to 

existing roads and trails, until route designations are made during subsequent implementation of 

travel management planning (Action 18), designate routes with priority habitat and assess existing 

plans for consistency with sage-grouse conservation objectives (Action 19), non-sand dune portions 

of the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to 

existing roads and trails (Action 86, 87), avoidance of new road construction within 1.9 miles of 

habitat (Action 88), restricting upgrades or new road construction within greater sage-grouse habitat 

(Action 89), development of new roads would be constructed to the absolute minimum value (Action 

90), natural reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in travel management plans within 

sage-grouse PHMAs, in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not foreseeable 

378 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Action 91), when reseeding roads and trails within sage-grouse PHMAs, appropriate seed mixtures 

would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered (Action 92). 

Because only experimental populations of black footed ferret exist in the state of Wyoming, travel 

management actions would not affect extirpated endangered black footed ferret (USFWS 2013). 

Travel management actions such as the minimization, reclamation, avoidance, restriction and closure 

of various roads may inadvertently benefit the experimental populations where habitat with black 

footed ferret and sage-grouse overlap. Restricting road access would protect the experimental 

populations from negative impacts such damage to burrows, loss of forage, harassment, noise, and 

direct mortality. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation management actions include, the application of seasonal restrictions for implementing 

vegetation management treatments and monitoring to benefit sage-grouse (Action 6), design range 

projects in a manner that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment and to monitor and 

treat invasive species associated with existing range improvements (Action 9), vegetation 

management would be used to control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive 

species (Action 11), work with various agencies and stake holders to coordinate and enhance Greater 

Sage-Grouse population and habitat (Action 22), improvement of vegetation composition and 

structure to benefit sage-grouse (Action 93, 95, 100, 107), restrict sagebrush activities that reduces 

sagebrush canopy to less than 15% (Action 94), development of recommended protocols and 

treatments to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (Action 95, 96), deferment of livestock 

grazing on vegetative treatments to improve habitat (Action 97), recommendations on vegetative 

treatments (Action 98, 100, 101, 104, 105), reclamation or restoration of surface disturbances in 

sage-grouse habitats (Action 99, 100, 101, 103, 106), the use of native seeds which are certified 

weed free for fuels treatments (Action 100, 102, 103, 104), pest treatments to control Wyoming 

grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Action 108). 

Because only experimental populations of black footed ferret exist in the state of Wyoming, 

vegetation management actions would not affect extirpated endangered black footed ferret (USFWS 

2013). The use of herbicide on noxious and invasive species (Action 11), vegetation treatments 

(Actions 93, 94, 95, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107) and pest control treatments for Wyoming grass 

hopper and Mormon crickets (Action 108) have already been consulted on in their respective Land 

Use Plans using agency approved protocols. However, the changes in the amendment would direct 

managers to use updated sage-grouse information which would benefit the sage-grouse. For 

example, managers can better control insect outbreaks in PHMAs if the PHMAs are identified. 

Management actions that minimize the potential for the spread of noxious and invasive weeds 

(Action 9), deferment of livestock (Action 97), and the improvement of vegetative composition 

(Action 93, 95, 100, 107) may inadvertently benefit the experimental populations of the black footed 

ferret through improve habitat conditions. No negative effects are anticipated. 

Wild Horses 

Wild horse management action include incorporating rangeland improvements for wild horses in 

greater sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 109), consideration of sage-grouse PHMAs when evaluating 

AML’s (Action 110), considering sage-grouse PHMAs when conducting land health assessments 

(Action 111), addressing direct and indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitats when 

conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and burro management activities (Action 112), and to 

379 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

coordinate with all other resources to conduct land health assessments within all BLM HMAs 

(Action 113). 

Because only experimental populations of black footed ferret exist in the state of Wyoming, wild 

horse management actions would not affect extirpated endangered black footed ferret (USFWS 

2013). Experimental populations of black footed ferret have not been identified in herd management 

areas within the planning area. Wild horse management actions include measures which are meant to 

protect and preserve sage-grouse habitat. As a result, wild horse management actions are not likely 

to affect experimental populations of black footed ferret. 

Wildland Fire 

Wildland fire management actions described in the Amendment include, fire and fuels management 

which contributes to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse 

populations (Action 26), complete and continue to update Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire 

& Invasive necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting sage-grouse 

populations which includes identification of annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species 

management as identified in local unit level Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments 

(Action 27), implementation of coordinated inter-agency approach to fire restrictions for sage-grouse 

(Action 28), utilization of fire management strategies and tactics to achieve sage-grouse resource 

objectives (Action 29), fuel treatments would be implemented with an emphasis of protecting and 

enhancing PHMAs (Action 114), restoring burned areas within PHMAs (Action 115), post fuels 

management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment 

native plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat (Action 117), avoiding treatments in areas 

containing old trees or persistent woodlands (Action 118), and management actions to benefit sagegrouse during fire suppression activities (Action 124). 

Because only experimental populations of black footed ferret exist in the state of Wyoming, 

wildland fire management actions would not affect extirpated endangered black footed ferret 

(USFWS 2013). Wildland fire management actions intended to protect sage-grouse may occur in the 

same habitats used by the experimental populations of the black footed ferret. As such, activities 

listed under this management program would likely also benefit black footed ferret because they can 

be found in similar habitats. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions described in the Amendment include protocols for sagegrouse monitoring (Actions 1, 3, 125), development of landscape level restoration, conservation and 

maintenance strategies (Actions 8, 14, 15, 21) application of required design features (Action 10), 

addition of new sage-grouse habitat (Action 13), limitation of oil and gas development densities 

(Action 126), limitation of all surface disturbances to 5% per 640 acres (Action 127), mitigation 

protocol (Actions 5,7,128), prohibition of surface disturbing activities within 0.6 mile radius of 

occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMAs (Action 129), prohibition of surface disturbing activities 

within 0.25 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks outside PHMAs (Action 130), timing 

restrictions in breeding, nesting, and brooding PHMA (Actions 17,131, 132, 133, 134), promote 

control of predators to sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat (Action 135), and implementation of noise 

restrictions (Action 136). 

Because only experimental populations of black footed ferret exist in the state of Wyoming, wildlife 

and fisheries management actions would not affect extirpated endangered black footed ferret 

(USFWS 2013). The changes to existing wildlife and fisheries management listed above are meant 

380 
             

             

         

         

         

     

   

   

     

to provide additional protective measures for the greater sage-grouse. These management actions 

may inadvertently benefit the species. Beneficial actions may include restrictions on oil and mineral 

developments, restrictions of surface disturbing activities, and increased mitigation protocol. These 

actions could benefit black-footed ferret and prey by protecting habitat and reducing human access, 

potentially reducing recreational shooting. No negative effects are anticipated. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts according to the ESA, Section 7 Consultation Handbook definition (USFWS 

1998a) include the incremental impacts of future State, or private activities (i.e., excluding federal 

activities), that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to 

consultation. 

Existing and proposed activities on non-federal lands in the planning area that have the potential to 

cumulatively affect the species include but are not limited to the following: 

 Non‐Federal oil and gas and related energy development

 Water depletions from irrigation diversions and dams

 Livestock grazing on private lands

 Existing and proposed wind farms

 Timber harvesting on private lands

 Subdivision development

 Recreation

 Coal mine operations

 Transmission lines

 Seismic exploration

 Municipal dump expansions

Implementation of the Amendment would not change any potential effect s to the black footed ferret 

that may result from current or projected future non-Federal actions. 

7.9.2 Effects Determination 

The effects determination only addresses changes in management that would occur from the 

Amendment. Existing management conditions that would not be changed as a result of the 

Amendment have already been consulted on using agency approved methods and will not be 

analyzed in this document. 

On March 6, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issued a letter acknowledging ‘block 

clearance’ for the State of Wyoming in response to a request from the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department. This letter provides acknowledgement that the likelihood of identifying wild ferrets in 

Wyoming, outside of those resulting from reintroductions, is distinctly minimal. The reintroductions occurred in the Rawlins field office. The letter, and the analysis provided by the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, notes that despite improvements in knowledge, technology, 

survey techniques, and use of reward programs, there have been no verified reports of any extant 

black-footed ferret individuals or populations in any prairie dog complex since the discovery of a 

wild black-footed ferret population in 1981. It further states that it is unlikely that black-footed 

ferret populations in Wyoming have persisted through drastic reductions of prairie dog complexes, 

and that the black-footed ferret populations have not rebounded as prairie dog complexes have begun 

to expand again. Consequently, the Service no longer recommends surveys for the black-footed 

ferrets in either black- or white-tailed prairie dog towns in the State of Wyoming. 

381 
Because it has been determined by the USFWS (USFWS 2013), the likelihood of identifying wild 

ferrets in Wyoming, outside of those resulting from reintroductions is minimal, implementation of 

the Amendment, would have “No Effect” on the extirpated, non-experimental populations of black 

footed ferret within the Bridger Teton, Pinedale, Kemmerer, Rawlins, Medicine-Bow, Casper, Rock 

Springs, Thunder Basin and Newcastle Field Offices. 

Management actions included in the Amendment are largely supportive in nature, and guide or 

advise other program actions and activities in a manner conducive to maintaining and/or promoting 

population growth and habitat for the sage-grouse. Management actions included in the Amendment 

such as increased monitoring, data collection, greater coordination and review, and noise, distance, 

and timing restrictions, would have no effect on the black footed ferret. In addition, some of the 

measures meant to protect sage-grouse may also indirectly protect the black footed ferret. Protective 

measures include, surface restricting actions, retentions, reclamations, road closures, reductions of 

pollutants, reduction of impacts and deferment of livestock grazing. Furthermore, protective 

conservation measures found in the Amendment and maintained as part of the existing BLM and FS 

RMPs would further reduce the potential for adverse effects for the species. No actions included in 

the Amendment are anticipated to negatively affect the black footed ferret. Based on the above 

analysis of effects, implementation of the Wyoming 9 plan Amendment would cause, “No 

Jeopardy” for the experimental Black footed ferret populations located within the Rawlins Field 

Office. 

382 
 

 

Table 12-Summary and Determination of Effects for the Black-footed ferret 

NLAA= May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect 

NE = No effect 

NJ = No Jeopardy 

7.10 Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) - Threatened 

7.10.1 Effects of Selected Alternative 

Lands and Realty 

Activities under the lands and realty program described in the Amendment include, management of 

sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 30), seasonal timing constraints (Action 31), restrictions which protect 

sage-grouse on new right-of-way corridors in greater sage-grouse habitat (Action 32), designing of 

powerlines and guy wires to minimize wildlife related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC 

standards (Action 34, 35, 38), reclamation of sites (Action 35), prohibition of wind turbines in 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 36), avoidance of MET tower supports in PHMA (Action 38), 

retention of PHMA (Action 40), identification of sage-grouse habitat in mineral right areas or 

conservation easement areas (Action 41), acquisition of Greater Sage-Grouse lands (Action 42), and 

consideration of non-mineral withdrawal actions to protect the species (Action 43). 

383 
 

 

Lands and realty management actions included in the Amendment would not occur in Canada lynx 

occupied habitat. Canada lynx occupy Montane and subalpine coniferous forests above 4,000 feet. 

Activities conducted under the lands and realty management program are designed to improve and 

benefit sage-grouse habitat and populations. The species habitat areas do not overlap. As such, 

activities listed under this management program would not affect Canada lynx or its designated 

critical habitat. 

Livestock 

Livestock management actions described in the Amendment include the following: evaluation of 

opportunities to coordinate management plans and strategies under a single management plan with 

other agencies and stake holders and include sage-grouse management (Action 22), develop 

voluntary grazing strategies that improve sage-grouse populations and habitat(Action 45), 

adjustments to grazing management (Action 46, 139), sage-grouse habitat objectives and 

management would be incorporated into all grazing permit renewals (Action 48), progress toward 

achieving land health standards in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 49), management of voluntarily 

relinquished permits or preferences (Action 50), coordinate with permittees/lessees/lessees to 

develop drought contingency plans (Action 52), evaluate and modify existing range improvements to 

improve sage-grouse habitat (Action 53), designate specific routes and timeframes for trailing which 

includes the avoidance of stopovers in sage-grouse leks (Action 54), promote balanced grazing 

between upland and riparian areas (Action 55), manage range improvements in a way that promotes 

sage-grouse and its habitats (Action 56), and evaluate and modify effects on sage-grouse from 

spring and seep developments such as pipelines and structures (Action 57). 

Livestock management actions included in the Amendment would not occur in Canada lynx 

occupied habitat. Canada lynx occupy Montane and subalpine coniferous forests above 4,000 feet. 

Activities conducted under the livestock management program are designed to improve and benefit 

sage-grouse habitat and populations. The species habitat areas do not overlap. As such, activities 

listed under this management program would not affect Canada lynx or its designated critical 

habitat. 

Mineral Resources 

Minerals management actions described in the Amendment include the following: designing roads 

which minimize impacts in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 20), protective modifications to lease 

stipulations within sage-grouse habitat (Action 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81). 

Other actions include, proposed withdrawal recommendations of some areas of PHMA from mineral 

exploration (Action 79, 139), minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances (Action 79), 

prohibit strip mining near sage-grouse (Action 76), prohibition of geophysical operations near sagegrouse, right-of-way and vehicle limitations, timing restrictions during breeding season (Action 60), 

working with permittees/lessees/lessees to apply sage-grouse conservation measures, distance 

limitations (Action 60, 66), requiring reclamation plans (Action 69a), minimization of habitat 

fragmentation (Action 62, 67), noise reduction, and minimize impacts to related sensitive resources. 

Minerals resource management actions included in the Amendment would not occur in Canada lynx 

occupied habitat. Canada lynx occupy Montane and subalpine coniferous forests above 4,000 feet. 

Activities conducted under the mineral resource management program are designed to improve and 

benefit sage-grouse habitat and populations. The species habitat areas do not overlap. As such, 

activities listed under this management program would not affect Canada lynx or its designated 

critical habitat. 

384 
 

 

 

 

Recreation 

Recreation management actions describe that BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs 

would be allowed in sage-grouse PHMA habitat, unless negative impacts to sage-grouse cannot be 

adequately mitigated (Action 82). 

Recreation management actions included in the Amendment would not occur in Canada lynx 

occupied habitat. Canada lynx occupy Montane and subalpine coniferous forests above 4,000 feet. 

Activities conducted under the recreation management program are designed to improve and benefit 

sage-grouse habitat and populations. The species habitat areas do not overlap. As such, activities 

listed under this management program would not affect Canada lynx or its designated critical 

habitat. 

Special Designations 

No new special designation actions are included in the Amendment (Action 84). As such, special 

management actions would not affect the Canada lynx or its designated critical habitat. 

Special Status Species 

Special status species management action include the collection of sage-grouse baseline data during 

project planning (Action 4), the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact 

PHMAs (Action 12), agencies will meet annually to coordinate and review sage-grouse data (Action 

16), development of adaptive management strategies in support of the population management 

objectives for sage-grouse (Action 137), maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 sage-grouse PHMA 

population within the State of Wyoming (Action 138), and all existing planning decision will be 

retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this plan amendment (Action 25). 

Special status species management actions included in the Amendment would not occur in Canada 

lynx occupied habitat. Canada lynx occupy Montane and subalpine coniferous forests above 4,000 

feet. Activities conducted under the special status species management program are designed to 

improve and benefit sage-grouse habitat and populations. The species habitat areas do not overlap. 

As such, activities listed under this management program would not affect Canada lynx or its 

designated critical habitat. 

Travel Management 

Travel management actions included in the Amendment, include restricting motorized travel to 

existing roads and trails, until route designations are made during subsequent implementation of 

travel management planning (Action 18), designate routes with priority habitat and assess existing 

plans for consistency with sage-grouse conservation objectives (Action 19), non-sand dune portions 

of the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to 

existing roads and trails (Action 86, 87), avoidance of new road construction within 1.9 miles of 

habitat (Action 88), restricting upgrades or new road construction within greater sage-grouse habitat 

(Action 89), development of new roads would be constructed to the absolute minimum value (Action 

90), natural reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in travel management plans within 

sage-grouse PHMAs, in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not foreseeable 

(Action 91), when reseeding roads and trails within sage-grouse PHMAs, appropriate seed mixtures 

would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered (Action 92). 

Travel management actions included in the Amendment would not occur in Canada lynx occupied 

habitat. Canada lynx occupy Montane and subalpine coniferous forests above 4,000 feet. Activities 

conducted under the travel management program are designed to improve and benefit sage-grouse 

385 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

habitat and populations. The species habitat areas do not overlap. As such, activities listed under this 

management program would not affect Canada lynx or its designated critical habitat. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation management actions include, the application of seasonal restrictions for implementing 

vegetation management treatments and monitoring to benefit sage-grouse (Action 6), design range 

projects in a manner that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment and to monitor and 

treat invasive species associated with existing range improvements (Action 9), vegetation 

management would be used to control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive 

species (Action 11), work with various agencies and stake holders to coordinate and enhance Greater 

Sage-Grouse population and habitat (Action 22), improvement of vegetation composition and 

structure to benefit sage-grouse (Action 93, 95, 100, 107), restrict sagebrush activities that reduces 

sagebrush canopy to less than 15% (Action 94), development of recommended protocols and 

treatments to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (Action 95, 96), deferment of livestock 

grazing on vegetative treatments to improve habitat (Action 97), recommendations on vegetative 

treatments (Action 98, 100, 101, 104, 105), reclamation or restoration of surface disturbances in 

sage-grouse habitats (Action 99, 100, 101, 103, 106), the use of native seeds which are certified 

weed free for fuels treatments (Action 100, 102, 103, 104), pest treatments to control Wyoming 

grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Action 108). 

Vegetation management actions included in the Amendment would not occur in Canada lynx 

occupied habitat. Canada lynx occupy Montane and subalpine coniferous forests above 4,000 feet. 

Activities conducted under the vegetation management program are designed to improve and benefit 

sage-grouse habitat and populations. The species habitat areas do not overlap. As such, activities 

listed under this management program would not affect Canada lynx or its designated critical 

habitat. 

Wild Horses 

Wild horse management action include incorporating rangeland improvements for wild horses in 

Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Action 109), consideration of sage-grouse PHMAs when evaluating 

AML’s (Action 110), considering sage-grouse PHMAs when conducting land health assessments 

(Action 111), addressing direct and indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitats when 

conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and burro management activities (Action 112), and to 

coordinate with all other resources to conduct land health assessments within all BLM HMAs 

(Action 113). 

Canada lynx have not been identified within herd management areas within the planning area; 

however, designated critical habitat for the species does exist within herd management areas. 

Changes to wild horse management include measures which are meant to protect and preserve sagegrouse habitat. As such, vegetation management actions included in Amendment would not occur in 

Canada lynx occupied habitat. Canada lynx occupy Montane and subalpine coniferous forests above 

4,000 feet. None of these actions would affect Canada lynx or its designated critical habitat. 

Wildland Fire 

Wildland fire management actions described in the Amendment include, fire and fuels management 

which contributes to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse 

populations (Action 26), complete and continue to update Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire 

& Invasive necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting sage-grouse 

populations which includes identification of annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive 

386 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

species management as identified in local unit level Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species 

Assessments (Action 27), implementation of coordinated inter-agency approach to fire restrictions 

for sage-grouse (Action 28), utilization of fire management strategies and tactics to achieve sagegrouse resource objectives (Action 29), fuel treatments would be implemented with an emphasis of 

protecting and enhancing PHMAs (Action 114), restoring burned areas within PHMAs (Action 115), 

post fuels management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pretreatment native plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat (Action 117), avoiding treatments in 

areas containing old trees or persistent woodlands (Action 118), and management actions which 

benefit sage-grouse during fire suppression activities (Action 124). 

