Draft Biological Assessment and Evaluation for Proposed Land and Resource Management Plans

Home , Atriplex argentea, Carex formosa, Eriogonum visheri, John Kirk Townsend, Leucocrinum, Melilotus officinalis

DRAFT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS

DAKOTA PRAIRIE GRASSLANDS NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS THUNDER BASIN NATIONAL GRASSLAND

Prepared By: Kurt Hansen, Range Management Specialist Geri Morris, Botanist Susan Rinehart, Botanist Kathy Rodriguez, Wildlife Biologist Greg Schenbeck, Wildlife Biologist

Preliminary Determinations Made By: Kurt Hansen (Plants) Susan Rinehart (Plants) Greg Schenbeck (Animals)

Table of Contents

Section 1. Introduction ...... H-1 Area Affected ...... H-2 Biological Assessment and Evaluation Process ...... H-3 Pre-field Review ...... H-3 Field Reconnaissance ...... H-3 Analysis of Effects...... H-4 Preliminary Determinations ...... H-5 Section 2. Biological Assessment for Species Protected Under the Endangered Species Act and at Risk of Rangewide Imperilment ...... H-7 Species Eliminated From Further Analysis ...... H-7 Species Evaluations ...... H-8 Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) ...... H-8 Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) ...... H-11 Ute ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) ...... H-16 American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) ...... H-18 Whooping Crane (Grus americana) ...... H-22 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ...... H-25 American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinis anatum) ...... H-27 Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) ...... H-30 Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) ...... H-43 Section 3 - Biological Evaluation for Species that May be at Risk of Rangewide Imperilment but are Not Protected Under the Endangered Species Act ...... H-48 Species Eliminated From Further Analysis ...... H-48 Species Evaluations ...... H-48 Dakota Buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri) ...... H-48 Smooth Goosefoot (Chenopodium subglabrum) ...... H-51 Barr Orphaca (Astragulus barii) ...... H-57 Dakota Skipper (Hesperia dacotae) ...... H-60 Eastern Skipperling (Oarisma powesheik) ...... H-64 Regal Fritillary (Spyeria idalia) ...... H-68 Sturgeon Chub (Macrohybopsis gelida) ...... H-71 Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) ...... H-74 Section 4. Biological Evaluation for Species that may be at Risk of Regional or More Local Imperilment ...... H-78 Species Eliminated from Further Analysis ...... H-78 Species Descriptions for Fine Filter Analyses ...... H-85 Sand Lily (Leucocrinum montanum)...... H-85 Upright Pinweed (Lechea stricta) ...... H-89 Handsome Sedge (Carex formosa) ...... H-93 Tawny Crescent Butterfly (Phyciodes batesii) ...... H-97 Prairie Skipper (Hesperia ottoe) ...... H-100 Flathead Chub (Platygobio gracilis) ...... H-102 Longnose Sucker (Catastomus catastomus) ...... H-105 Plains Topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus)...... H-108 Table of Contents, cont. Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) ...... H-110 Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) ...... H-113 Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) ...... H-118 California Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) ...... H-122 Merlin (Falco columbarius) ...... H-125 Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)...... H-128 Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)...... H-131 Greater Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus)...... H-135 Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni)...... H-144 Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) ...... H-146 Coarse Filter Analyses ...... H-149 Animals ...... H-149 Grasslands ...... H-149 Riparian Habitats ...... H-152 Wetlands ...... H-154 Coarse Filter Analyses ...... H-156 Plants...... H-156 Eastern Prairie Boggy Wetlands...... H-156 Tallgrass Prairie Wetlands ...... H-166 Tallgrass Prairie Deciduous Hardwoods ...... H-172 Tallgrass Prairie Choppy Sandhills ...... H-177 Western Plains Riparian ...... H-182 Scoria Hills ...... H-187 Buttes ...... H-191 Western Wooded Draw...... H-199 References...... H-200 Index ...... H-213