The changes to existing wildland fire management listed are meant to provide additional protective 

measures for the Greater Sage-Grouse. As such, management actions included in the Amendment 

would not occur in Canada lynx occupied habitat. Canada lynx occupy Montane and subalpine 

coniferous forests above 4,000 feet. Activities conducted under the wildland fire management 

program are designed to improve and benefit sage-grouse habitat and populations. The species 

habitat areas do not overlap. Therefore, activities listed under this management program would not 

affect Canada lynx or its designated critical habitat. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions described in the Amendment include protocols for sagegrouse monitoring(Actions 1, 3, 125), development of landscape level restoration, conservation and 

maintenance strategies (Actions 8, 14, 15, 21) application of required design features (Action 10), 

addition of new sage-grouse habitat (Action 13), limitation of oil and gas development densities 

(Action 126), limitation of all surface disturbances to 5% per 640 acres (Action 127), mitigation 

protocol (Actions 5,7,128), prohibition of surface disturbing activities within 0.6 mile radius of 

occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMAs (Action 129), prohibition of surface disturbing activities 

within 0.25 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks outside PHMAs (Action 130), timing 

restrictions in breeding, nesting, and brooding PHMA (Actions 17, 131, 132, 133, 134), promote 

control of predators to sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat (Action 135), and implementation of noise 

restrictions (Action 136). 

The changes to existing wildlife and fisheries management listed are meant to provide additional 

protective measures for the Greater Sage-Grouse. As such, management actions included in the 

Amendment would not occur in Canada lynx occupied habitat. Canada lynx occupy Montane and 

subalpine coniferous forests above 4,000 feet. Activities conducted under the wildlife and fisheries 

management program are designed to improve and benefit sage-grouse habitat and populations. The 

species habitat areas do not overlap. Therefore, activities listed under this management program 

would not affect Canada lynx or its designated critical habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts according to the ESA, Section 7 Consultation Handbook definition (USFWS 

1998a) include the incremental impacts of future State, or private activities (i.e., excluding federal 

activities), that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to 

consultation. 

Existing and proposed activities on non-federal lands in the planning area that have the potential to 

cumulatively affect the species include but are not limited to the following: 

• Non-Federal oil and gas and related energy development 

• Livestock grazing on private lands 

387 
 

 

• Timber harvesting on private lands 

• Subdivision development 

• Recreation 

• Coal mine operations 

• Transmission lines 

• Seismic exploration 

Implementation of the Amendment would not change any potential effects to the Canada lynx, or its 

designated critical habitat, that may result from current or projected future non-Federal actions. 

7.10.2 Effects Determination 

The effects determination only addresses changes in management that would occur from the 

Amendment. Existing management conditions that would not be changed as a result of the 

Amendment have already been consulted on using agency approved methods and will not be 

analyzed in this document. 

Management actions included in the Amendment are largely supportive in nature and guide or advise 

other program actions and activities in a manner conducive to maintaining and/or promoting 

population growth and habitat for the sage-grouse. Management actions included in the Amendment 

such as increased monitoring, data collection, greater coordination and review, and noise, distance, 

and timing restrictions, would have no effect on the Canada lynx because no surface disturbing 

actions would occur. Although unlikely, some of the measures meant to protect sage-grouse may 

indirectly benefit the Canada lynx. The Montane and subalpine coniferous forests habitats where 

Canada lynx habitat exists are not used by sage-grouse. Activities conducted under the Amendment 

are designed to improve and benefit Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and populations. The species 

habitat areas do not overlap. Because no negative affects to the Canada lynx would occur and any 

actions which may benefit the species are unlikely, implementation of the Amendment, would have 

“No Effect” on the Canada lynx or its designated critical habitat within the Bridger Teton, Pinedale, 

Kemmerer, Rawlins, Medicine-Bow, Casper, Rock Springs, Thunder Basin and Newcastle Field 

Offices. 

388 
H bi

H bi

i

 

 

Table 13-Summary and Determination of Effects for the Canada lynx and Critical Habitat 

NLAA= May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect 

NE = No effect (No Adverse Modification for critical habitat) 

NJ = No Jeopardy 

389 
 

 

 

 

7.11 Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) - Threatened 

7.11.1 Effects of Selected Alternative 

Lands and Realty 

Activities under the lands and realty program include, managing sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 30), seasonal 

timing constraints (Action 31), restrictions which protect sage-grouse on new right-of-way corridors in Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 32), designing of powerlines and guy wires to minimize wildlife related impacts 

and constructed to the latest APLIC standards (Action 34, 35, 38), reclamation of sites (Action 35), prohibition 

of wind turbines in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 36), avoidance of MET tower supports in PHMA 

(Action 38), retention of PHMA (Action 40), identification of sage-grouse habitat in mineral right areas or 

conservation easement areas (Action 41), acquisition of greater sage-grouse lands (Action 42), and 

consideration of non-mineral withdrawal actions to protect the species (Action 43). 

The changes to existing lands and realty management listed are meant to provide additional protective 

measures for the greater sage-grouse. Management actions included in the Amendment would not directly 

occur in grizzly bear occupied habitat. Grizzly bear are highly adaptable and utilize a variety of habitats but 

within Wyoming, they prefer extensive forest cover often interspersed with grasslands and meadows. In 

Wyoming these habitats are generally above 1,500 m (Schwartz et al. 2002). 

Some sagebrush dominated stands may be located adjacent to grizzly bear habitats. Although unlikely, changes 

in some of the lands and realty management actions may inadvertently protect the species through land 

acquisitions, retentions, and reclamations. Restrictions of right-of-way corridors could also benefit the species 

by reducing ground disturbances in habitat occupied by grizzly bear. Road closures would reduce the number 

of people within grizzly bear habitat and the resulting impacts on the species, prey and habitat. 

Livestock 

Many of the livestock management actions in the Amendment include habitat improvements for Greater SageGrouse through the following: evaluation of opportunities to coordinate management plans and strategies 

under a single management plan with other agencies and stake holders and include sage-grouse management 

(Action 22), develop voluntary grazing strategies that improve sage-grouse populations and habitat (Action 

45), adjustments to grazing management (Action 46, 139), sage-grouse habitat objectives and management 

would be incorporated into all grazing permit renewals (Action 48), progress toward achieving land health 

standards in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 49), management of voluntarily relinquished permits or preferences 

(Action 50), coordinate with permittees/lessees/lessees to develop drought contingency plans (Action 52), 

evaluate and modify existing range improvements to improve sage-grouse habitat (Action 53), designate 

specific routes and timeframes for trailing which includes the avoidance of stopovers in sage-grouse leks 

(Action 54), promote balanced grazing between upland and riparian areas (Action 55), manage range 

improvements in a way that promotes sage-grouse and its habitats (Action 56), and evaluate and modify 

effects on sage-grouse from spring and seep developments such as pipelines and structures (Action 57). 

The changes to existing livestock management are meant to provide additional protective measures for the 

Greater Sage-Grouse. Management actions included in the Amendment would not directly occur in Grizzly 

bear occupied habitat. Grizzly bear are highly adaptable and utilize a variety of habitats but within Wyoming, 

they prefer extensive forest cover often interspersed with grasslands and meadows. In Wyoming these habitats 

are generally above 1,500 m Schwartz et al. 2002). Actions such as better coordination and planning with 

other agencies and stakeholders including Actions 22, 45, 48, 49, 53, 54, 56, 57) would not affect the species 

because no on the ground action would take place. Although unlikely, other changes such as the development 

390 
 

 

 

of a drought contingency plan (Action 52), and the promotion of balanced grazing (Action 55) could benefit 

grizzly bear as well as sage-grouse. 

Mineral Resources 

Minerals management actions described in the Amendment include the following: designing roads which 

minimize impacts in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 20), protective modifications to lease stipulations within 

sage-grouse habitat (Action 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81). Other actions include, 

proposed withdrawal recommendations of some areas of PHMA from mineral exploration (Action 79, 139), 

minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances (Action 79), prohibit strip mining near sage-grouse(Action 

76), prohibition of geophysical operations near sage-grouse, right-of-way and vehicle limitations, timing 

restrictions during breeding season(Action 60), working with permittees/lessees to apply sage-grouse 

conservation measures, distance limitations (Action 60, 66), requiring reclamation plans (Action 69a), 

minimization of habitat fragmentation (Action 62, 67), noise reduction, and minimize impacts to related 

sensitive resources. 

Planning measures which consider the construction of a master a plan for development or leasing when 

impacts to sage-grouse could occur (Action 66), noise, timing and distance restrictions (Action 60) and 

implementing a reclamation bond in sage-grouse areas (Action 66) would not affect grizzly bear because no on 

the ground actions would take place. 

Although unlikely, because the species may occur in the same geographical area, some management actions 

may indirectly benefit the species. Beneficial actions may include limitations or exclusion of road 

developments, minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances, minimization of habitat fragmentation, and 

implementing measures to reduce pollutants. These actions could reduce overall impacts and limit road access 

within or leading to grizzly bear habitat which would benefit the species. 

Recreation 

Changes to existing recreation management include BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs would be 

allowed in sage-grouse PHMA, unless negative impacts to sage-grouse cannot be adequately mitigated (Action 

82). 

The issuance of BLM SRP’s and Forest Service recreation SUA’s has already been consulted on during the 

planning process of their respective land use plans. However, the change in this document and the area which 

needs to be consulted, would be the closing of SRP’s and SUA’s in PHMAs when negative impacts cannot be 

mitigated. The closing of any BLM SRP or Forest Service Recreation SUA in PHMAs would not directly 

affect the grizzly bear because their habitat requirements differ. Any negative affects to grizzly bear resulting 

from recreation management are unlikely. 

Special Designations 

No new special designation actions are included in the Amendment (Action 84). As such, special management 

actions would not affect grizzly bear. 

Special Status Species 

Special status species management actions include the collection of sage-grouse baseline data during project 

planning (Action 4), the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact PHMAs (Action 12), 

agencies will meet annually to coordinate and review sage-grouse data (Action 16), development of adaptive 

management strategies in support of the population management objectives for sage-grouse (Action 137), 

maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 sage-grouse PHMA population within the State of Wyoming (Action 

138), and all existing planning decision will be retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this plan 

amendment (Action 25). 

391 
 

 

 

 

 

Actions included in the special species management program such as the collection of data (Action 4), agencies 

meeting annually to coordinate sage-grouse data (Action 16), and the development of adaptive management 

strategies (Action 137), retainment of existing plans unless modified in the Amendment (Action 25), would not 

have any effect on grizzly bear because no surface disturbing action would occur. 

Action 12 which includes the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact PHMAs may 

indirectly benefit the species by reducing impacts to PHMAs. However, because grizzly bear utilize a variety 

of habitat throughout the year and are so highly adaptable, any negative affects to the species are unlikely. 

Travel Management 

Travel management actions described in the Amendment include restricting motorized travel to existing roads 

and trails, until route designations are made during subsequent implementation of travel management planning 

(Action 18), designate routes with priority habitat and assess existing plans for consistency with sage-grouse 

conservation objectives (Action 19), non-sand dune portions of the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area 

within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to existing roads and trails (Action 86, 87), avoidance of new 

road construction within 1.9 miles of habitat (Action 88), restricting upgrades or new road construction within 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat(Action 89), development of new roads would be constructed to the absolute 

minimum value (Action 90), natural reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in travel management 

plans within sage-grouse PHMAs, in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not 

foreseeable (Action 91), when reseeding roads and trails within sage-grouse PHMAs, appropriate seed 

mixtures would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered (Action 92). 

Travel management actions such as the minimization, reclamation, avoidance, restriction and closure of 

various roads may inadvertently benefit the species even though Greater Sage-Grouse do not occur in the same 

habitat as grizzly bear (Action 18, 86, 88, 89). For example, grizzly bear may be protected if a road restriction 

or closure in sage-grouse habitat blocks access to a road which leads to grizzly bear habitat. However, because 

grizzly bear utilize a variety of habitat throughout the year and are so highly adaptable, any negative affects to 

the species are unlikely. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation management actions include, the application of seasonal restrictions for implementing vegetation 

management treatments and monitoring to benefit sage-grouse (Action 6), design range projects in a manner 

that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment and to monitor and treat invasive species associated 

with existing range improvements (Action 9), vegetation management would be used to control, suppress, and 

eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive species (Action 11), work with various agencies and stake 

holders to coordinate and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse population and habitat (Action 22), improvement of 

vegetation composition and structure to benefit sage-grouse (Action 93, 95, 100, 107), restrict sagebrush 

activities that reduces sagebrush canopy to less than 15% (Action 94), development of recommended protocols 

and treatments to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (Action 95, 96), deferment of livestock grazing 

on vegetative treatments to improve habitat (Action 97), recommendations on vegetative treatments (Action 

98, 100, 101, 104, 105), reclamation or restoration of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats (Action 99, 

100, 101, 103, 106), the use of native seeds which are certified weed free for fuels treatments (Action 100, 102, 

103, 104), pest treatments to control Wyoming grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks in Greater SageGrouse PHMAs (Action 108). 

The use of herbicide on noxious and invasive species (Action 11), vegetation treatments (Actions 93, 94, 95, 

100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107) and pest control treatments for Wyoming grass hopper and Mormon crickets 

(Action 108) have already been consulted on in their respective Land Use plans using agency approved 

protocols. However, the changes in the Amendment would direct managers to use updated sage-grouse 

392 
 

 

 

 

 

 

information which would benefit the sage-grouse. For example, managers can better control insect outbreaks in 

PHMAs if the PHMAs are identified. 

Vegetation management actions would not directly occur in Grizzly bear occupied habitat. Grizzly bear are 

highly adaptable and utilize a variety of habitats but within Wyoming, they prefer extensive forest cover often 

interspersed with grasslands and meadows. In Wyoming these habitats are generally above 1,500 m Schwartz 

et al. 2002). Vegetation management actions such as season of use restrictions (Action 6), monitoring efforts 

(Action 9), and working collaboratively with various agencies (Action 22) are not expected to directly or 

indirectly impact occupied grizzly bear habitat. Although unlikely, actions that minimize the potential for the 

spread of noxious and invasive weeds (Action 9), deferment of livestock (Action 97), and the improvement of 

vegetative composition (Action 93, 95, 100, 107) may inadvertently benefit grizzly bear through improved 

habitat conditions. 

Wild Horses 

Wild horse management action include incorporating rangeland improvements for wild horses in Greater SageGrouse PHMA (Action 109), consideration of sage-grouse PHMAs when evaluating AML’s (Action 110), 

considering sage-grouse PHMAs when conducting land health assessments (Action 111), addressing direct and 

indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitats when conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and 

burro management activities (Action 112), and to coordinate with all other resources to conduct land health 

assessments within all BLM HMAs (Action 113). 

Grizzly bear have not been identified in herd management areas within the planning area. Wild horse 

management actions include measures which are meant to protect and preserve sage-grouse habitat. As a result, 

changes to existing wild horse management would not affect grizzly bear. 

Wildland Fire 

Wildland fire management actions described in the Amendment include, fire and fuels management which 

contributes to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse populations 

(Action 26), complete and continue to update Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire & Invasive necessary 

to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting sage-grouse populations which includes identification 

of annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species management as identified in local unit level 

Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments (Action 27), implementation of coordinated interagency approach to fire restrictions for sage-grouse (Action 28), utilization of fire management strategies and 

tactics to achieve sage-grouse resource objectives (Action 29), fuel treatments would be implemented with an 

emphasis of protecting and enhancing PHMAs (Action 114), restoring burned areas within PHMAs (Action 

115), post fuels management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pretreatment native plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat (Action 117), avoiding treatments in areas 

containing old trees or persistent woodlands (Action 118), and management actions to benefit sage-grouse 

during fire suppression activities (Action 124). 

Wildland fire management actions would not directly occur in grizzly bear occupied habitat. Grizzly bear are 

highly adaptable and utilize a variety of habitats but within Wyoming, they prefer extensive forest cover often 

interspersed with grasslands and meadows. In Wyoming these habitats are generally above 1,500 m Schwartz 

et al. 2002). Although unlikely, because the grizzly bear may occur in the same geographical area as sagegrouse, some wildland fire management actions such as habitat restorations and post fuel treatments may 

inadvertently affect the species. 

393 
 

 

 

 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions described in the Amendment include protocols for sage-grouse 

monitoring(Actions 1, 3, 125), development of landscape level restoration, conservation and maintenance 

strategies (Actions 8, 14, 15, 21) application of required design features (Action 10), addition of new sagegrouse habitat (Action 13), limitation of oil and gas development densities (Action 126), limitation of all 

surface disturbances to 5% per 640 acres (Action 127), mitigation protocol (Actions 5,7,128), prohibition of 

surface disturbing activities within 0.6 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMAs (Action 129), 

prohibition of surface disturbing activities within 0.25 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks outside 

PHMAs (Action 130), timing restrictions in breeding, nesting, and brooding PHMA (Actions 17,131, 132, 133, 

134), promote control of predators to sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat (Action 135), and implementation of 

noise restrictions (Action 136). 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions would not directly occur in grizzly bear occupied habitat. Grizzly 

bear are highly adaptable and utilize a variety of habitats but within Wyoming, they prefer extensive forest 

cover often interspersed with grasslands and meadows. In Wyoming these habitats are generally above 1,500 

m (Schwartz et al. 2002). Because Greater Sage-Grouse generally do not reside in the same habitat required by 

grizzly bear, management actions intended to protect sage-grouse would not directly affect grizzly bear. 

Although unlikely, because the species may occur in the same geographical area, some management actions 

may inadvertently benefit the species. Beneficial actions may include restrictions on oil and mineral 

developments, restrictions of surface disturbing activities, and increased mitigation protocol. No negative 

effects from wildlife and fisheries activities are anticipated. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts according to the ESA, Section 7 Consultation Handbook definition (USFWS 1998a) 

include the incremental impacts of future State, or private activities (i.e., excluding federal activities), that are 

reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation. 

Existing and proposed activities on non-federal lands in the planning area that have the potential to 

cumulatively affect the species include but are not limited to the following: 

• Non-Federal oil and gas and related energy development 

• Livestock grazing on private lands 

• Timber harvesting on private lands 

• Subdivision development 

• Recreation 

• Coal mine operations 

• Transmission lines 

• Seismic exploration 

• Bentonite and gypsum mining 

Implementation of the Amendment would not change any potential effects to the grizzly bear that may result 

from current or projected future non-Federal actions. 

7.11.2 Effects Determination 

The effects determination only addresses changes in management that would occur from the Amendment. 

Existing management conditions that would not be changed as a result of the Amendment have already been 

consulted on using agency approved methods and will not be analyzed in this document. 

Management actions included in the Amendment are largely supportive in nature, and guide or advise other 

program actions and activities in a manner conducive to maintaining and/or promoting population growth and 

394 
 

 

habitat for the sage-grouse. Management actions included in the Amendment which are specific to sage-grouse 

such as increased monitoring, data collection, greater coordination and review, and timing restrictions, would 

have no negative effects on grizzly bear because no surface disturbing actions would occur. Activities included 

in the Amendment are not anticipated to negatively affect the species, however some beneficial effects, 

described above, could occur. Most of the habitats where grizzly bear habitat exists are not used by sagegrouse, however there is overlap where both species might be found. Activities conducted under the 

Amendment are designed to improve and benefit Sage-grouse habitat and populations. Because no negative 

affects to grizzly bear would occur and some actions may benefit the species, implementation of the 

Amendment May affect, but is not likely to Adversely Affect the grizzly bear, within the Rock Springs, 

Bridger Teton, Kemmerer, and Pinedale office areas. Because grizzly bear habitat does not exist in the 

Casper, Rawlins, Newcastle, Medicine Bow and Thunder Basin offices, management actions from this 

amendment are expected to have “No Effect” on grizzly bear in those office areas. 

Table 14-Summary and Determination of Effects for Grizzly bear 

NLAA= May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect 

NE = No effect 

NJ = No Jeopardy 

7.12 Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudonius preblei) - Threatened 

395 
 

 

 

7.12.1 Effects of Selected Alternative 

Lands and Realty 

Activities under the lands and realty program include, manage sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 30), seasonal 

timing constraints (Action 31), restrictions which protect sage-grouse on new right-of-way corridors in Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 32), designing of powerlines and guy wires to minimize wildlife related impacts 

and constructed to the latest APLIC standards (Action 34, 35, 38), reclamation of sites (Action 35), prohibition 

of wind turbines in greater sage-grouse habitat (Action 36), avoidance of MET tower supports in PHMA 

(Action 38), retention of PHMA (Action 40), identification of sage-grouse habitat in mineral right areas or 

conservation easement areas (Action 41), acquisition of greater sage-grouse lands (Action 42), and 

consideration of non-mineral withdrawal actions to protect the species (Action 43). 

Lands and realty management actions included in the Amendment are not likely to occur in the wetland 

habitats of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse because Greater Sage-Grouse occur in lands dominated by 

large sagebrush stands. However, sagebrush dominated stands may be located adjacent to wetland habitats. 

Although unlikely because overlapping habitat between Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and sage-grouse is 

so minimal, changes in some of the lands and realty management actions included in the Amendment may 

inadvertently protect the species through land acquisitions, retentions, and reclamations. Restrictions of rightof-way corridors could also benefit the species by reducing ground disturbances in habitat occupied by the 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Road closures would reduce the number of people within Preble’s meadow 

jumping mouse habitat and the resulting impacts on the species and habitat. 

Livestock 

Many of the livestock management actions in the amendment include habitat improvements for Greater SageGrouse through the following: evaluation of opportunities to coordinate management plans and strategies 

under a single management plan with other agencies and stake holders and include sage-grouse management 

(Action 22), develop voluntary grazing strategies that improve sage-grouse populations and habitat(Action 45), 

adjustments to grazing management (Action 46,139), sage-grouse habitat objectives and management would be 

incorporated into all grazing permit renewals (Action 48), progress toward achieving land health standards in 

sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 49), management of voluntarily relinquished permits or preferences (Action 50), 

coordinate with permittees/lessees to develop drought contingency plans (Action 52), evaluate and modify 

existing range improvements to improve sage-grouse habitat (Action 53), designate specific routes and 

timeframes for trailing which includes the avoidance of stopovers in sage-grouse leks (Action 54), promote 

balanced grazing between upland and riparian areas (Action 55), manage range improvements in a way that 

promotes sage-grouse and its habitats (Action 56), and evaluate and modify effects on sage-grouse from spring 

and seep developments such as pipelines and structures (Action 57). 

All of the documented occurrences of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse reside within riparian habitats in 

Wyoming. Many of the livestock management actions require no surface disturbing activities (Actions 22, 45, 

48, 49, 53, 54, 56 and 57) and would therefore, not affect Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Although unlikely 

because overlapping habitat between Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and sage-grouse is so minimal, other 

livestock management actions may indirectly protect the species through the development of a drought 

contingency plan (Action 52), which could reduce grazing pressure in nearby Preble’s meadow jumping mouse 

habitats and the promotion of balanced grazing (Action 55) which could also alleviate heavy grazing impact in 

one specific area. 

Mineral Resources 

Minerals management actions described in the Amendment include the following: designing roads which 

minimize impacts in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 20), protective modifications to lease stipulations within 

396 
 

 

 

 

 

sage-grouse habitat (Action 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81). Other actions include, 

proposed withdrawal recommendations of some areas of PHMA from mineral exploration (Action 79, 139), 

minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances (Action 79), prohibit strip mining near sage-grouse 

(Action 76), prohibition of geophysical operations near sage-grouse, right-of-way and vehicle limitations, 

timing restrictions during breeding season (Action 60), working with permittees/lessees to apply sage-grouse 

conservation measures, distance limitations (Action 60, 66), requiring reclamation plans (Action 69a), 

minimization of habitat fragmentation (Action 62, 67), noise reduction, and minimize impacts to related 

sensitive resources. 

Planning measures which consider the construction of a master a plan for development or leasing when 

impacts to sage-grouse could occur (Action 66), noise, timing and distance restrictions (Action 60) and 

implementing a reclamation bond in sage-grouse areas (Action 66) would not affect the Preble’s meadow 

jumping mouse because no surface disturbing actions would occur. 

Although unlikely, because the species may occur in the same geographical area, some management actions 

may indirectly benefit the species. Beneficial actions may include limitations or exclusion of road 

developments, minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances, minimization of habitat fragmentation, and 

implementing measures to reduce pollutants. These actions could reduce overall impacts and limit road access 

within or leading to Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat which would benefit the species. 

Recreation 

BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs would be continued to be allowed in sage-grouse PHMA 

habitat, unless negative impacts to sage-grouse cannot be adequately mitigated (Action 82). 

The issuance of BLM SRP’s and Forest Service recreation SUA’s has already been consulted on during the 

planning process of their respective land use plans. However, the change in this document and the area which 

needs to be consulted on would be the closing of SRP’s and SUA’s in PHMAs sage-grouse habitats when 

negative impacts cannot be mitigated. The closing of any BLM SRP or Forest Service Recreation SUA in 

PHMAs would not directly affect Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Any indirect negative effects are unlikely 

because habitat overlap is minimal. 

Special Designations 

No new special designation actions are included in the Amendment (Action 84). As such, special management 

actions would not affect the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. 

Special Status Species 

Special status species management action include the collection of sage-grouse baseline data during project 

planning (Action 4), the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact PHMAs (Action 12), 

agencies will meet annually to coordinate and review sage-grouse data (Action 16), development of adaptive 

management strategies in support of the population management objectives for sage-grouse (Action 137), 

maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 sage-grouse PHMA population within the State of Wyoming (Action 

138), and all existing planning decision will be retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this plan 

amendment (Action 25). 

Actions included in the special species management program such as the collection of data (Action 4), agencies 

meeting annually to coordinate sage-grouse data (Action 16), and the development of adaptive management 

strategies (Action 137), retainment of existing plans unless modified in the Amendment (Action 25), would not 

have any effect on the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse because surface disturbing actions would not result 

from these activities. However, although unlikely, Action 12 which includes the modification of existing 

notices and plans to minimally impact PHMAs may indirectly benefit the species by reducing impacts to 

397 
 

 

 

 

 

 

PHMAs. The reduction of impacts in PHMAs may also indirectly benefit Preble’s meadow jumping mouse 

which may occur in nearby habitats. 

Travel Management 

Travel management actions described in the Amendment, include restricting motorized travel to existing roads 

and trails, until route designations are made during subsequent implementation of travel management planning 

(Action 18), designate routes with priority habitat and assess existing plans for consistency with sage-grouse 

conservation objectives (Action 19), non-sand dune portions of the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area 

within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to existing roads and trails (Action 86, 87), avoidance of new 

road construction within 1.9 miles of habitat (Action 88), restricting upgrades or new road construction within 

greater sage-grouse habitat (Action 89), development of new roads would be constructed to the absolute 

minimum value (Action 90), natural reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in travel management 

plans within sage-grouse PHMAs, in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not 

foreseeable (Action 91), when reseeding roads and trails within sage-grouse PHMAs, appropriate seed 

mixtures would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered (Action 92). 

Travel management actions such as the minimization, reclamation, avoidance, restriction and closure of 

various roads may inadvertently benefit the species even though Greater Sage-Grouse do not occur in the same 

habitat as Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Action 18, 86, 88, 89). For this reason any indirect effects to the 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse resulting from Amendment actions is not likely to occur. Preble’s meadow 

jumping mouse may be protected if a road restriction or closure in sage-grouse habitat blocks access to a road 

which leads to occupied habitat. No negative effects resulting from travel management are anticipated to 

occur. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation management actions include the application of seasonal restrictions for implementing vegetation 

management treatments and monitoring to benefit sage-grouse (Action 6), design range projects in a manner 

that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment and to monitor and treat invasive species associated 

with existing range improvements (Action 9), vegetation management would be used to control, suppress, and 

eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive species (Action 11), work with various agencies and stake 

holders to coordinate and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse population and habitat (Action 22), improvement of 

vegetation composition and structure to benefit sage-grouse (Action 93, 95, 100, 107), restrict sagebrush 

activities that reduces sagebrush canopy to less than 15% (Action 94), development of recommended protocols 

and treatments to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (Action 95, 96), deferment of livestock grazing 

on vegetative treatments to improve habitat (Action 97), recommendations on vegetative treatments (Action 

98, 100, 101, 104, 105), reclamation or restoration of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats (Action 99, 

100, 101, 103, 106), the use of native seeds which are certified weed free for fuels treatments (Action 100, 102, 

103, 104), pest treatments to control Wyoming grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks in Greater SageGrouse PHMAs (Action 108). 

The use of herbicide on noxious and invasive species (Action 11), vegetation treatments (Actions 93, 94, 95, 

100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107) and pest control treatments for Wyoming grass hopper and Mormon crickets 

(Action 108) have already been consulted on in their respective Land Use plans using agency approved 

protocols. However, the changes in the Amendment would direct managers to use updated sage-grouse 

information which would benefit the sage-grouse. For example, managers can better control insect outbreaks in 

PHMAs if the PHMAs are identified. 

Vegetation management actions such as season restrictions (Action 6), monitoring efforts (Action 9), and 

working collaboratively with various agencies (Action 22) are not expected to directly or indirectly impact 

398 
 

 

 

occupied Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat because no surface disturbing actions would occur. 

However, actions that minimize the potential for the spread of noxious and invasive weeds (Action 9), 

deferment of livestock (Action 97), and the improvement of vegetative composition (Action 93, 95, 100, 107) 

may inadvertently benefit the species through improve habitat conditions. 

Wild Horses 

Wild horse management actions include incorporating rangeland improvements for wild horses in Greater 

Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Action 109), consideration of sage-grouse PHMAs when evaluating AML’s (Action 

110), considering sage-grouse PHMAs when conducting land health assessments (Action 111), addressing 

direct and indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitats when conducting NEPA analysis for wild 

horse and burro management activities (Action 112), and to coordinate with all other resources to conduct land 

health assessments within all BLM HMAs (Action 113). 

Based on known locations Preble’s meadow jumping mouse as shown on USFWS maps (USFWS 2013), none 

of the known Preble’s meadow jumping mouse sites are located in herd management areas. None of these 

actions would occur within or near Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat because wild horse HMA’s do not 

occur within Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat. 

Wildland Fire 

Wildland fire management actions described in the Amendment include, fire and fuels management which 

contributes to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse populations 

(Action 26), complete and continue to update Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire & Invasive necessary 

to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting sage-grouse populations which includes identification 

of annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species management as identified in local unit level 

Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments (Action 27), implementation of coordinated interagency approach to fire restrictions for sage-grouse (Action 28), utilization of fire management strategies and 

tactics to achieve sage-grouse resource objectives (Action 29), fuel treatments would be implemented with an 

emphasis of protecting and enhancing PHMAs (Action 114), restoring burned areas within PHMAs (Action 

115), post fuels management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pretreatment native plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat (Action 117), avoiding treatments in areas 

containing old trees or persistent woodlands (Action 118), and management actions to benefit sage-grouse 

during fire suppression activities (Action 124). 

Wildland fire management actions are not expected to directly impact occupied or potential Preble’s meadow 

jumping mouse habitat. Preferred habitat for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is comprised of welldeveloped riparian habitat with adjacent, relatively undisturbed, grassland communities and a nearby water 

source, which generally do not burn. Any beneficial effects resulting from wildland fire management actions 

are not anticipated to negatively affect the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions described in the Amendment include protocols for sage-grouse 

monitoring(Actions 1, 3, 125), development of landscape level restoration, conservation and maintenance 

strategies (Actions 8, 14, 15, 21) application of required design features (Action 10), addition of new sagegrouse habitat (Action 13), limitation of oil and gas development densities (Action 126), limitation of all 

surface disturbances to 5% per 640 acres (Action 127), mitigation protocol (Actions 5, 7, 128), prohibition of 

surface disturbing activities within 0.6 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMAs (Action 129), 

prohibition of surface disturbing activities within 0.25 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks outside 

PHMAs (Action 130), timing restrictions in breeding, nesting, and brooding PHMA (Actions 17,131, 132, 133, 

399 
 

 

 

 

 

 

134), promote control of predators to sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat (Action 135), and implementation of 

noise restrictions (Action 136). 

Because Greater Sage-Grouse do not reside in the same habitat required by Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, 

management actions intended to protect sage-grouse would not directly affect Preble’s meadow jumping 

mouse. However, although unlikely, because the species may occur in the same geographical area, some 

management actions may indirectly benefit the species. Beneficial actions may include restrictions on oil and 

mineral developments, restrictions of surface disturbing activities, and increased mitigation protocol. Other 

management non-surface disturbing management actions such as the implementation of timing restrictions 

(Actions 17, 131, 132, 133 and 134) would have no effect on Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts according to the ESA, Section 7 Consultation Handbook definition (USFWS 1998a) 

include the incremental impacts of future State, or private activities (i.e., excluding federal activities), that are 

reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation. 

Existing and proposed activities on non-federal lands in the planning area that have the potential to 

cumulatively affect the species include but are not limited to the following: 

• Non-Federal oil and gas and related energy development

• Water depletions from irrigation diversions and dams

• Livestock grazing on private lands

• Subdivision development along rivers

• Recreation along rivers and river corridors (including camping, rafting, and hunting)

• Transmission lines

Implementation of the Amendment would not change any potential effects to the Preble’s meadow jumping 

mouse that may result from current or projected future non-Federal actions. 

7.12.2 Effects Determination 

The effects determination only addresses changes in management that would occur from the Amendment. 

Existing management conditions that would not be changed as a result of the Amendment have already been 

consulted on using agency approved methods and will not be analyzed in this document. 

Management actions included in the Amendment are largely supportive in nature, and guide or advise other 

program actions and activities in a manner conducive to maintaining and/or promoting population growth and 

habitat for the sage-grouse. Management actions included in the Amendment such as increased monitoring, 

data collection, greater coordination and review, and noise, distance, and timing restrictions, would have no 

effect on Preble’s meadow jumping mouse because no surface disturbing actions would occur. Activities 

included in the Amendment are not anticipated to affect the species. The wetland habitats where Preble’s 

meadow jumping mouse exists are not typically used by sage-grouse. Activities conducted under the 

Amendment are designed to improve and benefit Sage-grouse habitat and populations. Because no affects to 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse would occur and any actions which may directly or indirectly benefit the 

species are unlikely, implementation of the Amendment would have “No Effect” on the Preble’s meadow 

jumping mouse, within the Bridger Teton, Pinedale, Kemmerer, Casper, Rock Springs, Thunder Basin and 

Newcastle Field Offices. Due to the possibility of beneficial effects to the Preble’s mouse, implementation of 

the Amendment would lead to a determination of “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect for the Preble’s 

mouse in the Rawlins and Medicine Bow field office areas. 

400 
 

 

Table 15-Summary and Determination of Effects for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse 

NLAA= May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect 

NE = No effect 

NJ = No Jeopardy 

7.13 Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) - Threatened 

7.13.1 Effects of Selected Alternative 

Lands and Realty 

Activities under the lands and realty program described in the Amendment include, management of sagegrouse PHMAs (Action 30), seasonal timing constraints (Action 31), restrictions which protect sage-grouse on 

new right-of-way corridors in greater sage-grouse habitat (Action 32), designing of powerlines and guy wires 

to minimize wildlife related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC standards (Action 34, 35, 38), 

reclamation of sites (Action 35), prohibition of wind turbines in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 36), 

avoidance of MET tower supports in PHMA (Action 38), retention of PHMA (Action 40), identification of 

sage-grouse habitat in mineral right areas or conservation easement areas (Action 41), acquisition of Greater 

Sage-Grouse lands (Action 42), and consideration of non-mineral withdrawal actions to protect the species 

(Action 43). 

401 
 

 

Lands and realty management actions included in the Amendment are not likely to occur in the wetland 

habitats of the Western yellow-billed cuckoo. Greater Sage-Grouse occur in lands dominated by large 

sagebrush stands and two hectares of dense riparian vegetation is considered the absolute minimum size for 

cuckoo occupancy, as no cuckoos have been detected successfully nesting in patches smaller than two 

hectares."(Corman and Magill 2000, Halterman et al 2001). 

However, sagebrush dominated stands may be located adjacent to wetland habitats. Although unlikely, changes 

in some of the lands and realty management actions included in the Amendment may indirectly protect 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo through land acquisitions, retentions, and reclamations. Restrictions of right-ofway corridors could also benefit the species by reducing ground disturbances in habitat occupied by Western 

yellow-billed cuckoo. Road closures would reduce the number of people within Western yellow-billed cuckoo 

habitat and the resulting behavioral disruption impacts on the species and its proposed critical habitat. 

Livestock 

Livestock management actions described in the Amendment include the following: evaluation of opportunities 

to coordinate management plans and strategies under a single management plan with other agencies and stake 

holders and include sage-grouse management (Action 22), develop voluntary grazing strategies that improve 

sage-grouse populations and habitat(Action 45), adjustments to grazing management (Action 46, 139), sagegrouse habitat objectives and management would be incorporated into all grazing permit renewals (Action 48), 

progress toward achieving land health standards in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 49), management of 

voluntarily relinquished permits or preferences (Action 50), coordinate with permittees/lessees to develop 

drought contingency plans (Action 52), evaluate and modify existing range improvements to improve sagegrouse habitat (Action 53), designate specific routes and timeframes for trailing which includes the avoidance 

of stopovers in sage-grouse leks (Action 54), promote balanced grazing between upland and riparian areas 

(Action 55), manage range improvements in a way that promotes sage-grouse and its habitats (Action 56), and 

evaluate and modify effects on sage-grouse from spring and seep developments such as pipelines and 

structures (Action 57). 

Two hectares of dense riparian vegetation is considered the absolute minimum size for cuckoo occupancy, as 

no cuckoos have been detected successfully nesting in patches smaller than two hectares."(Corman and Magill 

2000, Halterman et al 2001). Because Greater Sage-Grouse occur in lands dominated by large sagebrush 

stands, livestock management actions meant to benefit sage-grouse would not occur in Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo habitat. Actions that would not affect Western yellow-billed cuckoo include Action 22, 45, 48, 49, 53, 

54, 56, 57. Although unlikely, changes in some of the Livestock management program may indirectly protect 

the species through the development of a drought contingency plan (Action 52), which could reduce grazing 

pressure near Western yellow-billed cuckoo habitats; the promotion of balanced grazing (Action 55) could also 

alleviate heavy grazing impact in wetland areas. 

Mineral Resources 

Minerals management actions included in the Amendment include the following: designing roads which 

minimize impacts in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 20), protective modifications to lease stipulations within 

sage-grouse habitat (Action 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81). Other actions include, 

proposed withdrawal recommendations of some areas of PHMA from mineral exploration (Action 79, 139), 

minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances (Action 79), prohibit strip mining near sage-grouse 

(Action 76), prohibition of geophysical operations near sage-grouse, right-of-way and vehicle limitations, 

timing restrictions during breeding season (Action 60), working with permittees/lessees to apply sage-grouse 

conservation measures, distance limitations (Action 60, 66), requiring reclamation plans (Action 69a), 

402 
 

 

 

minimization of habitat fragmentation (Action 62, 67), noise reduction, and minimize impacts to related 

sensitive resources. 

Planning measures which consider the construction of a master a plan for development or leasing when 

impacts to sage-grouse could occur (Action 66), requiring reclamation plans (Action 69a), noise, timing and 

distance restrictions (Action 60) and implementing a reclamation bond in sage-grouse areas (Action 66) would 

not affect Western yellow-billed cuckoo or its proposed critical habitat because no surface disturbing actions 

would occur. 

Two hectares of dense riparian vegetation is considered the absolute minimum size for cuckoo occupancy, as 

no cuckoos have been detected successfully nesting in patches smaller than two hectares."(Corman and Magill 

2000, Halterman et al 2001). Because greater sage-grouse do not reside in the same habitat required by 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo, management actions intended to protect sage-grouse would not directly affect 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo. Although unlikely, because the species may occur in the same geographical 

area, some management actions may inadvertently benefit the species. Beneficial actions may include 

limitations of road developments and implementing measures to reduce pollutants. These actions could limit 

road access within Western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat which would benefit the species. It is not anticipated 

that the management actions would negatively affect the species or its proposed critical habitat. 