List of Tables

Table H-1: Distribution of Plant and Animal Species that are Protected Under the Endangered Species Act and at Risk of Extinction Throughout Their Range...... H-7 Table H-2: Plant and Animal Species at Possible Risk of Extinction ...... H-48 Table H-3: Distribution of Plant and Animal Species of Concern Possibly at Risk of Regional/Local Imperilment...... H-79 Appendix H - Draft Biological Assessment and Evaluation

Section 1. Introduction Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) provide long-term management direction and land allocation for National Forest System (NFS) lands. Federal regulation requires that these plans be revised on a 10- to 15-year cycle. To respond to this regulatory requirement, revisions of the Land and Resource Management Plans for eight National Grasslands and two National Forests on the northern Great Plains have been prepared. Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) mandates that "all federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act." Section 5 of the ESA directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish and implement a program to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants, including Federally listed species. Section 7 of the act directs all federal departments and agencies to ensure that their actions do not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats. It also requires all federal departments and agencies to consult with the Secretary of Interior or Secretary of Commerce (marine species only) whenever an authorized action is likely to affect a listed or proposed species and/or its critical habitat. The biological assessment portion of this specialist report is the internal process used by the Forest Service to determine if its proposed actions, LRMP alternatives in this case, jeopardize any ESA-listed or proposed species and if consultation with the Secretary of Interior is necessary. It is also the policy of the Forest Service (FSM 2670.32) to avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern. Viability concerns have been identified for a large number of Great Plains plant and animal species that are not currently protected under the ESA. The biological evaluation portion of this specialist report discloses the predicted effects of several LRMP alternatives on those species. The preliminary analyses and results presented in this report were conducted primarily by Forest Service biologists and botanists and represent the preliminary biological findings of the Forest Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will review these biological findings for those species protected under the ESA. The list of federally threatened, endangered, and proposed species in the planning area that are protected under the ESA was recently confirmed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All the biological determinations made in this report should be considered preliminary and are subject to change between the issuance of the draft and final EIS and revised management plans. Additional information on population trends, area requirements, and habitat of many of these species will be considered and additional analyses completed for some of the species. Additional peer review by species specialists is also anticipated. The biological assessment and evaluation to be completed for the final EIS is also

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-1 intended to be dynamic and will be amended with additional analyses, if necessary, when any of the following occur: • A LRMP is amended or revised. • Additional species are brought under the protection of the Endangered Species Act. • Additional species are identified as sensitive by the Forest Service.

Area Affected This is a combined planning effort for the following NFS lands: Dakota Prairie Grasslands Little Missouri National Grassland (LMNG) Sheyenne National Grassland (SNG) Grand River and Cedar River National Grasslands (GRCRNG) Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) Oglala National Grassland (ONG) Fort Pierre National Grassland (FPNG) Buffalo Gap National Grassland (BGNG) Nebraska National Forest Nebraska National Forest (NNF) Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest (SRMNF) These NFS lands (and waters) encompass nearly three million acres, widely scattered over four states within the Northern Great Plains. The planning area encompasses 250 million acres of the Northern Great Plains within the states of Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Although these public lands are only two percent of the Northern Great Plains, they are important for the ecological roles, products, and recreational and educational opportunities they provide. These unique units of the National Forest System incur demands for livestock grazing, recreation, oil, gas, and mineral production and are recognized as significant contributors to the livelihoods and life-styles of citizens. They are also recognized as an important ecological resource and as significant contributors to wildlife habitat and biological diversity on the Great Plains. The Great Plains, once the continent’s largest ecosystem and the one most characteristic of the United States, is considered by some to be the most changed and fragmented. These National Grasslands and Forests are important components of the remaining prairie. Recent surveys estimate that 1-4% of the tall grass prairie, 25-35% of mixed grass prairie, and 50-60% of the short grass prairie remain, with the rest lost to urbanization, cultivation, and other factors (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). Much of the remaining grasslands and shrublands are being invaded by exotic vegetation.