Recreation 

Recreation management actions include BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs would be allowed in 

sage-grouse PHMA, unless negative impacts to sage-grouse cannot be adequately mitigated (Action 82). 

The issuance of BLM SRP’s and Forest Service recreation SUA’s has already been consulted on during the 

planning process of their respective land use plans. However, the change in the Amendment and the area which 

needs to be consulted, would be the closing of SRP’s and SUA’s in PHMAs sage-grouse habitats when 

negative impacts cannot be mitigated. The closing of any BLM SRP or Forest Service Recreation SUA in 

PHMAs would not directly affect the Western yellow-billed cuckoo. Although unlikely, the closing of SRP’s 

and SUA’s may benefit the species and protect it and its proposed critical habitat from negative recreation 

impacts. 

Special Designations 

No new special designation actions are included in the Amendment (Action 84). As such, special management 

actions would not affect the Western yellow-billed cuckoo or its proposed critical habitat. 

Special Status Species 

Special status species management action include the collection of sage-grouse baseline data during project 

planning (Action 4), the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact PHMAs (Action 12), 

agencies will meet annually to coordinate and review sage-grouse data (Action 16), development of adaptive 

management strategies in support of the population management objectives for sage-grouse (Action 137), 

maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 sage-grouse PHMA population within the State of Wyoming (Action 

138), and all existing planning decision will be retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this plan 

amendment (Action 25). 

Actions included in the special species management program such as the collection of data (Action 4), agencies 

meeting annually to coordinate sage-grouse data (Action 16), and the development of adaptive management 

strategies (Action 137), retainment of existing plans unless modified in the Amendment (Action 25), would not 

have any effect on the Western yellow-billed cuckoo or its proposed critical habitat because no surface 

disturbing actions would occur as a result of these management actions. 

403 
 

 

 

 

 

However, Action 12 which includes the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact 

PHMAs may indirectly benefit the species by reducing impacts to PHMAs. Although unlikely, the reduction of 

impacts in PHMAs may also indirectly benefit Western yellow-billed cuckoo which may occur in adjacent 

habitats. 

Travel Management 

Travel management actions included in the Amendment, include restricting motorized travel to existing roads 

and trails, until route designations are made during subsequent implementation of travel management planning 

(Action 18), designate routes with priority habitat and assess existing plans for consistency with sage-grouse 

conservation objectives (Action 19), non-sand dune portions of the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area 

within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to existing roads and trails (Action 86, 87), avoidance of new 

road construction within 1.9 miles of habitat (Action 88), restricting upgrades or new road construction within 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 89), development of new roads would be constructed to the absolute 

minimum value (Action 90), natural reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in travel management 

plans within sage-grouse PHMAs, in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not 

foreseeable (Action 91), when reseeding roads and trails within sage-grouse PHMAs, appropriate seed 

mixtures would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered (Action 92). 

Although unlikely, travel management actions such as the minimization, reclamation, avoidance, restriction 

and closure of various roads may inadvertently benefit the species even though Greater Sage-Grouse do not 

occur in the same habitat as Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Action 18, 86, 88, 89). For example, Western 

yellow-billed cuckoo may be protected if a road restriction or closure in sage-grouse habitat blocks access to a 

road which leads to wetland habitat. The use of approved seed mixtures (Action 92) and implementation of 

travel management plans (Action 18) would likely have no effect on the Western yellow-billed cuckoo or its 

proposed critical habitat. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation management actions include, the application of seasonal restrictions for implementing vegetation 

management treatments and monitoring to benefit sage-grouse (Action 6), design range projects in a manner 

that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment and to monitor and treat invasive species associated 

with existing range improvements (Action 9), vegetation management would be used to control, suppress, and 

eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive species (Action 11), work with various agencies and stake 

holders to coordinate and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse population and habitat (Action 22), improvement of 

vegetation composition and structure to benefit sage-grouse (Action 93, 95, 100, 107), restrict sagebrush 

activities that reduces sagebrush canopy to less than 15% (Action 94), development of recommended protocols 

and treatments to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (Action 95, 96), deferment of livestock grazing 

on vegetative treatments to improve habitat (Action 97), recommendations on vegetative treatments (Action 

98, 100, 101, 104, 105), reclamation or restoration of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats (Action 99, 

100, 101, 103, 106), the use of native seeds which are certified weed free for fuels treatments (Action 100, 102, 

103, 104), pest treatments to control Wyoming grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks in Greater SageGrouse PHMAs (Action 108). 

The use of herbicide on noxious and invasive species (Action 11), vegetation treatments (Actions 93, 94, 95, 

100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107) and pest control treatments for Wyoming grass hopper and Mormon crickets 

(Action 108) have already been consulted on in their respective Land Use plans using agency approved 

protocols. However, the changes in the Amendment would direct managers to use updated sage-grouse 

information which would benefit the sage-grouse. For example, managers can better control insect outbreaks in 

PHMAs if the PHMAs are identified. 

404 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vegetation management actions are not expected to directly impact occupied or potential Western yellowbilled cuckoo habitat. Two hectares of dense riparian vegetation is considered the absolute minimum size for 

cuckoo occupancy, as no cuckoos have been detected successfully nesting in patches smaller than two 

hectares."(Corman and Magill 2000, Halterman et al 2001). Vegetation management actions such as season 

restrictions (Action 6), monitoring efforts (Action 9), and working collaboratively with various agencies 

(Action 22) are not expected to directly or indirectly impact occupied or potential Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo habitat or its proposed critical habitat because no surface disturbing actions would occur. However, 

although unlikely, actions that minimize the potential for the spread of noxious and invasive weeds (Action 9), 

deferment of livestock (Action 97), and the improvement of vegetative composition (Action 93, 95, 100, 107) 

may inadvertently and indirectly benefit the species through improved habitat conditions. 

Wild Horses 

Wild horse management action include incorporating rangeland improvements for wild horses in Greater SageGrouse PHMAs (Action 109), consideration of sage-grouse PHMAs when evaluating AML’s (Action 110), 

considering sage-grouse PHMAs when conducting land health assessments (Action 111), addressing direct and 

indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitats when conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and 

burro management activities (Action 112), and to coordinate with all other resources to conduct land health 

assessments within all BLM HMAs (Action 113). 

Based on known locations of Western yellow-billed cuckoo as shown on USFWS maps (USFWS 2013), none 

of the known Western yellow-billed cuckoo sites are located in herd management areas. As a result, no 

impacts from wild horse management are anticipated to occur to the species or its proposed critical habitat. 

Wildland Fire 

Wildland fire management actions included in the Amendment include, fire and fuels management which 

contributes to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse populations 

(Action 26), complete and continue to update Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire & Invasive necessary 

to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting sage-grouse populations which includes identification 

of annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species management as identified in local unit level 

Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments (Action 27), implementation of coordinated interagency approach to fire restrictions for sage-grouse (Action 28), utilization of fire management strategies and 

tactics to achieve sage-grouse resource objectives (Action 29), fuel treatments would be implemented with an 

emphasis of protecting and enhancing PHMAs (Action 114), restoring burned areas within PHMAs (Action 

115), post fuels management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pretreatment native plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat (Action 117), avoiding treatments in areas 

containing old trees or persistent woodlands (Action 118), and management actions which benefit sage-grouse 

during fire suppression activities (Action 124). 

Changes to existing wildland fire management are not expected to directly impact occupied or potential 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat. Two hectares of dense riparian vegetation is considered the absolute 

minimum size for cuckoo occupancy, as no cuckoos have been detected successfully nesting in patches smaller 

than two hectares (Corman and Magill 2000, Halterman et al 2001). Because greater sage-grouse do not reside 

in the same habitat required by Western yellow-billed cuckoo, most of the wildland fire management actions 

intended to protect sage-grouse would not affect Western yellow-billed cuckoo or its proposed critical habitat. 

No planned surface disturbing wildland fire management actions (i.e. prescribed fire) would occur without 

proper analysis and implementation of all appropriate conservation measures in order to ensure the protection 

of the Western yellow-billed cuckoo. It is anticipated that new proposals of fire management actions would 

result. 

405 
 

 

 

 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions described in the Amendment include protocols for sage-grouse 

monitoring (Actions 1, 3, 125), development of landscape level restoration, conservation and maintenance 

strategies (Actions 8, 14, 15, 21) application of required design features (Action 10), addition of new sagegrouse habitat (Action 13), limitation of oil and gas development densities (Action 126), limitation of all 

surface disturbances to 5% per 640 acres (Action 127), mitigation protocol (Actions 5, 7, 128), prohibition of 

surface disturbing activities within 0.6 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMAs (Action 129), 

prohibition of surface disturbing activities within 0.25 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks outside 

PHMAs (Action 130), timing restrictions in breeding, nesting, and brooding PHMA (Actions 17,131, 132, 133, 

134), promote control of predators to sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat (Action 135), and implementation of 

noise restrictions (Action 136). 

Because Greater Sage-Grouse do not reside in the same habitat required by Western yellow-billed cuckoo, 

management actions intended to protect sage-grouse would not directly affect Western yellow-billed cuckoo. 

However, because the species may occur in the same geographical area, some management actions may 

inadvertently benefit Western yellow-billed cuckoo. Beneficial actions may include, limitation of oil and gas 

development densities, restrictions of surface disturbing activities, and increased mitigation protocol. Other 

management actions such as the implementation of noise restrictions (Action 135) and timing restrictions 

(Actions 17, 131, 132, 133 and 134) would have no effect on Western yellow-billed cuckoo or its proposed 

critical habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts according to the ESA, Section 7 Consultation Handbook definition (USFWS 1998a) 

include the incremental impacts of future State, or private activities (i.e., excluding federal activities), that are 

reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation. 

Existing and proposed activities on non-federal lands in the planning area that have the potential to 

cumulatively affect the species include but are not limited to the following: 

• Non-Federal oil and gas and related energy development 

• Water depletions from irrigation diversions and dams 

• Livestock grazing on private lands 

• Subdivision development along rivers 

• Recreation along rivers and river corridors (including camping, rafting, and hunting) 

• Transmission lines 

Implementation of the Amendment would not change any potential effects to Western yellow-billed cuckoo or 

its proposed critical habitat that may result from current or projected future non-Federal actions. 

7.13.2 Effects Determination 

The effects determination only addresses changes in management that would occur from the Amendment. 

Existing management conditions that would not be changed as a result of the Amendment have already been 

consulted on using agency approved methods and would not be analyzed in this document. 

Management actions included in the Amendment are largely supportive in nature, and guide or advise other 

program actions and activities in a manner conducive to maintaining and/or promoting population growth and 

habitat for the sage-grouse. Management actions included in the Amendment such as increased monitoring, 

data collection, greater coordination and review, and noise, distance, and timing restrictions, would have no 

effect on Western yellow-billed cuckoo because no surface disturbing actions would occur. Western yellowbilled cuckoo occur in dense riparian vegetation. As such, Greater Sage-Grouse actions would not occur in 

406 
 

 

w

Western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat. Although unlikely, some of the measures meant to protect sage-grouse 

may indirectly benefit Western yellow-billed cuckoo. Activities included in the Amendment are not anticipated 

to negatively affect the species. Activities conducted under the Amendment are designed to improve and 

benefit sage-grouse habitat and populations. Because no negative affects to Western yellow-billed cuckoo 

would occur and any actions which may directly benefit the species are unlikely, implementation of the 

Amendment would lead to a determination of “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” to Western 

yellow-billed cuckoo, within the Bridger Teton, Pinedale, Kemmerer and Rock Springs Field office portions 

planning area, as well as a “No destruction or adverse Modification” to proposed critical habitat in the Rock 

Springs Field Office area. Because no habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo has been identified, and 

they are not expected to occur in the Rawlins, Medicine Bow, Casper, Thunder Basin and Newcastle portions 

of the planning area, implementation of the Amendment would have “No effect” on the species in those areas. 

Table 16-Summary and Determination of Effects for the Western yellow-billed cuckoo 

407 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NLAA= May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect 

NE = No effect (No Adverse Modification for critical habitat) 

7.14 Northern Long Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) - Proposed 

The Northern long-eared bat is currently proposed for listing (78 FR 61046) with a proposed 4(d) rule (80 FR 

2371). The US Fish and Wildlife Service is accepting comments on the proposed rule through March 17, 

2015. Because it is possible that listing of this species, with or without a proposed 4(d) rule could occur within 

the timeframe for consideration of a final record of decision (ROD) for the Amendment, this BA provides 

analysis and determinations consistent with a fully listed species. This BA then documents consideration of 

any potential for effect and determines that the Amendment would have no effect on the northern long-eared 

bat. Pertinent analysis and details of rationale for no effect determinations are offered below for informational 

purposes. Because there are no anticipated effects to the northern long-eared bat from the Amendment, the 

determination as a proposed species is that the Amendment will also not jeopardize the species if it were to 

remain proposed during the decision-making process. 

7.14.1 Effects of Selected Alternative 

Lands and Realty 

Activities under the lands and realty program described in the Amendment include, management of sagegrouse PHMAs (Action 30), seasonal timing constraints (Action 31), restrictions which protect sage-grouse on 

new right-of-way corridors in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 32), designing of powerlines and guy wires 

to minimize wildlife related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC standards (Action 34, 35, 38), 

reclamation of sites (Action 35), prohibition of wind turbines in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 36), 

avoidance of MET tower supports in PHMA (Action 38), retention of PHMA (Action 40), identification of 

sage-grouse habitat in mineral right areas or conservation easement areas (Action 41), acquisition of Greater 

Sage-Grouse lands (Action 42), and consideration of non-mineral withdrawal actions to protect the species 

(Action 43). 

Lands and realty management actions included in the Amendment are not likely to occur in the habitats of the 

northern long-eared bat. Greater Sage-Grouse occur in lands dominated by large sagebrush stands, while 

northern long-eared bats utilize forested areas, caves, crevices and other roosting habitat. However, sagebrush 

dominated stands may be located adjacent to some of these habitats. Although unlikely, changes in some of the 

lands and realty management actions included in the Amendment may indirectly protect northern long-eared 

bats through land acquisitions, retentions, and reclamations. Restrictions of right-of-way corridors could also 

benefit the species by reducing habitat loss and ground disturbances in habitat occupied by northern long-eared 

bat. Road closures would reduce the number of people within northern long-eared bat habitat and likewise, 

reduce potential for human disturbance on the species and its habitat. Because these bats are vulnerable to 

human activity, reducing disturbances maintains the suitability of northern long-eared bat habitat. 

Livestock 

Livestock management actions described in the Amendment include the following: evaluation of opportunities 

to coordinate management plans and strategies under a single management plan with other agencies and stake 

holders and include sage-grouse management (Action 22), develop voluntary grazing strategies that improve 

sage-grouse populations and habitat(Action 45), adjustments to grazing management (Action 46, 139), sagegrouse habitat objectives and management would be incorporated into all grazing permit renewals (Action 48), 

progress toward achieving land health standards in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 49), management of 

voluntarily relinquished permits or preferences (Action 50), coordinate with permittees/lessees/lessees to 

develop drought contingency plans (Action 52), evaluate and modify existing range improvements to improve 

408 
 

 

 

 

 

sage-grouse habitat (Action 53), designate specific routes and timeframes for trailing which includes the 

avoidance of stopovers in sage-grouse leks (Action 54), promote balanced grazing between upland and riparian 

areas (Action 55), manage range improvements in a way that promotes sage-grouse and its habitats (Action 

56), and evaluate and modify effects on sage-grouse from spring and seep developments such as pipelines and 

structures (Action 57). 

The changes to existing livestock management are meant to provide additional protective measures for the 

greater sage-grouse. Management actions included in the Amendment would not directly occur in northern 

long-eared bat habitat. Northern long-eared bats forage mostly in forested areas, but may also utilize edge 

habitats for foraging or for commuting along open areas (Henderson and Broders 2008; Jantzen and Fenton 

2013). They roost in trees, buildings and crevices and their hibernacula include caves and mines. Actions such 

as better coordination and planning with other agencies and stakeholders including Actions 22, 45, 48, 49, 53, 

54, 56, 57) would not negatively affect or jeopardize the species because no on the ground action would take 

place. Although unlikely, other changes such as the development of a drought contingency plan (Action 52), 

and the promotion of balanced grazing (Action 55) could benefit northern long-eared bats as well as sagegrouse. Maintaining healthy conditions in upland and edge habitats will provide northern long-eared bats with 

suitable areas for foraging and roosting. 

Mineral Resources 

Minerals management actions included in the Amendment include the following: designing any new roads to 

minimize impacts in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 20), protective modifications to lease stipulations within 

sage-grouse habitat (Action 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81). Other actions include, 

proposed withdrawal recommendations of some areas of PHMA from mineral exploration (Action 79, 139), 

minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances (Action 79), prohibit strip mining near sage-grouse 

(Action 76), prohibition of geophysical operations near sage-grouse, right-of-way and vehicle limitations, 

timing restrictions during breeding season (Action 60), working with permittees/lessees to apply sage-grouse 

conservation measures, distance limitations (Action 60, 66), requiring reclamation plans (Action 69a), 

minimization of habitat fragmentation (Action 62, 67), noise reduction, and minimize impacts to related 

sensitive resources. 

Because sage-grouse do not reside in the same habitat required by the northern long-eared bat, management 

actions intended to protect sage-grouse would not jeopardize the northern long-eared bat. Although unlikely, 

some management actions may inadvertently benefit the species because they may occur in the same 

geographical area. Beneficial actions may include limitations of road developments and implementing 

measures to reduce pollutants. These actions could limit road access within northern long-eared bat habitat 

which would prevent forest clearing and construction related disturbances, thereby maintaining contiguous 

tracts of forested habitat. It is not anticipated that the management actions would negatively affect the species. 

Recreation 

Recreation management actions include BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs would be allowed in 

sage-grouse PHMA, unless negative impacts to sage-grouse cannot be adequately mitigated (Action 82). 

The issuance of BLM SRP’s and Forest Service recreation SUA’s has already been consulted on during the 

planning process of their respective land use plans. However, the change in the Amendment and the area which 

needs to be consulted would be the closing of SRP’s and SUA’s in PHMAs when negative impacts cannot be 

mitigated. The closing of any BLM SRP or Forest Service recreation SUA in PHMAs would not directly affect 

the northern long-eared bat. Although unlikely, the closing of SRP’s and SUA’s may benefit the species by 

limiting recreation activities which may adversely affect habitat or cause disturbance, such as hiking and ORV 

use. This would prevent stressing bats and dispersal of current inhabitants to other areas. 

409 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Designations 

No new special designation actions are included in the Amendment (Action 84). As such, special management 

actions would not affect the northern long-eared bat. 

Special Status Species 

Special status species management action include the collection of sage-grouse baseline data during project 

planning (Action 4), the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact PHMAs (Action 12), 

agencies will meet annually to coordinate and review sage-grouse data (Action 16), development of adaptive 

management strategies in support of the population management objectives for sage-grouse (Action 137), 

maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 sage-grouse PHMA population within the State of Wyoming (Action 

138), and all existing planning decision will be retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this plan 

amendment (Action 25). 

Actions in the special status species management program include the collection of data (Action 4), annual 

agency meetings to coordinate sage-grouse data (Action 16), and the development of adaptive management 

strategies (Action 137). Existing plans will be retained unless modified in the Amendment (Action 25). These 

actions would not have any effect on the northern long-eared bat because no surface disturbing actions would 

occur as a result of these management actions. 

Action 12, which includes the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact PHMAs, may 

indirectly benefit the species by reducing impacts to PHMAs. Although unlikely, the reduction of impacts in 

PHMAs may also indirectly benefit northern long-eared bat which may occur in adjacent habitats. 