H-2 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Biological Assessment and Evaluation Process Pre-field Review Three lists of plant and animal species were developed. The first list is presented in Table H-1 and includes those species currently protected under the Endangered Species Act and at risk of extinction throughout their range (rangewide imperilment). The second list (Table H-2, in Section 3) includes those species that are candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act or ranked by The Nature Conservancy as a G-2 (imperiled) or G-3 (vulnerable) species. These species may also be at risk of rangewide imperilment. The third and final list is shown in Table H3 and includes species that may be at risk of regional or more local imperilment. Many of the species included in Tables H-2 and H-3 are considered sensitive by Region 1 and/or 2 of the Forest Service. To provide consistency across the planning area, a species listed as sensitive in one of the Regions but not the other is considered sensitive across the entire planning area. This is not required by regulations or Forest Service policy but is intended to reduce confusion and to help enhance conservation of the species. Distribution by individual National Grassland and Forest is also presented for each species in Tables H-1, H-2, and H-3. Numerous information sources were consulted or contacted during the development of these lists including but not limited to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, state wildlife agencies, Forest Service records, Natural Heritage Program databases, other government agency lists, species lists of various conservation organizations, species specialists, and published and unpublished scientific references. Many of the published references summarized museum records. The Northern Great Plains committee of scientists also reviewed these lists for accuracy and completeness. Information on the habitat needs and ecological requirements of each species in the planning area was consulted. Considerable information was available for some species; information was minimal for others. Where available, information on the distribution of a species within an individual National Grassland or Forest was considered. Species specialists were also consulted or may be contacted in the near future during completion of the biological assessment and evaluation for the final EIS and LRMPs.

Field Reconnaissance Surveys and inventories for listed species like the black-footed ferret, bald eagle, American burying beetle, blowout penstemon, and western prairie fringed orchid have been conducted for many years by various individuals, organizations, and government agencies including but not limited to the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, universities, and state wildlife and natural resource agencies. Incidental sightings of species like the bald eagle, whooping crane and peregrine falcon have also been recorded. Additional surveys and inventories have been conducted by the Forest Service and/or others for other species such as swift fox, sturgeon chub, mountain plover, greater prairie chicken, sage grouse, California bighorn sheep, western burrowing owl, Regal fritillary butterfly, and Dakota buckwheat. Many of these additional surveys focused primarily on candidate species and species designated as sensitive by the Forest Service. Surveys of black-tailed prairie dog colonies have also been conducted by the Forest Service.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-3 Information gathered from these surveys, inventories, and observations was used to help describe species distributions, habitat use, and habitat suitability. The information was also critical in helping determine potential effects from implementation of each of the alternatives.

Analysis of Effects The potential effects of each LRMP alternative and the mix of land allocations and uses authorized by each alternative on each imperiled species are disclosed in this document. These evaluations include direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on each species. Interrelated and interdependent actions are also identified. The number of plant and animal species listed in Tables H1, H2 and H3 is relatively large. To reduce the amount of unnecessary analyses, any species listed in the tables that meet one or more of following criteria (screens) was eliminated from further detailed analyses: • Screen 1 - (Importance of Area) Occurrence of species is questionable or incidental and the amount of suitable or potential habitat on or near the National Grassland or Forest is negligible. • Screen 2 - (Risk) The species or potential habitat for the species may occur, but it’s highly unlikely that land uses and allocations authorized by the Forest Service would significantly affect the species and/or its habitat either on NFS lands or downstream. • Screen 3 - (Lack of Information) There is insufficient information for evaluating the effects of authorized land uses and land allocations on habitat availability and suitability for the species. Determinations for these species are simply unknown. Those species eliminated from further detailed analyses are listed near the beginning of Chapters 2, 3, and 4. Effects on species at risk and species of concern from the following direction and actions were considered in this biological assessment and evaluation: Livestock grazing Capability and suitability Range developments (fencing and water developments)

Rangeland vegetation management Desired rangeland composition Desired rangeland structure Fire management