Travel Management 

Travel management actions included in the Amendment, include restricting motorized travel to existing roads 

and trails, until route designations are made during subsequent implementation of travel management planning 

(Action 18), designate routes with priority habitat and assess existing plans for consistency with sage-grouse 

conservation objectives (Action 19), non-sand dune portions of the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area 

within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to existing roads and trails (Action 86, 87), avoidance of new 

road construction within 1.9 miles of habitat (Action 88), restricting upgrades or new road construction within 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 89), development of new roads would be constructed to the absolute 

minimum value (Action 90), natural reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in travel management 

plans within sage-grouse PHMAs, in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not 

foreseeable (Action 91), when reseeding roads and trails within sage-grouse PHMAs, appropriate seed 

mixtures would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered (Action 92). 

Travel management actions such as the minimization, reclamation, avoidance, restriction and closure of 

various roads should have no effect on the species because Greater Sage-Grouse do not typically occur in the 

same habitat as northern long-eared bat (Action 18, 86, 88, 89). The use of approved seed mixtures (Action 92) 

and implementation of travel management plans (Action 18) would likely have no effect on the northern longeared bat. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation management actions include; the application of seasonal restrictions for implementing vegetation 

management treatments and monitoring to benefit sage-grouse (Action 6); design range projects in a manner 

that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment and to monitor and treat invasive species associated 

with existing range improvements (Action 9); vegetation management would be used to control, suppress, and 

eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive species (Action 11); work with various agencies and stake 

holders to coordinate and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse population and habitat (Action 22); improvement of 

410 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vegetation composition and structure to benefit sage-grouse (Action 93, 95, 100, 107); restrict sagebrush 

activities that reduces sagebrush canopy to less than 15% (Action 94); development of recommended protocols 

and treatments to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (Action 95, 96); deferment of livestock grazing 

on vegetative treatments to improve habitat (Action 97); recommendations on vegetative treatments (Action 

98, 100, 101, 104, 105); reclamation or restoration of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats (Action 99, 

100, 101, 103, 106); the use of native seeds which are certified weed free for fuels treatments (Action 100, 102, 

103, 104); pest treatments to control Wyoming grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks in Greater SageGrouse PHMAs (Action 108). 

The use of herbicide on noxious and invasive species (Action 11), vegetation treatments (Actions 93, 94, 95, 

100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107) and pest control treatments for Wyoming grass hopper and Mormon crickets 

(Action 108) have already been consulted on in their respective Land Use plans using agency approved 

protocols. However, the changes in the Amendment would direct managers to use updated sage-grouse 

information which would benefit the sage-grouse. For example, managers can better control insect outbreaks in 

PHMAs if the PHMAs are identified. 

The changes to existing vegetation management listed are meant to provide additional protective measures for 

the Greater Sage-Grouse. As such, management actions included in the Amendment would not occur in 

northern long-eared bat habitat. Northern long-eared bats typically forage in deciduous and coniferous forests, 

roost in trees, buildings and crevices, and hibernate in caves and mines. Activities conducted under the 

vegetation management program are designed to improve and benefit Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and 

populations. The species habitat areas do not typically overlap. Therefore, activities listed under this 

management program would not adversely affect the northern long-eared bat because their habitat 

requirements differ significantly from sage-grouse. 

Wild Horses 

Wild horse management actions include incorporating rangeland improvements for wild horses in Greater 

Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Action 109), considering sage-grouse PHMAs when evaluating AML’s (Action 110), 

considering sage-grouse PHMAs when conducting land health assessments (Action 111), addressing direct and 

indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitats when conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and 

burro management activities (Action 112), and coordinating with all other resources to conduct land health 

assessments within all BLM HMAs (Action 113). 

There are no wild horse Herd Management Areas that overlap with known northern long-eared bat habitat in 

Wyoming. As a result, no impacts from wild horse management are anticipated to occur. 

Wildland Fire 

Wildland fire management actions in the Amendment include fire and fuels management which contributes to 

the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse populations (Action 26); 

additions and updates to sage-grouse Landscape Wildfire & Invasive Species Assessments, which are 

necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting sage-grouse populations which includes 

identification of annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species management as identified in local 

unit level Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments (Action 27); implementation of coordinated 

inter-agency approach to fire restrictions for sage-grouse (Action 28); utilization of fire management strategies 

and tactics to achieve sage-grouse resource objectives (Action 29); fuel treatment implementation with an 

emphasis on protecting and enhancing PHMAs (Action 114); restoring burned areas within PHMAs (Action 

115); design post fuels management projects to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native 

plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat (Action 117); avoiding treatments in areas containing old trees 

411 
 

 

 

 

 

or persistent woodlands (Action 118), and management actions which benefit sage-grouse during fire 

suppression activities (Action 124). 

The changes to existing wildland fire management listed are meant to provide additional protective measures 

for the Greater Sage-Grouse. As such, management actions included in the Amendment would not occur in 

northern long-eared bat habitat. Northern long-eared bats typically forage in deciduous and coniferous forests, 

roost in trees, buildings and crevices, and hibernate in caves and mines. Activities conducted under the 

wildland fire management program are designed to improve and benefit Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and 

populations. The species habitat areas do not typically overlap. Therefore, activities listed under this 

management program would not adversely affect the northern long-eared bat because their habitat 

requirements differ significantly from sage-grouse. 

No surface disturbing wildland fire management actions would occur without proper analysis and 

implementation of all appropriate conservation measures in order to ensure the protection of the northern longeared bat. It is anticipated that new proposals of fire management actions would result. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions described in the Amendment include; protocols for sage-grouse 

monitoring (Actions 1, 3, 125); development of landscape level restoration, conservation and maintenance 

strategies (Actions 8, 14, 15, 21); application of required design features (Action 10); addition of new sagegrouse habitat (Action 13); limitation of oil and gas development densities (Action 126); limitation of all 

surface disturbances to 5% per 640 acres (Action 127); mitigation protocol (Actions 5, 7, 128); prohibition of 

surface disturbing activities within 0.6 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMA (Action 129), 

prohibition of surface disturbing activities within 0.25 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks outside PHMA 

(Action 130); timing restrictions in breeding, nesting, and brooding PHMA (Actions 17,131, 132, 133, 134); 

promote control of predators to sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat (Action 135); and implementation of noise 

restrictions (Action 136). 

Because Greater Sage-Grouse do not reside in the same habitat required by the northern long-eared bat, 

management actions intended to protect sage-grouse would not directly affect northern long-eared bat. Other 

management actions such as the implementation of noise restrictions (Action 135) and timing restrictions 

(Actions 17, 131, 132, 133 and 134) would have no effect on northern long-eared bat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts according to the ESA, Section 7 Consultation Handbook definition (USFWS 1998a) 

include the incremental impacts of future State, or private activities (i.e., excluding federal activities), that are 

reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation. 

Existing and proposed activities on non-federal lands in the planning area that have the potential to 

cumulatively affect the species include but are not limited to the following: 

• Non-Federal oil and gas and related energy development 

• Water depletions from irrigation diversions and dams 

• Livestock grazing on private lands 

• Subdivision development along rivers 

• Recreation along rivers and river corridors (including camping, rafting, and hunting) 

• Transmission lines 

Implementation of the Amendment would not change any potential effects to northern long-eared bat that may 

result from current or projected future non-Federal actions. 

412 
 

 

 

 

7.14.2 Effects Determination 

The effects determination only addresses changes in management that would occur from the Amendment. 

Existing management conditions that would not be changed as a result of the Amendment have already been 

consulted on using agency approved methods and would not be analyzed in this document. 

Management actions included in the Amendment are largely supportive in nature, and guide or advise other 

program actions and activities in a manner conducive to maintaining and/or promoting population growth and 

habitat for the sage-grouse. Management actions included in the Amendment such as increased monitoring, 

data collection, greater coordination and review, and noise, distance, and timing restrictions, would have no 

effect on northern long-eared bat because no surface disturbing actions would occur. Northern long-eared bats 

forage in deciduous and coniferous forests, and, during the summer, typically roost singly or in colonies 

underneath bark or in cavities or crevices of both live trees and snags. They predominantly overwinter in 

hibernacula that include caves and abandoned mines. As such, Greater Sage-Grouse actions would not occur in 

northern long-eared bat habitat. Although unlikely, some of the measures meant to protect sage-grouse may 

indirectly benefit the northern long-eared bat. Activities included in the Amendment are not anticipated to 

negatively affect the species. Activities conducted under the Amendment are designed to improve and benefit 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and populations. Because no negative affects to northern long-eared bats would 

occur and any actions which may directly benefit the species are unlikely, implementation of the Amendment 

would cause “No Jeopardy” to the northern long-eared bat, within the planning area. 

Table 17-Summary and Determination of Effects for the Northern Long-Eared Bat 

413 
 

 

 

 

 

NLAA= May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect 

NE = No effect 

NJ = No Jeopardy 

7.15 Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) – Non-essential experimental 

7.15.1 Effects of Selected Alternative 

Lands and Realty 

Activities under the lands and realty program include, managing sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 30), seasonal 

timing constraints (Action 31), restrictions which protect sage-grouse on new right-of-way corridors in greater 

sage-grouse habitat (Action 32), designing of powerlines and guy wires to minimize wildlife related impacts 

and constructed to the latest APLIC standards (Action 34, 35, 38), reclamation of sites (Action 35), prohibition 

of wind turbines in sage-grouse habitat (Action 36), avoidance of MET tower supports in PHMA (Action 38), 

retention of PHMA (Action 40), identification of sage-grouse habitat in mineral right areas or conservation 

easement areas (Action 41), acquisition of greater sage-grouse lands (Action 42), and consideration of nonmineral withdrawal actions to protect the species (Action 43). 

The changes to existing lands and realty management listed are meant to provide additional protective 

measures for the Greater Sage-Grouse. Gray wolves are habitat generalists and utilize a variety of habitats but 

within Wyoming. 

Some sagebrush dominated stands may be located within habitat utilized by gray wolves. Although unlikely, 

changes in some of the lands and realty management actions may inadvertently protect the species through 

land acquisitions, retentions, and reclamations. Restrictions of right-of-way corridors could also benefit the 

species by reducing ground disturbances in habitat occupied by gray wolves. Road closures would reduce the 

number of people within gray wolf habitat and the resulting impacts on the species, prey and habitat. 

Livestock 

Many of the livestock management actions in the Amendment include habitat improvements for greater sagegrouse through the following: evaluation of opportunities to coordinate management plans and strategies under 

a single management plan with other agencies and stake holders and include sage-grouse management (Action 

22), develop voluntary grazing strategies that improve sage-grouse populations and habitat(Action 45), 

adjustments to grazing management (Action 46, 139), sage-grouse habitat objectives and management would 

be incorporated into all grazing permit renewals (Action 48), progress toward achieving land health standards 

in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 49), management of voluntarily relinquished permits or preferences (Action 

50), coordinate with permittees/lessees to develop drought contingency plans (Action 52), evaluate and modify 

existing range improvements to improve sage-grouse habitat (Action 53), designate specific routes and 

timeframes for trailing which includes the avoidance of stopovers in sage-grouse leks (Action 54), promote 

balanced grazing between upland and riparian areas (Action 55), manage range improvements in a way that 

promotes sage-grouse and its habitats (Action 56), and evaluate and modify effects on sage-grouse from spring 

and seep developments such as pipelines and structures (Action 57). 

The changes to existing livestock management are meant to provide additional protective measures for the 

Greater Sage-Grouse. Gray wolves are habitat generalists and utilize a variety of habitats but within Wyoming. 

Actions such as better coordination and planning with other agencies and stakeholders including Actions 22, 

45, 48, 49, 53, 54, 56, 57 would not affect the species because no on the ground action would take place. 

414 
 

 

 

 

 

Although unlikely, other changes such as the development of a drought contingency plan (Action 52), and the 

promotion of balanced grazing (Action 55) could benefit gray wolves as well as sage-grouse. 

Mineral Resources 

Minerals management actions described in the Amendment include the following: designing roads which 

minimize impacts in sage-grouse PHMAs (Action 20), protective modifications to lease stipulations within 

sage-grouse habitat (Action 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81). Other actions include, 

proposed withdrawal recommendations of some areas of PHMA from mineral exploration (Action 79, 139), 

minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances (Action 79), prohibit strip mining near sage-grouse 

(Action 76), prohibition of geophysical operations near sage-grouse, right-of-way and vehicle limitations, 

timing restrictions during breeding season (Action 60), working with permittees/lessees to apply sage-grouse 

conservation measures, distance limitations (Action 60, 66), requiring reclamation plans (Action 69a), 

minimization of habitat fragmentation (Action 62, 67), noise reduction, and minimize impacts to related 

sensitive resources. 

Planning measures which consider the construction of a master a plan for development or leasing when 

impacts to sage-grouse could occur (Action 66), noise, timing and distance restrictions (Action 60) and 

implementing a reclamation bond in sage-grouse areas (Action 66) would not affect gray wolves because no on 

the ground actions would take place. 

Although unlikely, because the species may occur in the same geographical area, some management actions 

may indirectly benefit the species. Beneficial actions may include limitations or exclusion of road 

developments, minimization and avoidance of surface disturbances, minimization of habitat fragmentation, and 

implementing measures to reduce pollutants. These actions could reduce overall impacts and limit road access 

within or leading to gray wolf habitat which would benefit the species. 

Recreation 

Changes to existing recreation management include BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs would be 

allowed in sage-grouse PHMA, unless negative impacts to sage-grouse cannot be adequately mitigated (Action 

82). 

The issuance of BLM SRP’s and Forest Service recreation SUA’s has already been consulted on during the 

planning process of their respective land use plans. However, the change in this document and the area which 

needs to be consulted, would be the closing of SRP’s and SUA’s in PHMAs when negative impacts cannot be 

mitigated. The closing of any BLM SRP or Forest Service Recreation SUA in PHMAs would not directly 

affect the gray wolf. Any affects to gray wolves resulting from recreation management are unlikely. 

Special Designations 

No new special designation actions are included in the Amendment (Action 84). As such, special management 

actions would not affect the gray wolf. 

Special Status Species 

Special status species management actions include the collection of sage-grouse baseline data during project 

planning (Action 4), the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact PHMAs (Action 12), 

agencies will meet annually to coordinate and review sage-grouse data (Action 16), development of adaptive 

management strategies in support of the population management objectives for sage-grouse (Action 137), 

maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 sage-grouse PHMA population within the State of Wyoming (Action 

138), and all existing planning decision will be retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this plan 

amendment (Action 25). 

415 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Actions included in the special species management program such as the collection of data (Action 4), agencies 

meeting annually to coordinate sage-grouse data (Action 16), and the development of adaptive management 

strategies (Action 137), retainment of existing plans unless modified in the Amendment (Action 25), would not 

have any effect on gray wolves because no surface disturbing action would occur. 

Action 12 which includes the modification of existing notices and plans to minimally impact PHMAs may 

indirectly benefit the species by reducing impacts to PHMAs. However, because gray wolves utilize a variety 

of habitat throughout the year and are so highly adaptable, any affects to the species are unlikely. 

Travel Management 

Travel management actions described in the Amendment include restricting motorized travel to existing roads 

and trails, until route designations are made during subsequent implementation of travel management planning 

(Action 18), designate routes with priority habitat and assess existing plans for consistency with sage-grouse 

conservation objectives (Action 19), non-sand dune portions of the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area 

within sage-grouse PHMAs would be limited to existing roads and trails (Action 86, 87), avoidance of new 

road construction within 1.9 miles of habitat (Action 88), restricting upgrades or new road construction within 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (Action 89), development of new roads would be constructed to the absolute 

minimum value (Action 90), natural reclamation of roads and trails would be allowed in travel management 

plans within sage-grouse PHMAs, in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not 

foreseeable (Action 91), when reseeding roads and trails within sage-grouse PHMAs, appropriate seed 

mixtures would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered (Action 92). 

Travel management actions such as the minimization, reclamation, avoidance, restriction and closure of 

various roads may inadvertently benefit the species (Action 18, 86, 88, 89). For example, gray wolves may be 

protected if a road restriction or closure in sage-grouse habitat blocks access to a road which leads to gray wolf 

habitat. However, because gray wolves utilize a variety of habitat throughout the year and are so highly 

adaptable, any affects to the species are unlikely. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation management actions include, the application of seasonal restrictions for implementing vegetation 

management treatments and monitoring to benefit sage-grouse (Action 6), design range projects in a manner 

that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment and to monitor and treat invasive species associated 

with existing range improvements (Action 9), vegetation management would be used to control, suppress, and 

eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive species (Action 11), work with various agencies and stake 

holders to coordinate and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse population and habitat (Action 22), improvement of 

vegetation composition and structure to benefit sage-grouse (Action 93, 95, 100, 107), restrict sagebrush 

activities that reduces sagebrush canopy to less than 15% (Action 94), development of recommended protocols 

and treatments to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (Action 95, 96), deferment of livestock grazing 

on vegetative treatments to improve habitat (Action 97), recommendations on vegetative treatments (Action 

98, 100, 101, 104, 105), reclamation or restoration of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats (Action 99, 

100, 101, 103, 106), the use of native seeds which are certified weed free for fuels treatments (Action 100, 102, 

103, 104), pest treatments to control Wyoming grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks in Greater SageGrouse PHMAs (Action 108). 

The use of herbicide on noxious and invasive species (Action 11), vegetation treatments (Actions 93, 94, 95, 

100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107) and pest control treatments for Wyoming grass hopper and Mormon crickets 

(Action 108) have already been consulted on in their respective Land Use plans using agency approved 

protocols. However, the changes in the Amendment would direct managers to use updated sage-grouse 

416 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

information which would benefit the sage-grouse. For example, managers can better control insect outbreaks in 

PHMAs if the PHMAs are identified. 

Vegetation management actions may occur in gray wolf occupied habitat. Wolves are highly adaptable and 

utilize a variety of habitats. Vegetation management actions such as season of use restrictions (Action 6), 

monitoring efforts (Action 9), and working collaboratively with various agencies (Action 22) are not expected 

to directly or indirectly impact occupied gray wolf habitat. Although unlikely, actions that minimize the 

potential for the spread of noxious and invasive weeds (Action 9), deferment of livestock (Action 97), and the 

improvement of vegetative composition (Action 93, 95, 100, 107) may inadvertently benefit gray wolves 

through improved habitat conditions. 

Wild Horses 

Wild horse management action include incorporating rangeland improvements for wild horses in Greater SageGrouse PHMAs (Action 109), consideration of sage-grouse PHMAs when evaluating AML’s (Action 110), 

considering sage-grouse PHMAs when conducting land health assessments (Action 111), addressing direct and 

indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitats when conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and 

burro management activities (Action 112), and to coordinate with all other resources to conduct land health 

assessments within all BLM HMAs (Action 113). 

Gray wolves may occur within herd management areas in the planning area. Wild horse management actions 

include measures which are meant to protect and preserve sage-grouse habitat. As a result, changes to existing 

wild horse management are not likely to affect gray wolves. 

Wildland Fire 

Wildland fire management actions described in the Amendment include, fire and fuels management which 

contributes to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse populations 

(Action 26), complete and continue to update Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire & Invasive necessary 

to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting sage-grouse populations which includes identification 

of annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species management as identified in local unit level 

Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments (Action 27), implementation of coordinated interagency approach to fire restrictions for sage-grouse (Action 28), utilization of fire management strategies and 

tactics to achieve sage-grouse resource objectives (Action 29), fuel treatments would be implemented with an 

emphasis of protecting and enhancing PHMAs (Action 114), restoring burned areas within PHMAs (Action 

115), post fuels management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pretreatment native plants to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat (Action 117), avoiding treatments in areas 

containing old trees or persistent woodlands (Action 118), and management actions to benefit sage-grouse 

during fire suppression activities (Action 124). 