Forest vegetation management Timber suitability Desired forest structure Fire and fuels management Timber management

Plant and animal damage control Prairie dog poisoning Noxious weed spraying Grasshopper spraying

Fish and wildlife management Reintroductions Prairie dog management

H-4 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Recreation management Shooting Human disturbance Travel and motorized use

Special area designation Wilderness and recommended for wilderness Research Natural Areas Recommended wild/scenic river Special Interest Areas

Oil and gas leasing Land ownership adjustment

Effects analyses were conducted using information and data gathered in the pre-field review and field reconnaissance, in conjunction with information from both published and unpublished references, species specialists, and experienced Forest Service biologists and botanists. Effects were analyzed using a fine filter approach (Hunter et al. 1998) for each individual species listed in Tables H-1 and H-2 and most species in Table H3. Effects analyses for some of the species in Table H-3 were conducted using a coarse filter approach (Hunter et al. 1998) involving an evaluation of the predicted quality and quantity of major habitats across each NFS unit and then determining if adequate representation of each habitat occurs under each alternative. This approach also involves grouping species that generally occur in similar habitats and/or have similar life requirements. The species groups included in the coarse filter analyses were those most influenced by vegetation management and not by other activities and allocations authorized in LRMPs. It’s likely that some of the species evaluated in this document with a coarse filter analysis will be evaluated using a fine filter approach between the issuance of the draft and final EIS and management plans.

Preliminary Determinations This draft biological assessment and evaluation process culminates with a preliminary determination of the likely effects of each planning alternative on each species or species group. The preliminary determinations and not the natural history information in this document are intended to be the focus of this report. The primary purpose was not to reiterate and document the complete life histories of each species but to document the determinations and the most relevant information supporting each determination. The types of determinations that can be made for those species protected under ESA are provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (1998). The determinations (and abbreviations) made for federally listed and proposed species are as follows: • No effect (NE). • Is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA). • Is likely to adversely affect (LAA). • Is likely to jeopardize proposed species/adversely modify proposed critical habitat (LJ). The determination options presented above apply to the possible impacts of each planning alternative on the range-wide status and recovery of federally listed or proposed species.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-5 Direction in Forest Service Manual 2670 establishes the types of determinations for Forest Service-designated sensitive species. The determinations (and abbreviations) made for these species is as follows: • No impact (NI). • Beneficial impact (BI). • May adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide (MAII). • Likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide (LRLV). The determination options presented above for sensitive plant and animal species relate primarily to the impacts of the alternatives on the viability of sensitive species populations on each National Grassland and Forest within the planning area. The determination option for each species or species group is chosen after considering the likely effects or impacts of human activity, direct mortality risks, and habitat conditions (quality, quantity, and distribution) under each alternative. All preliminary determinations assume that the conservation measures and mitigation specified in the EIS or LRMPs will be implemented in a timely manner or evaluated at the site-specific project level and implemented if biologically appropriate. Otherwise, the probability that some of the preliminary determinations made in this biological assessment are inaccurate will likely increase. All conservation measures and mitigation actions identified in the revised LRMPs and that respond in some way to the conservation needs of each species or species group are coded and listed. An index listing the chapter and section in the proposed LRMP where the conservation measures or mitigation are described is attached at the end of this report. Specific biological determinations are not made for those species in Tables H2 and H3 that are not designated as sensitive by the Forest Service. However, the general effects by alternative are presented for each of these species.

H-6 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Section 2. Biological Assessment for Species Protected Under the Endangered Species Act and at Risk of Rangewide Imperilment

Table H-1: Distribution of Plant and Animal Species in the Planning Area that are Protected Under the Endangered Species Act and at Risk of Extinction Throughout Their Range. National Grassland or Forest NNF NNF Species LMNG GRCRNG SNG TBNG BGNG FPNG ONG SRMNF PRRD BRD Blowout N N penstemon W prairie fringed K N N orchid Ute ladies’-tresses N U U American burying N K U beetle Whooping crane K S K K U N OS OS Bald eagle K K K K K K K K K K Peregrine falcon K S S K K K K K S S Black-footed ferret U U U K U U U Mountain plover U U K U U Topeka shiner N N K = Known occurrence in vicinity; date of last observation suggests that the species still occurs in area, S = Suspected occurrence; may be historic records but no recent observations; suitable habitat likely, U = Unknown occurrence; more surveys may be needed; may be historic records; potential habitat possible, N = No recent observations; surveys recently completed; may be historic records; potential habitat possible, OS = Off-site occurrence (downstream, etc.)

Species Eliminated From Further Analysis Screens 1 and 2 • Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests = Topeka Shiner (Notropis topeka) Screen 1 • Buffalo Gap National Grassland = Ute Ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) • Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests = Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) • Fort Pierre National Grassland = American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus)

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-7 Species Evaluations Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) Species Description Blowout penstemon is a perennial forb of the figwort family that buds in early May and flowers from mid-May through late June. Seed capsules dehisc in late July or August. Seeds fall near the base of the plant or become windborn. However, most reproduction occurs by rhizomes, and seedlings are rare (Stubbendieck et al. 1983 and 1984, Stubbendieck and Weedon 1984). The stems of this plant root adventitiously, thus maintaining the plant in shifting sands of blowouts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). References that were also consulted for additional information on this species included Stubbendieck et al. (1989) and The Great Plains Flora Association (1986). The Great Plains National Grasslands web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/nebraska/gpng) was also consulted.

Distribution Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. To date, blowout penstemon has not been found during surveys on the Nebraska or Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests. One population occurs on state school lands next to the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest. The species is endemic to the Nebraska Sandhills, and natural occurring populations are now restricted to 7 areas in this region. Reintroductions have occurred at 6 additional areas. The Great Plains National Grasslands web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/nebraska/gpng) was consulted for maps and information on the current distribution of the species. The plant is now being propagated in greenhouses to safeguard the species and to provide stock for transplants back into suitable sites (Flessner and Stubbendieck 1989).

ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings ESA -Endangered; TNC/NHP - G1, N1; NE - Endangered

Habitat The species was once a common plant in active sandhill blowouts. Blowout penstemon requires sites that are devoid or nearly devoid of vegetation, sites usually created by active wind erosion. It is a successional plant, colonizing blowouts just after the sand begins to stabilize (Flessner and Stubbendieck 1989). The species declines with vegetation recovery. Historically, repeated fires and bison grazing were believed to maintain active blowouts for this species. Blowout penstemon is usually found on the leeward side of craters within blowouts. These blowouts should not be confused with areas around windmills where livestock congregate and cause active wind erosion. Suitable blowouts are generally active and move across the landscape.

H-8 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Recovery and Conservation Planning A recovery plan was approved in 1992 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). According to the plan, this species will be considered for delisting when a minimum of 15,000 individuals is established in at least 10 population groups. Each population group must have at least 300 plants. Current population estimates indicate that there are approximately 2,200 plants concentrated in 7 naturally occurring population groups and another 8,000 additional plants in 4 reintroduced population groups. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.

Direct and Indirect Effects Since there are no known blowout penstemon populations on NFS lands, there are no potential direct effects from authorized activities or allocations. Range management and fire suppression can contribute to stabilization and increased vegetation cover on the sandhills, thereby reducing the number and size of suitable blowouts for reintroduction and establishment of new populations of this species. Heavy livestock grazing intensity can promote blowouts and thereby increase the amount of suitable habitat for the species. There is evidence that grazing of blowout penstemon plants by livestock can be detrimental to populations in pastures that are grazed season-long in the summer by livestock (Fritz 1998). Shorter duration grazing did not demonstrate any significant effect on flowering plants. The investigator suggested that higher stocking rates could have altered the results of the study. The success of future transplants could be threatened by an ever-increasing use of blowouts by off-road and all-terrain vehicles, especially on the Nebraska National Forest near Halsey. This use could cause direct mortality of recent transplants or established plants.