Wildland fire management actions may occur in gray wolf occupied habitat. Gray wolves are highly adaptable 

and utilize a variety of habitats. Although unlikely, because the gray wolf may occur in the same geographical 

area as sage-grouse, some wildland fire management actions such as habitat restorations and post fuel 

treatments may inadvertently affect the species by altering prey distribution and associated escape cover, but 

would not jeopardize them. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions described in the Amendment include protocols for sage-grouse 

monitoring(Actions 1, 3, 125), development of landscape level restoration, conservation and maintenance 

strategies (Actions 8, 14, 15, 21) application of required design features (Action 10), addition of new sagegrouse habitat (Action 13), limitation of oil and gas development densities (Action 126), limitation of all 

417 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

surface disturbances to 5% per 640 acres (Action 127), mitigation protocol (Actions 5, 7, 128), prohibition of 

surface disturbing activities within 0.6 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMAs (Action 129), 

prohibition of surface disturbing activities within 0.25 mile radius of occupied sage-grouse leks outside 

PHMAs (Action 130), timing restrictions in breeding, nesting, and brooding PHMA (Actions 17,131, 132, 133, 

134), promote control of predators to sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat (Action 135), and implementation of 

noise restrictions (Action 136). 

Wildlife and fisheries management actions may occur in gray wolf occupied habitat. Gray wolves are highly 

adaptable and utilize a variety of habitats. Although greater sage-grouse may reside in the same habitat 

required by gray wolves, management actions intended to protect sage-grouse would not affect gray wolves. 

Although unlikely, because the species may occur in the same geographical area, some management actions 

may inadvertently benefit the species. Beneficial actions may include restrictions on oil and mineral 

developments, restrictions of surface disturbing activities, and increased mitigation protocol. No negative 

effects from wildlife and fisheries activities are anticipated. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts according to the ESA, Section 7 Consultation Handbook definition (USFWS 1998a) 

include the incremental impacts of future State, or private activities (i.e., excluding federal activities), that are 

reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation. 

Existing and proposed activities on non-federal lands in the planning area that have the potential to 

cumulatively affect the species include but are not limited to the following: 

• Non-Federal oil and gas and related energy development 

• Livestock grazing on private lands 

• Timber harvesting on private lands 

• Subdivision development 

• Recreation 

• Coal mine operations 

• Transmission lines 

• Seismic exploration 

• Bentonite and gypsum mining 

Implementation of the Amendment would not change any potential effects to the gray wolf that may result 

from current or projected future non-Federal actions. 

7.15.2 Effects Determination 

The effects determination only addresses changes in management that would occur from the Amendment. 

Existing management conditions that would not be changed as a result of the Amendment have already been 

consulted on using agency approved methods and will not be analyzed in this document. 

Management actions included in the Amendment are largely supportive in nature, and are meant to guide or 

advise other program actions and activities in a manner conducive to maintaining and/or promoting population 

growth and habitat for the sage-grouse. Management actions included in the Amendment which are specific to 

sage-grouse such as increased monitoring, data collection, greater coordination and review, and timing 

restrictions, would have no effect on the gray wolf because no surface disturbing actions would occur. 

Activities included in the Amendment are not anticipated to affect the species. Activities conducted under the 

Amendment are designed to improve and benefit sage-grouse habitat and populations. Because no negative 

affects gray wolf would occur and any actions which may directly benefit the species are unlikely, 

418 
implementation of the Amendment would cause “No Jeopardy” to the gray wolf, within the Pinedale, 

Kemmerer, Rawlins, Rock Springs and Bridger Teton field office areas. 

419 
 

Table 18-Summary and Determination of Effects for the Gray Wolf 

NLAA= May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect 

NE = No effect 

NJ = No Jeopardy 

420 
8.0 Contacts 

The following specialists provided their expertise in the creation of this document: 

•	 Chris Keefe 

Wildlife BiologistThreatened and Endangered Species Program Lead 

Fisheries Program Lead 

BLM, WY State Office 

ckeefe@blm.gov 

307-775-6101 

•	 Chris Colt 

Wildlife Biologist 

USFS, ID Team Member (NeST) 

ccolt@fs.fed.us 

208-236-7506 

•	 Mark Snyder 

Supervisory Wildlife Biologist 

BLM, Rock Springs Field Office 

msnyder@blm.gov 

307-352-0368 

421 
 

 

 

 

9.0 Literature Cited 

Adams, P.W. and H.A. Froehlich. 1981. Compaction of Forest Soils. Pacific Northwest Extension 

Publication PNW 217, Oregon, Washington and Idaho Extension Service. Corvallis, OR. 13 pp. 

Allen, R. 1952. The Whooping Crane: Research Report No. 3 of the National Audubon Society. New 

York, NY: National Audubon Society. Alsop, Fred, III. 2001. Birds of North America. DK 

Publishing, Inc. New York, NY. 

Anderson, D.G. 2006a. Eriogonum exilifolium Reveal (dropleaf buckwheat): a technical conservation 

assessment. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/eriogonumexilifolium.pdf [Jan. 13, 2013] 

Andrews, R., and R. Righter, 1992 Colorado Birds. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver CO. 

442 pp. 

Armstrong, D.; Fritz, M.; Miller, P.; Byers, O. 1997. Population and Habitat Viability Assessment 

Workshop for the Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) Final Report. Apple 

Valley, MN: Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. 

Andrle, R.F., and J.R. Carroll, eds. 1988. The atlas of breeding birds in New York State. Cornell Univ. 

Press, Ithaca, NY. 551 pp. 

Arno, S.F.; Hoff, R.J. 1989. Silvics of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-253. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 

Aubry, K.B., K.S. McKelvey, and J.P. Copeland. 2007. Geographic distribution and broad scale habitat 

relations of the wolverine in the contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 

2147-2158. 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 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. 

Baicich, P.J., and C.J. O. Harrison. 1997. A guide to the nests, eggs, and nestlings of North American 

Birds, Second Ed. Academic Press, San Diego. 347 pp. 

Bakeman, M. E. 1997. Report on habitat findings of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Presented to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 91 pp. 

Ballard, W. B., J. S. Whitman, and C. L. Gardner. 1987. Ecology of an exploited wolf population in 

south-central Alaska. Wildlife Monographs, 98, 1-54. 

Banci, V. 1994. The wolverine in British Columbia: distribution, methods of determining age and status 

of Gulo gulo vancouverensis. BC Ministries of Environment and Forests, IWIFR-15, Victoria, 

British Columbia, Canada 90 pp. 

Beckman, W.C. 1963. Guide to the fishes of Colorado. Colorado State Museum Leaflet 11:1-10. 

Bestgen, K.R. 1990. Status review of the razorback sucker, Xyrauchen texanus. Final Report of Colorado 

State University Larval Fish Laboratory to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Bestgen, K.R., G.B. Haines, R. Brunson, T. Chart, M.Trammel, R.T. Muth, G. Birchell, 

K.Christopherson, and J.M. Bundy. 2002. Status of wild razorback sucker in the Green River Basin, 

Utah and Colorado, determined from basin wide monitoring and other sampling programs. Draft 

Report of Colorado State University Larval Fish Laboratory to Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program, Denver, CO. 

422 
 

Binns, N.A. 1972. An inventory and evaluation of the game and fish resources of the upper Green River 

in relation to the current and proposed water development programs. Wyoming Water Res. Inst., 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, Compl. Rpt., Proj. No. B-002-Wyoming. 

Biological and Conservation Database. 2002. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, The Nature 

Conservancy and Nature Serve. 

Bishop, M. A. and D. R. Blankinship. 1982. Dynamics of subadult flocks of Whooping Cranes at Aransas 

National Wildlife Refuge, Texas, 1978-1981. Pages 180-189 in Proc. 1981 international crane 

workshop. (Lewis, J. C., Ed.) Natl. Audubon Soc. Tavernier, FL. 

BLM. 2001. BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 2004a. Final Statewide Programmatic Gray Wolf Biological Assessment. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office. Cheyenne, Wyoming. September 8, 

2004. 

BLM. 2004b. Statewide Programmatic Biological Assessment: Desert Yellowhead (Yermo 

xanthocephalus). U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office. June 2004. 

BLM. 2004c. BLM National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy Guidance for the Management of 

Sagebrush Plant Communities for Sage-grouse. November 2004. 

BLM. 2005a. Final Statewide Programmatic Biological Assessment: Black-footed Ferret (Mustela 

nigripes). Submitted to U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Wyoming 

State Office. Cheyenne, Wyoming. August 25, 2005. 

BLM. 2005b. Final Statewide Programmatic Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Biological Assessment. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office. July 20, 

2005. 

BLM. 2005c. Statewide Programmatic Biological Assessment: Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon 

haydenii). U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office. August 2005. 

BLM. 2006. Final Statewide Programmatic Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Biological Assessment. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office. September 30, 

2005 (Updated June 29, 2006). 

BLM. 2007. Final Report Statewide Programmatic Biological Assessment Ute Ladies�Tresses Orchid 

(Spiranthes diluvialis). U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office. October 2005 

(With Final Edits – 7 March 2007). 

Bosley, C.E. 1960. Pre-impoundment study of the Flaming Gorge Reservoir. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Commission, Fisheries Technical Report 9:1-81. 

Bowles, M.L., and A Duxbury. 1986. Report on the status of Planther leucophaea Sheviak and Bowles in 

Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Denver, Colorado. 42 pp + appendices. 

Bozek, M.A., L.J. Paulson, and J.E. Deacon. 1991. Spawning season of the razorback sucker, Xyrauchen 

texanus, in Lake Mohave, Arizona and Nevada. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 6:61-73. 

Bozek, M.A., L.J. Paulson, and J.E. Deacon. 1984. Factors affecting reproductive success of bonytail 

chubs and razorback suckers in Lake Mohave. Technical Report No. 12. Lake Mead Limnological 

Research Center, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Brownell, V.R. 1984. Status report on the prairie white fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara). A rare 

species in Canada. Unpublished report. 39pp. 

423 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Burdick, B.D. 1995. Ichthyofaunal studies of the Gunnison River, Colorado, 1992-1994, Final Report of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado, to Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program, Denver, CO. 

Caceres, M. C., and M. J. Pybus. 1997. Status of the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in 

Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report 

No. 3, Edmonton, AB. 

Callaghan, C.J. 2002. The ecology of gray wolf (Canis lupus) habitat use, survival, and persistence in the 

central Rocky Mountains of Canada. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Guelph. 

Campbell, L. 1935. Least tern taken near Toledo, Ohio. AUK 52:87. 

Carbyn, L. N. 1983. Wolf predation on elk in Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. Journal of 

Wildlife Management, 47:963-976. BA 77:74288 WR 192:33 

Carlander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology, Vol. 1. Iowa State University Press, 

Ames, IA. 

Cavalli, P.A. 1999. Fish community investigations in the lower Price River, 1996-1997. Final Report of 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery 

Program, Denver, CO 

Cavender, T.M. 1986. Review of the fossil history of North American freshwater fishes. In Zoogeography 

of North American freshwater fishes, ed. N. Ryman and F. Utter, pp.89-120. Seattle: University of 

Washington Press. 

Chart, T.E., and L. Lentsch. 1999. Flow effects on humpback chub (Gila cypha) in Westwater Canyon. 

Final Report of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish 

Recovery Program, Denver, CO. 

Chart, T.E., D.P. Svenndson, and L.D. Lentsch. 1999. Investigation of potential razorback sucker 

(Xyrauchen texanus) and Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) spawning in the lower Green 

River, 1994 and 1995. Final Report of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Denver, CO. 

Childs, M.R., R.W. Clarkson, and A.T. Robinson. 1998. Resource use by larval and early juvenile native 

fishes in the Little Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 127:620-629. 

Connelly, J.W., K.P. Reese, M.A. Schroeder. 2003. Sage-grouse habitats and populations. College of 

Natural Resources Experiment Station, Moscow, Idaho. University of Idaho. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4): 967-985. 

Connelly, J. W., W. L. Wakkinen, A. D. Apa, and K. P. Reese. 1991. Sage Grouse use of nest sites in 

southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:521-524. 

Copeland, J., K. McKelvey, K. Aubry, A. Landa, J. Persson, R. Inman, J. Krebs, E.Lofroth, H. Golden, J. 

Squires, A. Magoun, M. Schwartz, J. Wilmot, C. Copeland, R. Yates, and R. May. 2010. Does 

spring snow cover define the bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine? Canadian Journal of Zoology 

88: 233-246. 

Copeland, J. P. 1996. Biology of Wolverines in central Idaho. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Idaho, 

Moscow, ID. 178pp. 

424 
 

 

Copeland J. P., Peak J., Groves C., Melquist W., McKelvey K. S., McDaniel G. W., Long C. D., Harris C. 

E. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 71: 2201–2212 

Copeland, J.P., J.M. Peek, C.R. Groves, W.E. Melquist, K.S. McKelvey, G.W. McDaniel, C.D. Long, and 

C.- E. Harris. 1996. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central Idaho. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 71:2201–2212. 

Cope, E.D., and H.C. Yarrow. 1875. Reports upon the collections of fishes made in portions of Nevada, 

Utah, California, New Mexico, and Arizona during the years 1871, 1872, 1873, and 1874. Report of 

Geographical and Geological Explorations West of the 100th Meridian (Wheeler Survey) 5:635-703. 

Craighead, J. J., J. S. Sumner, and J. A. Mitchell. 1995. The grizzly bears of Yellowstone: Their ecology 

in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1959-1992. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA 

Creff, E.D., R.W. Clarkson, and D.K. McGuinn-Robbins. 1992. Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) 

and Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius) reintroduction and monitoring, Salt and Verde 

Rivers, Arizona, 1991-1992. Arizona Fish and Game Department, Research Branch Completion 

Report to Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered Species, Albuquerque, NM. 

Cronquist, A. 1994. Intermountain flora, Vol. 5: Asterales. Bronx: New York Botanical Garden. 496 pp. 

Dorn, Jane L. and R.D. Dorn. 1999. Wyoming Birds. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne. 

Dorn, R.D. 1990. Report on the status of Aribis pusilla, a candidate Threatened species. Prepared for the 

US Fish and Wildlife Service by Mountain West Environmental Services. 

Dorn, R.D. 1991. Yermo xanthocephalus (Asteraceae: Senecioneae): A New Genus and Species from 

Wyoming. Madrono 38(3):198-201. 

Dorn, R.D. 2001. Vascular Plants of Wyoming, third edition. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne, WY. 

Dorn, R.D. 2006. Yermo. In: Flora of North America north of Mexico. 26+ volumes. Oxford University 

Press, New York and Oxford. Vol. 20, pp. 634. 

Dowling, T.E., and B.D. DeMarais. 1993. Evolutionary significance of introgressive hybridization in 

cyprinid fishes. Nature 362:444-446. 

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’s handbook: A field guide to the natural 

history of North American birds. Simon & Schuster, New York. 

Erhlich, P. R., D. S. Doblin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in jeopardy: the imperiled and extinct birds of the 

United States and Canada, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 

California. 

Esch, K.L, Dr. G. P. Beavais, and D. A. Keinath 2005. Species Conservation Assessment for Black 

Footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) in Wyoming. Department of the Interior, Wyoming. 

Evermann, B.W. , and C. Rutter. 1895. The fishes of the Colorado Basin. U.S. Fish Commission Bulletin 

14:473-486. 

Faanes, C.A. 1983. Aspects of the nesting ecology of least terns and piping plovers in central Nebraska. 

Prairie Naturalist 15:145-154. 

Fertig, W. and G. Beauvais. 1999. “Wyoming Plant and Animal Species of Special Concern.” 

Unpublished report. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Fertig, W. 1994. Status report on G. n. ssp. coloradensis, a candidate threatened species. Unpublished 

report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, 

Laramie, WY. 58 pp, + appendices. 

425 
 

 

Fertig, W. 1995. Status Report on Yermo xanthocephalus in central Wyoming. Wyoming Natural 

Diversity Database Report to the Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office and Rawlins 

District. 46 pp. 

Fertig, W. 1996. Census of Colorado butterfly plant (G. n. ssp. coloradensis) on F.E. Warren Air Force 

Base, 1995. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Air Force by the Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database, Laramie, WY. 23 pp. 

Fertig, W. 1997. Census of Colorado butterfly plant (G. n. ssp. coloradensis) on F.E. Warren Air Force 

Base, 1996. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Air Force by the Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database, Laramie, WY. 40 pp. 

Fertig, W. 1998a. Census of Colorado butterfly plant (G. n. ssp. coloradensis) on F.E. Warren Air Force 

Base, 1997. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Air Force by the Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database, Laramie, WY. 42 pp. 

Fertig, W. 1998b. Status review of the Colorado butterfly plant (G. n. ssp. coloradensis). Unpublished 

report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, 

Laramie, WY. 26 pp. 

Fertig, W. 2000b. The Colorado Butterfly Plant: Wyoming’s Newest Threatened Plant. 

Castilleja: The Newsletter of the Wyoming Native Plant Society 19, 4:1,4. 

Fertig, W. 2001. 2000 census of Colorado butterfly plant (G. n. ssp. coloradensis) on F.E. 

Warren Air Force Base. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Air Force by the Wyoming Natural 

Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 45 pp. 

Fertig, W., C. Refsdal, and J. Whipple. 1994. Wyoming Rare Plant Field Guide. Wyoming Rare Plant 

Technical Committee, Cheyenne, WY. No pagination. 

Fertig, Walter. 2000. “Status of Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) in Wyoming.” Prepared by the 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research 

Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

Fertig, Walter. 2004. A state species abstract Boechera Pusilla Arabis pusilla, a candidate species. 

Prepared for the UD Fish and Wildlife Service by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, 

Laramie, WY. 

Finch, M.F., J.F. Kelly, and J.E. Cartron. 2000. Mitigation and Winter Ecology. Chapter 7 in D. Finch 

and S. Stoleson, eds. Status, Ecology and Conservation of the southwestern willow flycatcher. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-60. 

Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. University Press of 

Colorado, Niwot. 467 pp. 

Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1992. Mammals of Colorado. University Press of 

Colorado, Niwot. 467 pp. 

Floyd, S.K., and T.A. Ranker. 1998. Analysis of a transition matrix model for G. n. ssp. coloradensis 

(Onagraceae) reveals spatial and temporal demographic variability. International Journal of Plant 

Sciences 159 (5):853-863. 

Fritts, S.H., E.E. Bangs, J.A. Fontaine, W.G. Brewster, and J.F. Gore. 1995. Restoring wolves to the 

northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. Carbyn, L.N., S.H. Fritts, D.R. Seip (Eds.). Ecology 

and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional 

Publication 35, 107-126. Edmonton, Alberta. 

426 
 

Fuller, T. K. 1989. Population dynamics of wolves in north-central Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs, 

105, 1-41. 

Fuller, T.K., L.D. Mech, and J.F. Cochrane, 2003. Wolf Population Dynamics. In: Mech, L.D., and L. 

Boitani (eds.). Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. (Chicago: University of Chicago 

Press), Pp. 161-191. 

Geraud, M. and D.A. Keinath 2004. Species Assessment for Wyoming Toad (Bufo Baxteri) In Wyoming. 

Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Gilbert, C.H., and N.B. Scofield. 1898. Notes on the collection of fishes from the Colorado Basin in 

Arizona. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum 20:487-499. 

Ginsberg, J.R. and D.W. Macdonald. 1990. Foxes, wolves, jackals, and dogs; and action plan for the 

conservation of canids. IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group, IUCN/SSC Wolf Specialist Group. 

Cambridge, UK. 

Girard, C. 1856. Researches upon the cyprinoid fishes inhabiting the fresh waters of the United States of 

America, west of the Mississippi Valley, from specimens in the museum of the Smithsonian 

Institution. Academy of Natural Science of Philadelphia Proceedings 8:165-213. 

Gomez, G. M. 1992. Whooping Cranes in southwest Louisiana: history and human attitudes. Proc. N. 

Am. crane workshop 6:19-23. 

Gorman, O.T., and D.M. Stone. 1999. Ecology of spawning humpback chub, Gila cypha, in the Little 

Colorado River near Grand Canyon, Arizona. Environmental Biology of Fishes 55:115-133. 

Griner, L. A. 1939. A study of sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), with special reference to life 

history, habitat requirements, and numbers and distribution. M.S. thesis, Utah State Agricultural 

College. 