Cumulative Effects Range management practices on private lands in the Nebraska Sandhills can affect habitat suitability for blowout penstemon. At this time, there is no reason to expect significant changes in overall range conditions and trend across the sandhills. Active fire suppression has occurred for decades and can be expected to continue, so we cannot anticipate any significant changes in penstemon habitat due to larger and more frequent wildfires. The amount of suitable habitat for blowout penstemon is expected to remain relatively stable, albeit at restricted or reduced levels.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a grazing permit. This facilitates use of livestock grazing to enhance habitat for blowout penstemon.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-9 Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in the proposed LRMPs: Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8 SG-F(2,30), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units GA1-A1, GA2-A1 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units TABLE 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Appendices Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Restore ecological processes in selected areas if needed to initiate or maintain blowouts. b. Restrict off-road vehicle access within blowouts that support blowout penstemon populations. c. Prevent drift of herbicides into known penstemon populations. d. Initiate transplanting into suitable blowouts to establish, and maintain 2 new populations of blowout penstemon, one each on the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests (possible geographic area direction).

H-10 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternative 1 NNF (BRD) and SRMNF Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." There are no known blowout penstemon populations on the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests, but it is likely that there is suitable habitat for transplants. Since the Forest Service, under this alternative, does not lay out general guidance or an explicit course of action that would result in or lead to transplants, a "likely to adversely affect" determination could have been concluded. However, there are probably enough sites elsewhere in the sandhills to meet and exceed recovery objectives, so it is doubtful that this lack of specific direction and action by the Forest Service would adversely affect recovery of the species.

Alternatives 2-5 NNF (BRD) and SRMNF Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Although there are no known populations on the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests, it is likely that there is suitable habitat for transplants. Under these alternatives, direction to establish new blowout penstemon populations on both of these areas represents a "beneficial effect" and a significant contribution towards the recovery program for this species. It is recognized that additional site-specific environmental analysis and public involvement may be required. It is assumed that once the amount of suitable habitat on each National Forest has been determined and prioritized, the Forest Service will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning compatibility with other authorized activities and the location and amount of land to be made available for establishing new populations.

Consultation and Reviews John Sidle, USFS TES Coordinator, Great Plains National Grasslands

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) Species Description Western prairie fringed orchid is a perennial forb, although most plants live 3 years or less (Sieg and King 1995). This species reproduces primarily by seed, with flowering occurring between late June and mid-July and seed dispersal (wind and water) occurring in mid-September on the Sheyenne National Grassland. Flowering patterns are often erratic, and the plant commonly undergoes periods of dormancy (Bowles 1983). The species is self-compatible, but pollination is required for fruit and seed production (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Two species of hawkmoths have been identified as pollen vectors for the orchid on the National Grassland (Cuthrell and Rider 1993). Seed production is greatest during high precipitation years; during droughts, many plants remain vegetative.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-11 The national recovery plan for this species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996) was consulted as a primary reference for additional information on this species.

Distribution Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Known populations of the species on NFS lands within the planning area are found only on the Sheyenne National Grass- land. Small isolated populations are found on the Valentine National Wildlife Refuge near the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests, but the species was not found on either NFS unit during recent surveys. Suitable habitat has also not been identified on either National Forest. Surveys for the species on the Sheyenne National Grassland by Forest Service personnel and others are ongoing. Natural Heritage Program records for species occurrence on the National Grassland were also consulted. The orchid population on the Sheyenne National Grassland is one of three remaining large metapopulations of this species. The other two metapopulations occur in Minnesota and Manitoba, Canada. Populations of this species are known from 173 sites in 6 states (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota) as well as from Manitoba (Minnesota Natural Heritage Program 1995).

ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings ESA - Threatened; TNC/NHP - G2.

Habitat This species is associated with sedge meadows primarily within the tallgrass prairie biome. It occurs in the hummocky sandhills habitat association (Manske 1980) on the Sheyenne National Grassland. Across its range, the species is generally found in fire and grazing adapted grassland communities, most often on unplowed calcareous prairies and sedge meadows (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). It has also been documented in successional plant communities on disturbed sites. Maintenance of functional, dynamic tallgrass prairie is key to survival of the species. Distur- bances such as fire, flooding, and grazing occurred historically and may be important for orchid regeneration. Precipitation and flooding events on the Sheyenne National Grassland influence extinctions and recovery of local orchid populations (Sieg and King 1995). The web site (http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/sheyenne/sheyenne.htm) was also reviewed for additional information on this species and its habitat.

Recovery and Conservation Planning A recovery plan was approved in 1996 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Since the species is listed as a threatened species rather than an endangered species, and most of the existing plants occur on lands in a protective ownership, the recovery plan emphasizes the need for actions that prevent further declines in orchid populations and habitat quality. The recovery strategy

H-12 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation focuses on protecting the habitat of the remaining populations from conversion to agricultural use and assuring that the frequency, timing, and intensity of management practices enhance or maintain orchid populations. According to the recovery plan, the species will be considered for delisting when sites that include occupied habitat harboring 90 percent of the plants in each ecoregion are protected on public lands or at higher levels of protection. A recovery strategy entitled "Management Guidelines for the Western Prairie Fringed Orchid on the Sheyenne National Grassland" was prepared by the Forest Service and others in 1999 (Appendix N). The current draft of the guidelines is available for review on the Great Plains National Grasslands web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/nebraska/gpng). These guidelines are specific and relate to numerous types of authorized uses and management practices on the Sheyenne National Grassland. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.

Direct and Indirect Effects Burning, livestock grazing, and mowing can have positive or negative effects on western prairie fringed orchid populations, depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of the activity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Burning may directly impact orchids through mortality of individual plants and indirectly through effects on habitat. It has been suggested that flowering may be suppressed by litter accumulation and stimulated by fire (Bowles 1983, Bowles and Duxbury 1986). Livestock may impact orchids directly through both grazing and trampling and indirectly through effects on orchid habitat. The influence of livestock grazing on orchid populations is related to when and how many times the grazing occurs, how long livestock are left in the pasture, and the stocking rates and is interconnected with other management activities (such as burning and mowing) and climatic conditions. Grazing systems that encourage heavy repeated grazing throughout the growing season are more likely to be detrimental to individual orchids, both in terms of reducing carbohydrate reserves and in preventing seed production. Livestock grazing may also negatively impact alternate plant hosts for orchid pollinators. Yet, some grazing may be important for regeneration by reducing competition from other vegetation. Repeated mowing prevents orchids from completing their life cycle and reduces carbohydrate reserves needed for growth the following season. The potential impacts of grasshopper spraying on insect pollinator populations is unknown. A serious threat to orchid viability and recovery is the increase of invasive exotic species like leafy spurge. Leafy spurge reduces the quality of orchid habitat but at the same time, efforts to control spurge and other exotics with chemicals pose a direct threat to orchids and may also impact alternate host plants for orchid pollinators. Any activities or authorized uses that lower water tables below the root zone of orchids have the potential of seriously reducing orchid populations.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-13 Cumulative Effects Most orchid habitat on private lands has already been destroyed or highly altered, and most of these lands will remain unsuitable or poor quality for orchids. The decline of habitat on private lands can be expected to continue as agricultural uses intensify. Water use and management conflicts and issues in the vicinity of the National Grassland can also be expected to intensify, and additional impacts to orchid populations on the National Grassland are possible if water tables are lowered through water management practices on and off the National Grassland.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a grazing agreement. Although there is some scientific uncertainty about the relationship between livestock grazing and orchids, it’s unreasonable to discount possible beneficial and adverse effects from livestock grazing on this threatened species on public land. Wilderness designations resulting from wilderness proposals could reduce opportunities for actively managing habitats for this species.