Gryska, A.D., and W.A. Hubert. 1997. Observations on the Reproduction, Sources of Mortality and Diet 

of the Kendall Warm Springs Dace. Great Basin Naturalist 57(4):338-342. 

Haight, R.G., D.J. Mladenoff, and A.P. Wydeven. 1998. Modeling disjunct gray wolf populations in 

semi-wild landscapes. Conservation Biology, 12:879-888. 

Hall, E. R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 1181 pp. 

Hamman, R.L. 1981. Spawning and culture of Colorado squawfish in raceways. Progressive Fish 

Culturist 43(4):173-177. 

Hamman, R.L. 1982. Spawning and culture of humpback chub. Progressive Fish-Culturist 44:213-216. 

Hamman, R.L. 1985. Induced spawning of hatchery-reared bonytail. Progressive Fish Culturist 47:239-

241. 

Hash, H. S. 1987. Wolverine. Pages 575-585 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, 

editors. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources, Ontario, Canada. 

Hayward, C.L., C. Cottam, A.M. Woodbury, and H.H. Frost. 1976. Birds of Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 

Memoirs 1: 229 pp. 

Heidel, B. 2002. Status Report on Yermo xanthocephalus in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database Report to the Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office and Rawlins District. 

24 pp. 

Heidel, B. 2005. Review Draft - Status of Boechera pusilla (small rockcress) in Wyoming. Prepared for 

the Bureau of Land Management. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 

427 
 

 

 

 

 

Heidel, B. 2012. Status of Penstemon haydenii (Blowout Penstemon) in Wyoming, 2012. Prepared for the 

Bureau of Land Management - Rawlins and Rock Springs Field Offices and Wyoming State Office. 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 

Heidel, B. 2005. 17-Year Trends And Climate Correlations Of A Short-Lived Riparian Species, G. n. ssp. 

coloradensis (Onagraceae) On F.E. Warren Air Force Base. Prepared for F.E. Warren Air Force 

Base by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (University of Wyoming), Laramie, WY. 

Heidel B. , Fertig W., Blomquist F., and Abbot T. 2008. Wyoming’s Threatened and Endangered Species: 

Colorado Butterfly Plant. Wyoming Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, WY. 

Henderson, L.E., and Broders, H.G. 2008. Movements and resource selection of the northern long-eared 

myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) in a forest-agriculture landscape. Journal of Mammalogy 4:952-963. 

Hester, S.G. and M.B. Grenier. 2005. A Conservation Plan for Bats in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department, Nongame Program, Lander, Wyoming. 

Holden, P.B. 1968. Systematic studies of the genus Gila (Cyprinidae) of the Colorado River Basin. 

Master’s Thesis. Utah State University, Logan, UT. 

Holden, P.B., P.D. Abate, J.B. Ruppert, and J.E. Heinrich. 1999a. Razorback sucker studies on Lake 

Mead, Nevada, 1996-97. Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council 29:25-26. 

Holden, P.B., and C.B. Stalnaker. 1970. Systematic studies of the cyprinid genus Gila in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin. Copeia 1970:409-420. 

Hornocker, M. G., and H. S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Can. J. 

Zool. 59: 1286-1301. 

Howe, M. A. 1989. Migration of radio-marked whooping cranes from the Aransas-Wood Buffalo 

population: patterns of habitat use, behavior, and survival. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Fish and 

Wildlife Technical Report 21. 33 pp. 

Howe, K.B., P.S. Coates, and D.J. Delehanty. 2014. Selection of anthropogenic features and vegetation 

characteristics by nesting Common Ravens in the sagebrush ecosystem. The Condor 116:35-49. 

Howell, S. N. G. and S. Webb. 1995. A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central America. 

Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK. 

Hubbs, C.L., and E.R. Kuhne. 1937. A New Fish of the Genus Apocope From a Wyoming Warm Spring. 

Occ. Papers, Museum of Zoology. University of Michigan, 343:1-21. 

Hubbs, C.L. and R.R. Miller. 1953. Hybridization in nature between the fish genera Catosotomus and 

Xyrauchen. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Arts, Science and Letters 38:207-233. 

Hughes, J.M. 1997. Taxonomic significance of host-egg mimicry by facultative brood parasites of the 

avian genus Coccyzus (Cuculidae). Canadian J. Zoology 75:1380-1386. 

Hughes, J.M. 1999. Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). The birds of North America, No. 418. 

A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 28 pp. 

Inman, R. M., R. R. Wigglesworth, K. H. Inman, M. K. Schwartz, B. L. Brock, and J. D. Rieck. 2004. 

Wolverine makes extensive movements in Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Northwest Science 78: 

261–266. 

Janssen, R.B. 1986. Least tern in Lyon County. Loon 58:48-49. 

Jantzen, M.K., and Fenton, M.B. 2013. The depth of edge influence among insectivorous bats at forest– 

field interfaces. Can. J. Zool. 91:287–292. 

428 
 

 

 

 

Jennings M, Beiswenger R, Corn PS, Parker M, Pessier A, Spencer B,Miller P, eds. 2001.Population and 

Habitat Viability Assessment for the Wyoming Toad (Bufo baxteri). Final Workshop Report. Apple 

Valley (MN): IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. 

Jimenez, M. 2004. Personal communication, telephone conversation with C. Meaney, Meaney & 

Company, 1/9/04. Mike Jimenez is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lead on the wolf recovery 

project. 

Johnson, M.J., A. Brand, H.C. English, C. Michaud, and B. Moore. 1999a. Southwestern willow catcher 

and Western yellow-billed cuckoo surveys along the Colorado River (Dewey Bridge—Canyonlands 

National Park Northern Boundary) and Green River, Utah—Canyonlands National Park boundary) 

1999. U.S. Geological Survey report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Utah Division of 

Natural Resources. 

Johnson, M.J., A. Brand, H.C. English, C. Michaud, and B. Moore. 1999b. Southwestern willow catcher 

and Western yellow-billed cuckoo surveys in the Canyonlands National Park along the Colorado and 

Green Rivers, 1999. U.S. Geological Survey report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Utah 

Division of Natural Resources. 

Kaeding, L.R., D.B. Burdick, P.A. Schrader, and C.W. McAda. 1990. Temporal and spatial relations 

between the spawning humpback chub and roundtail chub in the upper Colorado River. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society 119:135-144. 

Kaeding, L.R. and D.B. Osmundson. 1988. A report on the studies of the endangered fishes of the upper 

Colorado River as part of conservation measures for the Green Mountain and Ruedi Reservoir water 

sales. Colorado River Fisheries Project, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, CO. 

Kaeding, L.R., and M.A. Zimmerman. 1983. Life history and ecology of the humpback chub in the Little 

Colorado and Colorado Rivers of the Grand Canyon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

112:577-594. 

Karp, C.A. and H.M. Tyus. 1990. Humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the Yampa and Green Rivers, 

Dinosaur National Monument, with observations on roundtail chub (G. robusta) and other sympatric 

fishes. Great Basin Naturalist 50:257-264. 

Kauffman, K. 1996. Lives of North American Birds. Houghton Mifflin Company. New York, NY 

Kaya, C.M., P.F. Brussard, D.G. Cameron, W.R. Gould, and E.R. Vyse. 1992. Biochemical Genetics and 

Thermal Tolerances of Kendall Warm Springs Dace (Rhinichthys osculus thermalis) and Green 

River Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus yarrowi). Copeia 1992:528-535. 

Kays, R. W. and D. E. Wilson. 2002. Mammals of North America. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 

New Jersey, USA. 

Keane, Robert E.; Parsons, Russell A. 2010. Management guide to ecosystem restoration treatments: 

Whitebark pine forests of the northern Rocky Mountains, U.S.A. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-232. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 133 p. 

Keinath, D. A. and G. P. Beauvais. 2002. Wyoming Animal Element Ranking Guidelines. Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Kral, R. 1993. Pinus. Flora of North America Editorial Committee (eds.): Flora of North America North 

of Mexico, Vol. 2. Oxford University Press. 

Krebs J., Lofroth E. C., Parfitt I. 2007. Multiscale habitat use by wolverines in British Columbia, Canada. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: 2180–2192. 

429 
 

 

 

Krutzsch, P. H. 1954. North American jumping mice (genus Zapus). University of Kansas Museum of 

Natural History 7:349-472. 

Lewis, J.C. 1995. Whooping Crane. in The Birds of North America, No.153. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. 

The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and The American Ornithologist's Union, 

Washington, D.C. 

Lobeck, A.K. 1957. Physiographic diagram of the United States. The Geographic Press, Hamond, Inc., 

Maplewood, New Jersey. 8pp. 

Lofroth, E. C., Ott, P. K. 2007. Assessment of the Sustainability of Wolverine Harvest in British 

Columbia, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: 2193–2200. 

Long, C. A. 1965. The mammals of Wyoming. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History 14:349-

472. 

Lopez, B.H. 1978. Of Wolves and Men. Scribner’s Sons, NY. 

Love, J.D. 1961. Geological Survey Bulletin 112: Split Rock Formation (Miocene) and moonstone 

Formation (Pliocene) in central Wyoming. Contributions to General Geology. 1-I. United States 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Mack, J. A., W. G. Brewster, and S. H. Fritts. 1992. A review of wolf depredation on livestock and 

implications for the Yellowstone area. Wolves for Yellowstone: a report to the U.S. Congress (J. D. 

Varley and W. G. Brewster, eds). Research and Analysis, IV, 5-3 to 5-20. Yellowstone National 

Park, Wyoming. 

Maddux, H.R., L.A. Fitzpatrick, W.R. Noonan. 1993. Colorado River endangered fishes critical habitat. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Magoun, A.J., and J.P. Copeland. 1998 Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 62:13132-1320. 

Marriott, H. 1987. Status report for G. n. ssp. coloradensis. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 46 pp, + appendices. 

Marriott, H., and G. Jones. 1988. Preserve design package for a proposed Colorado butterfly plant 

research natural area on F.E. Warren Air Force Base. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Air 

Force by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 32 pp, + appendices. 

Marsh, P.C. and J.E. Brooks. 1989. Predation by ictalurid catfishes as a deterrent to reestablishment of 

hatchery-reared razorback sucker. Southwestern Naturalist 34:188-195. 

Marsh, P.C. and D.R. Langhorst. 1988. Feeding and fate of wild larval razorback sucker. Environmental 

Biology of Fishes 21:59-67. 

Marsh, P.C., M.E. Douglas, W.L. Minckley, and R.J. Timmons. 1991. Rediscovery of Colorado 

squawfish, Ptychocheilus lucius (Cyprinidae), in Wyoming. Copeia 1991:1091-1092. 

Marriot, H.J. 1986. A report on the status of Arabis pusilla, a candidate species. Prepared for the UD Fish 

and Wildlife Service by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 

Martin, N. S. 1970. Sagebrush control related to habitat and Sage Grouse occurrence. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 34:313-320. 

Matteson, M.Y. 1992. Denning ecology of wolves in northwest Montana and southern Canadian Rockies. 

M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. 

430 
 

 

 

 

Mayer, P.M. and M.P. Dryer 1988. Population biology of Piping Plovers and least terns on the Missouri 

River in North Dakota and Montana: 1988 field season report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bismarck, North Dakota. 

McAda, C.W. and R.S. Wydoski. 1980. The razorback sucker, Xyrauchen texanus, in the Upper Colorado 

River Basin, 1974-76. Technical Papers of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 99. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Meaney, C. and Dr. G.P. Beauvais. 2004. Species Assessment for Canada Lynx (Lynx Canadensis) in 

Wyoming. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management 

Mech, L.D. 1970. The wolf: the ecology and behavior of an endangered species. Doubleday/Natural 

History Press, Garden City, NY. 389 pp. 

Mech, L.D., L.G. Adams, T.J. Meier, J.W. Burch, and B.W. Dale. 1998. The wolves of Denali. University 

of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 

Mech, L.D., S.H. Fritts, and D. Wagner, 2001. Minnesota wolf dispersal to Wisconsin and Michigan. 

American Midland Naturalist, 133:368-370. 

Mech, L.. D. and Boitani, L. (2003) Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation, The University of 

Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Mehringer, P. J., Jr., S. Arno, and K. Petersen. 1977. Postglacial history of Lost Trail Pass Bog, Bitterroot 

Mountains, Montana. Arctic and Alpine Research 9(4):345-368. 

Minckley, W.L. 1983. Status of the razorback sucker, Xyrauchen texanus (Abbott), in the Lower 

Colorado River Basin. Southwestern Naturalist 28:165-187. 

Minckley, C.O. 1996. Observations on the biology of the humpback chub in the Colorado River Basin, 

1908-1990. Doctoral Dissertation. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Minckley, W.L., D.A. Hendrickson, and C.E. Bond. 1986. Geography of western North American 

freshwater fishes: description and relationships to intercontinental tectonism. Pages 519-613 in C.H. 

Hocutt and E.O. Wiley (eds.). The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. WileyInterscience, New York, NY. 

Mladenoff, D.J., T.A. Sickley, and A.P. Wydeven, 1999. Predicting gray wolf landscape recolonization: 

Logistic regression models vs. new field data. Ecological Applications, 9:37-44. 

Moseley, R.K. 1998. “Ute Ladies-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) in Idaho: 1997 Status Report.” Report 

prepared by the Idaho Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID. 

Mueller, G, and T. Burke. 2001. In Press. Survival of young razorback suckers in relation to stocking 

rates and in the presence or absence of predator communities in Lake Mohave, Arizona-Nevada. 

Proceedings of Restoring Native Fish to the Lower Colorado River, held in Las Vegas, Nevada, July 

13-4, 1999. 

Mueller, G., P.C. Marsh, G. Knowles, and T. Wolters. 2000. Distribution, movements, and habitat use of 

razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) in a lower Colorado River reservoir, Arizona-Nevada. 

Western North American Naturalist 60:180-187. 

Muth, R.T. 1990. Ontogeny and taxonomy of humpback chub, bonytail, and roundtail chub larvae and 

early juveniles. Doctoral Dissertation. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 

NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life [web application]. Version 

7.1. Available online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: December 19, 2013. 

Arlington, Virginia. 

431 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Nagorsen, D. W., and R. M. Brigham. 1993. The Mammals of British Columbia. 1. Bats. Royal British 

Columbia Museum, Victoria, and the University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. pp. 164 

Nesbitt, S. A. 1982. The past, present, and future of the Whooping Crane in Florida. Pages 151-154 in 

Proc. 1981 internatl. crane workshop. (Lewis, J. C., Ed.) Natl. Audubon Soc. Tavernier, FL. 

Northwest Nevada Sage Grouse Working Group. 2002. Enhancing sage grouse habitat: A Nevada 

landowners guide. National Wildlife Federation, Reno, NV. 

Novak M., Obbard M. E., Jones J. G., Newman R., Booth A., Satterthwaite A. J., Linscombe G. 1987. 

Furbearer harvests in North America 1600–1984. Supplement in Novak M., Baker J. A., Obbard M. 

E., Malloch B. Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry 

of Natural Resources. Toronto, Canada. 

Nowak, R. 1983. A perspective on the taxonomy of wolves in North America. Wolves in Canada and 

Alaska: their status, biology, and management (L.N. Carbyn, ed.). Canadian Wildlife Service Report 

Series, 45, 10-19. 

Ono, R.D., J.D. Williams, and A. Wagner. 1983. Vanishing fishes of North America. Stone Wall Press, 

Washington, D.C. 

Osmundson, D.B. and K.P. Burnham. 1998. Status and trends of the endangered Colorado squawfish in 

the upper Colorado River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 127:957-970. 

Osmundson, D.B., and L.R. Kaeding. 1989. Studies of the Colorado squawfish and razorback sucker use 

of the “15-Mile Reach” of the upper Colorado River as part of conservation measures for the Green 

Mountain and Ruedi Reservoir water sales. Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado 

River Fishery Project, Grand Junction, CO. 

Osmundson, D.B., and L.R. Kaeding. 1991. Recommendations for flows in the 15-Mile reach during 

October – June for maintenance and enhancement of endangered fish populations in the upper 

Colorado River. Final Report of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado, to Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Denver, CO. 

Osmundson, D.B., R.J. Ryel, and T.E. Mourning. 1997. Growth and survival of Colorado squawfish in 

the upper Colorado River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 126:687-698. 

Owen, S. F., M. A. Menzel, W. M. Ford, B. R. Chapman, K. V. Miller, J. W. Edwards, and P. B. Wood. 

2003. Home-range size and habitat used by the Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis). American 

Midland Naturalist 150(2):352-359. 

Packard, J.M. (2003) Chapter 2: Wolf Behavior: Reproductive, Social and Intelligent. In Paquet, P.C. and 

L.N. Carbyn. 2003. Gray wolves. In: G. Feldhamer and B. Thompson (eds). Mammals of North 

America. Revised 2nd edition. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. pp. 482-510. 

Papoulias, D., and W.L. Minckley. 1990. Food limited survival of larval razorback sucker, Xyrauchen 

texanus, in the laboratory. Environmental Biology of Fishes 29:73-78. 

Paquet, P.C., J.A. Vucetich, M.K. Phillips, L.M. Vucetich. 2001. Mexican wolf recovery: three year 

program review and assessment. Prepared by the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG), 

Apple Valley, Minnesota for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 86pp. 

Paquet, P.C., and L.N. Carbyn. 2003. Gray wolf. In Wild mammals of North America: Biology, 

management, and conservation (G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, eds.), pp. 482 

510. Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Parker J. 2000. Habitat use and movements of the Wyoming toad, Bufo baxteri: A study of wild juvenile, 

adult, and released captive-raised toads. Master’s thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 

432 
Pasitschniak-Arts, M. 1993. Ursus arctos. Mammalian Species, 439:1-10. 

Patterson, R. L. 1952. The Sage Grouse in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and Sage 

Books, Inc., Denver, Colorado. 308 pages. 

Peterson, J. G. 1970. The food habits and summer distribution of juvenile sage grouse in central Montana. 

J. Wildl. Manage. 34:147-155. 

Peterson, R.T. and V.M. Peterson. 1990. A field guide to western birds, 3rd ed. Houghton Mifflin, 

Boston. 432 pp. 

Phillips, A.R. 1948. Geographic variation in Empidonax traillii. Auk 65:507-514. 

Pletscher, D.H., R.R. Ream, D.K. Boyd, M.W. Fairchild, K.E. Kunkel. 1997. Population dynamics of a 

recolonizing wolf population. Journal of Wildlife Management, 61, 459-465. 

Predator Conservation Alliance. 2001. Predator Conservation Alliance's Literature Summary. 

Conservation Status and Needs of the Wolverine (Gulo gulo). Draft report, January 24, 2001. 29 pp. 

Pulliainen, E. 1968. Breeding biology of the wolverine (Gulo gulo L).) in Finland. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 5: 

338-344. 

Ream, R.R. and I.U. Mattson 1982. Wolf status in the northern Rockies. Wolves of the world: 

perspectives on behavior, ecology, and management (F.H. Harrington and P.C. Pacquet, eds.), pp. 

362-381. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey. 

Ream, R.R., W. Fairchild, D.K. Boyd, and A.J. Blakesley. 1989. First wolf den in western United States 

in recent history. Northwestern Naturalist, 70, 39-40. 

Ream, R.R., W. Fairchild, D.K. Boyd, and D.H. Pletscher. 1991. Population dynamics and home range 

changes in a colonizing wolf population. In The greater Yellowstone area: redefining America’s 

wilderness heritage (R.B. Keiter and M.S. Boyce, eds.), pp. 349-366. Yale Univ. Press. New Haven, 

Connecticut. 

Reeves, Julie. 2014. Personal Communication. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Wyoming Field Office. Cheyenne, Wyoming. May 

29, 2014 

Robbins, J. 1986. Wolves across the border. Natural History, June, 6-15. 

Ruggiero, L.F. et al. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, 

lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO:USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p. 

Ruggiero, L. F., McKelvey, K. S., Aubry, K. B., Copeland, J. P., Pletscher, D.H., Hornocker, M.G. 2007. 

Wolverine Conservation and Management. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: 2145–2146. 

Rumancik, Jr. J.P. 1987. Population survey of the interior least tern on the Mississippi River from Cape 

Girardeau, Missouri to Greenville, Mississippi, 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis 

District, Memphis Tennessee. 

Rumancik, Jr. J.P. 1988. Population survey of the interior least tern on the Mississippi River from Cape 

Girardeau, Missouri to Greenville, Mississippi, 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis 

District, Memphis Tennessee. 

Ryon, T. R. 1999. Travel distance and movement patterns of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius preblei) at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. Journal of ColoradoWyoming Academy of Science 31:12 

433 
 

 

 

Samson, F., F. Knopf, and W. Ostlie. 1999. Grasslands. In Status and Trends of the Nation’s Biological 

Resources. United States Geological Survey. 

Sather, N. 1991. “Western prairie fringed orchid: a threatened Midwestern prairie plant.” Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul. 14 pages. 

Schneegas, E. R. 1967. Sage-grouse and sagebrush control. Transactions North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resource Conference 32:270-274. 

Schorr, R. A. and R. Davies. 2001. Grey flesh fly (Wohlfahrtia vigil) parasitism of a meadow jumping 

mouse. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. In review. 

Schultz, R.K. and W.C. Leininger. 1990. Differences in Riparian Vegetation Structure Between Grazed 

Areas and Exclosures. J. of Range Manage. 43:295-299. 

Shubert, A. 2013. Personal communication regarding observations of the Northern Long-Eared Bat in the 

Buffalo Planning Area. November 25, 2013. 

Schwartz, C.C., M.A. Haroldson, K.A.Gunther, and D. Moody. 2002. Distribution of grizzly bears in the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1990-2000. Ursus, 13:203-212. 

Servheen, C. 1999. Status and management of the grizzly bear in the lower 48 United States. Pages 5054 

in C. Servheen, S. Herrero, B. Peyton, comps. Bears: Status survey and conservation action plan. 

IUCN/SSC Bear and Polar Specialist Groups, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. 

Shenk, T. M. and J. T. Eussen. 1998. Habitat use and distribution of Preble=s meadow jumping mouse 

(Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Larimer and Weld counties, Colorado. Unpublished report of the 

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 25 pp. + Figures. 

Shenk, T. M. and M. M. Sivert. 1999. Movement patterns of Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius preblei) as they vary across time and space. Unpublished report of the Colorado Division 

of Wildlife. 27 pp. + figures. 

Sogge, M.K., R.M. Marshall, S.J. Sferra, and T.J. Tibbitts. 1997. A southwestern willow flycatcher 

natural history summary and survey protocol. Technical Report. NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-97/12. 

Slater, S.J. and J.P. Smith. 2010. Effectiveness of raptor perch deterrents on an electrical transmission 

line in southwestern Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(5):1080-1088.Smith, K.L. and 

R.B. Renken. 1990. Improving the status of endangered species in Missouri:least tern investigations. 

Final report, Jobs 1 and 2, Missouri Department of Conservation endangered species project. 

Smith, D. W., D. R. Stahler, E. Albers, R. McIntyre, M. Metz, K. Cassidy, J. Irving, R. Raymond, H. 

Zaranek, C. Anton, and N. Bowersock. 2010. Yellowstone Wolf Project: Annual Report, 2009. 

National Park Service, Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, 

USA. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team, Technical Subgroup. 2002. Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) Final Recovery Plan. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 

U.S. DOI. BLM.2002 Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Statewide Programmatic Biological 

Assessment for Whooping Cranes (Grus Americana) 

U.S. DOI. BLM.2004. Species Assessment for Wyoming Toad ( Bufo baxteri) In Wyoming. 

U.S. DOI. BLM. 2005. Final Statewide Programmatic Canada Lynx (Lynx Canadensis) Biological 

Assessment. 

U.S. DOI. BLM.2004 Final Statewide Programmatic Gray Wolf Biological Assessment. 

434 
 

U.S. DOI. BLM 2005. Species Conservation Assessment for Black Footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) In 

Wyoming. 

U.S. DOI. BLM 2004. Species Assessment for Canada Lynx (Lynx Canadensis) in Wyoming. 

U.S. DOI. BLM 2004. Species Assessment for Grey Wolf (Canis Lupus) in Wyoming. 

U.S. DOI. BLM 2004. Species Assessment for the Whooping Crane (Grus Americana) In Wyoming. 

U.S. DOI. BLM 2005, Updated 2006. Final Statewide Programmatic Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) 

Biological Assessment. 

U.S. DOI. BLM 2005. Biological Assessment for the Wyoming Toad (Bufo baxteri) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination that 

Bufo hemiophrys baxteri (Wyoming toad) is an endangered species. Federal Register 49 (11): 1992– 

1994. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. Final rule to classify the Wyoming toad as endangered. 

Federal Register 49:01992-01994. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Whooping Crane Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. vi + 283 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Humpback chub recovery plan, 2nd revision. Report of Colorado 

River Fishes Recovery Team to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, CO. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991.Wyoming Toad Recovery Plan. Denver (CO): US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 6. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992, Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) Recovery Plan. Region 

6, Denver Colorado. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. Missoula, Montana. 181pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. The reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park 

and central Idaho: Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, 

CO. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. “Ute Ladies-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Recovery Plan.” U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 46 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Proposed habitat division line between subspecies. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Razorback sucker recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region 6, Denver, CO. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Proposal to reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of 

endangered and threatened wildlife in portions of the conterminous United States. Federal Register, 

65(135), 43449-43496. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Annual Narrative Report. Calendar Year 2001. Arapahoe 

National Wildlife Refuge. Bamforth, Hutton Lake, Mortenson Lake, and Pathfinder National 

Wildlife Refuges administered from Walden, Colorado. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Southwestern willow flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. Prepared by Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team Technical Subgroup. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. Prepared by Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team Technical 

Subgroup. 

435 
 

 

 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Recovery Goals: 

amendment and supplement to the Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, CO. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002c. Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Recovery Goals: 

amendment and supplement to the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, CO. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002d. Bonytail (Gila elegans) Recovery Goals: amendment and 

supplement to the Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie 

Region (6), Denver, CO. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002e. Humpback chub (Gila cypha) Recovery Goals: amendment and 

supplement to the Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie 

Region (6), Denver, CO. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002f. Utah Field office guidelines for raptor protection from human and 

land use disturbances. January 2002 update. Salt Lake City, UT. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse Recovery Plan, Colorado. 

Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado. XX pages. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, and USDA Wildlife 

Services, 2004. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2003 Annual Report. Meier, T. (ed.). USFWS, 

Ecological Services, Helena, Montana. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Kendall Warm Springs Dace (Rhinichthys osculus thermalis) Five 

year Review and Summary Evaluation. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012a. Black-footed Ferret. Web. 04 Sep 2012. 

<http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/blackfootedferret/>. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012b. Species Profile for Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). Web. 

20 Sep 2012. <http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action ?spcode=A004>. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 

Designation of Critical Habitat for contiguous United State Distinct Population Segment of the 

Canada Lynx, Proposed Rule. Federal Register 70:216 (November 9, 2005) p. 68297. Available 

from: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr4469.pdf. Accessed:9/20/12. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012d. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the 

Gray Wolf in Wyoming From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Removal 

of the Wyoming Wolf Population's Status as an Experimental Population, Final Rule. Federal 

Register 77:175 (September 10, 2012) p. 55535. Available from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2012-09-10/pdf/2012-21988.pdf. Accessed:9/20/12. 

USFWS. 2013a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List 

the Eastern Small-Footed Bat and the Northern Long-Eared bat as Endangered or Threatened 

Species; Listing the Northern Long-Eared Bat as an Endangered Species. 78 FR 61045. 36 pages. 

October 2, 2013. 

USFWS. 2013b. Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Species: Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis). Wyoming Ecological Services. Available online: 

http://www.fws.gov/wyominges/Pages/Species/Species_Listed/NLEBat.html. Accessed 

December 1, 2013. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Northern Long-Eared Bat Interim Conference and Planning 

Guidance. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 67 pages. January 6, 2014. 

436 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Forest Service. 1997. Kendall Warm Springs Bridge Construction Report. Unpublished report by 

K.A. Nelson completed May 30, 1997. 5 pp. 

Van Houten, F.B. 1964. Tertiary Geology of the Beaver Rim Area Fremont and Natrona Counties, 

Wyoming: Geological Survey Bulletin 1164. United States Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C. 

Wallestad, R., and D. Pyrah. 1974. Movement and nesting of Sage Grouse hens in central Montana. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 38:630-633. 

Weaver, J.L., P.C. Pacquet, , and L.F. Ruggiero. 1996. Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in 

the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology, 10, 964-976. 

Wildlife Service. Colorado River Fishery Project, Final Report, Part 2: Field Investigations. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Wilson, D. E. 1982. Wolverine. Pages 644-652 (in )J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer eds. Wild 

mammals of North America. Biology, management, and economics. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. 

Wilson, D. E. and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, USA. 

Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 1963. A study of meadow jumping mouse, Zapus hudsonicus (Zimmerman), in central 

New York. Ecological Monographs 33:215-254. 

Wright, H.A. and A.W. Bailey. 1980. Fire ecology and prescribed burning in the Great Plains – a research 

review. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-77. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wildlife Division. 1997. Atlas of birds, mammals, reptiles, and 

amphibians in Wyoming. Produced by the Biological Services Section, Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, Non Game Program, Lander, WY, November 1997. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2003. Final Wyoming Gray wolf Management Plan. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department. WY. 40 pp. 

WGFD. 2011. Threatened, Endangered, and Nongame Bird and Mammal Investigations Annual Report. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 29 pages. Lander, Wyoming. August 

Valdez, R.A. P. Mangan, M. McInerny, R.B. Smith. 1982b. Fishery investigations of the Gunnison and 

Dolores rivers. Pages 321-365 in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Colorado River Fishery Project, 

Final Report, Part 2: Field Investigations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Valdez, R.A., and G.C. Clemmer. 1982. Life history and prospects for recovery of the humpback chub 

and bonytail chub. Pages 109-119 in W.H. Miller, H.M.Tyus, and C.A. Carlson (eds.). Fishes of the 

Upper Colorado River system: present and future. Western Division, American Fisheries Society, 

Bethesda, MD. 

Valdez, R.A., P.B. Holden, and T.B. Hardy. 1990. Habitat suitability index curves for humpback chub of 

the Upper Colorado River Basin. Rivers 1:31-42. 

Valdez, R.A., W.J. Masslich, and A. Wasowicz. 1992. Dolores River native fish habitat suitability study. 

Final Report, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Valdez, R.A., and R.J. Ryel. 1995. Life history and ecology of the humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the 

Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Final Report of Bio/West, Inc., Logan, Utah, to U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Valdez, R.A., and R.J. Ryel. 1997. Life history and ecology of the humpback chub in the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Pages 3-31 in C.vanRiper III and E.T. Deschler (eds.). Proceedings of 

437 
 

the Third Biennial Conference of Research on the Colorado Plateau. National Park Service 

Transactions and Proceedings 97/12. 

Valdez, R.A., and R.D. Williams. 1993. Ichthyofauna of the Colorado and Green rivers in Canyonlands 

National Park, Utah. Proceedings of the First Biennial Conference on Research in Colorado Plateau 

National Parks. National Park Service, Transactions and Proceedings Series 1993:2-22. 

Valdez, R.A., and S.W. Carothers. 1998. The aquatic ecosystem of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. 

Final Report of SWCA, Inc., Flagstaff, Arizona, to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Region, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Wilson, D.E. and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, DC. 

Young, S.P. and E.R. Goldman. 1944. The wolves of North America. American Wildlife Institute. 

Washington, D.C. 

Zeveloff, S.I. 1950. Mammals of the Intermountain West. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT 

438 
From: Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish an 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Subject: Section 7 Consultation ti he Wyoming Greater Sage-grouse 9-Plan Land Use 

Plan Amendment and Final Impact Statement (9-Plan Amendment) 

439 

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Ecological Services 

5353 Yellowstone Road, Suite 308A 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009 

JUN I 7 2015 

In Reply Refer To: 

06E l 3000-20 lO-I-0327 

To: Acting State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

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

memorandum of concurrence in response to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) request for consultation for the impacts from the Wyoming 

Greater Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Impact Statement (9-Plan 

Amendment) (BLM and USFS 201 Sb) (Proposed Action) to federally listed species in Wyoming 

in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your March 27, 2015, request for informal programmatic consultation was 

received in our office on April 9, 2015. Your memo requested our concurrence with numerous 

"not likely to adversely affect" determinations; concurrence with "no jeopardy" determinations 

for non-essential, experimental populations; and concurrence with a "no destruction or adverse 

modification" determination for proposed critical habitat. 

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

blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and its designated 

critical habitat, Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis) and its 

designated critical habitat, desert yellowhead (Yermo xanthocephalus) and its designated critical 

habitat, gray wolf(Canis lupus), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), Kendall warm springs 

dace (Rhinichthys osculus thermalis), northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), Preble's 

meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudrnnius preblei), Ute ladies'-tresses orchid (Spiranthes 

diluvialis), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), Wyoming toad (Bufo 

[Anaxyrus] baxteri) and Colorado River and Platte River downstream listed species and their 

designated critical habitats from all new actions associated with the 9-Plan Amendment as 

described in Appendix I of the Biological Assessment (BA) (BLM and USFS 2015a). 

Concurrence Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
440 

The 9-Plan Amendment covers the planning areas for the Wyoming BLM Casper, Kemmerer, 

Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices and the USFS Bridger-Teton 

National Forest, Medicine Bow National Forest, and the Thunder Basin National Grasslands 

Planning Units, including all public land and Federal mineral estate managed by the BLM and 

the USFS within these areas. These planning areas encompass approximately 16 million acres of 

public surface land administered by the BLM and USFS and approximately 23 million acres of 

Federal mineral estate in Albany, Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont, Goshen, 

Laramie, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Platte, Sublette, Sweetwater, Teton, Uinta, and Weston 

Counties in Wyoming. Of the 23 million acres of Federal mineral estate, approximately 

7 million acres are split-estate. 

Land Use Plans (LUPs) are used by the BLM and the USFS to guide and control future actions 

and set standards upon which future decisions on site-specific activities are based. A LUP only 

estahlishes general management policy and is not used to make decisions that commit resources. 

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

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

achieve desired outcomes, often referred to as LUP decisions or resource allocations. The 9-Plan 

Amendment modifies some of these decisions and resource allocations of the BLM and USFS in 

their LUPs in Wyoming; therefore, it is only on the modifications of these decisions or resource 

allocations upon which our evaluations of the effects determinations are based. Furthermore, the 

BLM and USFS are still obligated to conduct section 7 consultation at the project-specific level 

for all BLM- or USFS-authorized activities that "may affect" a listed species. 

In the 9-Plan Amendment BA, the BLM and lJSFS made "not likely to adversely affect 

(NLAA)" determinations, "no jeopardy" determinations, and a "no destruction or adverse 

modification" determination for the effect of some modifications of management actions on 

listed species and critical habitats in the LUP areas of Wyoming. These are displayed in Table 1 

by species and LUP. For specific details concerning the effects determinations for each program 

within each LUP area, please see the 9-Plan Amendment BA (BLM and USFS 2015b). 

Furthermore, the BLM and USFS also determined that many of the management actions within 

the BA would have "no effect (NE)" to listed species. These determinations are summarized, by 

planning area, in Table 1. Summarization involved identifying and presenting the highest level 

category of potential effects for each species for each planning area. For specific detailed effects 

determinations made by the BLM or FS for each program, within each planning area, see the BA 

(BLM and USFS 2015a). The ESA does not require the Service to concur with "no effect" 

determinations; however, we appreciate receiving the information used to support your 

conclusions. 

2 
441 
442 

Gray Wolf and lJlack-footed Ferret. The Service concurs with your determination that activities 

described in the BLM and USFS's 9-Plan Amendment will not jeopardize the continued 

existence of the gray wolf in Wyoming or the black-footed ferret in the Shirley Basin area of 

Wyoming. This determination is based on the fact that the gray wolves and black-footed ferrets 

located in these areas are designated as non-essential, experimental populations. By definition, 

any effects to non-essential, experimental populations of any species will not jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. Furthermore, the change in management actions in the LUPs 

as a result of the 9-Plan Amendment are expected to increase protection for the greater sagegrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). This increased protection and reduction in disturbance to 

sagebrush ecosystems could result in increased protection for gray wolves or black-footed ferrets 

resulting in situations where the actions could result in beneficial effects to these species. 

Blowout Penstemon, Grizzly Bear, Northern Long-eared Bat, Preble 's Meadow Jumping Mouse, 

Ute ladies '-tresses, and Western population of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo. The BA evaluated 

effects of the Proposed Action to the blowout penstemon, grizzly bear, northern long-eared bat, 

Preble's meadow jumping mouse, Ute ladies' -tresses, and the western distinct population 

segment (DPS) of the yellow-billed cuckoo and determined that the effects were "not likely to 

adversely affect" these species. The Service concurs with your determinations that activities 

described in the Proposed Action will not likely adversely affect these species. The effects of the 

9-Plan Amendment are expected to be insignificant, discountable, or wholly beneficial to these 

species. The change in management actions in the LUPs as a result of the 9-Plan Amendment 

are expected to increase protection for the greater sage-grouse. This increased protection and 

reduction in disturbance to sagebrush ecosystems could result in increased protection for the 

above-listed species resulting in situations where the actions could result in beneficial effects to 

these species. 

Proposed Critical Habitat/or the Western DPS of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Pursuant to the 

requirements of 7(a)(4) of the ESA and CFR 402.10, the BLM assessed the effects of their 

Proposed Action and made a no destruction or adverse modification determination for the 

Proposed Action. Though Director (Service) concurrence is not required by 7(a)(4) or CFR 

402.10, the inclusion of the determination in your BA creates a need under CFR 402. l 2(k) for 

the Service's concurrence with your determination. After reviewing your BA, we concur with 

your determination that the Proposed Action will not cause adverse modification or destruction 

of proposed critical habitat for the western DPS of the yellow-billed cuckoo; pursuant to 

language at CFR 402.12(k), a conference is not required. 

This concludes consultation and provides our concurrence with your determinations for proposed 

critical habitat and non-essential, experimental populations pursuant to the regulations 

implementing the ESA. BLM and USFS activities related to the 9-Plan Amendment in 

Wyoming should be re-analyzed if new information reveals effects of the activities that may 

affect listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat in a manner or to an 

extent not considered in this consultation; if the activities are subsequently modified in a manner 

that causes an effect to a listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat that 

was not considered in this consultation; and/or, if a new species is listed or critical habitat is 

designated that may be affected by these activities. 

4 
443 

Thank you for your assistance in the conservation of endangered, threatened, and candidate 

species. In future communications concerning this memorandum please refer to consultation 

number 06E13000-2010-1-0327. If we may be of further assistance, please contact Alex 

Schubert of my staff at (307) 772-2374, extension 238. 

cc: BLM, Endangered Species Coordinator, State Office, Cheyenne, WY (C. Keefe) 

(ckeefe@wyo.gov) 

FWS, Endangered Species, Lakewood, CO (B. Fahey) (Bridget_Fahey@fws.gov) 

WGFD, Statewide Nongame Bird and Mammal Program Supervisor, Lander, WY 

(Z. Walker)(zack.walker@wyo.gov) 

WGFD, Statewide Habitat Protection Coordinator, Cheyenne, WY (M. Flanderka) 

(mary.flanderka@wyo.gov) 

WGFD, Habitat Protection Secretary, Cheyenne, WY (N. Stange) 

(nancy.stange@wyo.gov) 

5 
444 

REFERENCES 

United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS). 

201Sa. Biological Assessment for the Wyoming Greater Sage-grouse Proposed Land Use 

Plan Amendment and Final Impact Statement. U.S. Bureau of Land Management and 

U.S. Forest Service. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

United States Bureau of Land Management and United States Forest Service. 201Sb. Wyoming 

Greater Sage-grouse Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Impact Statement. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

6