H-14 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix N (LRMP) for orchid management direction See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Thunder Basin N.G. NA

Specific management guidelines for livestock grazing, mowing, noxious weed control, revegeta- tion, burning, travel, construction, water management, and other activities and uses are presented in the 1999 management guidelines document (Appendix N in Dakota Prairie LRMP). A standard in the LRMP for this unit specifies that the management guidelines document will be consulted in authorizing activities and other management practices. It is recommended that the orchid direction currently presented in Appendix N be moved forward as standards and guidelines under geographic area direction in the final LRMP. It’s recommended that the following conservation measure be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction in the LRMP for the Nebraska National Forest: a. In consultation and coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, evaluate opportunities for establishing orchid populations on the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests and implement if suitable habitat exists.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-5 SNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." This determination is based on the assumption that the latest guidelines (10/9/98 or later) would be amended to the existing LRMP or included in the revised LRMP for this National Grassland. These guidelines would serve as state-of-the- art knowledge on how best to conserve the species on the Sheyenne National Grassland. As part of an LRMP amendment process, ESA consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would also help the Forest Service implement reasonable and prudent alternatives and conservation recommendations to protect and conserve orchid populations on the Sheyenne National Grassland. This determination is based solely on effects of Forest Service-authorized activities on the orchid. Other factors mostly or partly beyond the control of the Forest Service, such as the continued spread of leafy spurge and other exotic vegetation and the lowering of the water table, continue to be serious threats to the species on the Sheyenne National Grassland.

Consultation and Reviews Dr. Carolyn Hull Sieg, Research Scientist, U.S. Forest Service

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-15 Ute ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)

Species Description Ute ladies’ tresses is a perennial forb in the orchid family. It was first described as a species in 1994. It generally blooms from late July through August but, depending on location and climatic conditions, may bloom in early July or still be in flower as late as early October (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). Its seeds are very small and require specific symbiotic association with mycorrhizal fungi for germination (Arditti 1992). Like other orchid species, some plants may germinate and remain underground in a saprophytic state for many years before emerging. After emerging, individual plants may survive annual periods of dormancy and bloom only rarely. Reproduction appears to be strictly sexual, with bumble bees (Bombus spp.) as the primary pollinators (Dresler 1981, Sheviak 1984, Sipes et al. 1993). The draft recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995) for this species was a primary source of information for this species.

Distribution Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Recent surveys (1998) for the species on the Thunder Basin National Grassland were negative, but some areas may support the species or suitable habitat. This species is not known to occur on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland. The presence of potential or suitable habitat on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland is questionable. It is presently found in 26 locations in Wyoming and Nebraska, with additional sites in Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. A total of 32 populations are known to occur across this area.

ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings ESA - Threatened; TNC/NHP - G2

Habitat This species inhabits moist soils in mesic or wet meadows, gravel bars, wet streambanks, and old oxbows between elevations of 4,300 to 7,000 feet (Stone 1993). Jennings (1990) and Coyner (1989, 1990) observed that the orchid seems to require "permanent sub-irrigation," indicating a close affinity with floodplain areas where the water table is near the surface throughout the growing season and into the late summer or early autumn. This orchid colonizes early successional riparian habitats subject to seasonal flooding from snowmelt and intermittent heavy thunderstorms. It is not tolerant of long-term standing water and emergent vegetation development.

H-16 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Recovery and Conservation Planning A draft recovery plan for this species was prepared in 1995. This draft does not include population and habitat recovery goals and delisting criteria. The recovery plan direction focuses on restoring natural stream dynamics (hydrologic patterns). Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.

Direct and Indirect Effects It is assumed that livestock grazing could have beneficial or adverse effects on the species depending on stocking rates and grazing intensities, timing and duration. The potential impact of grasshopper spraying on insect pollinator populations is unknown. Oil, gas and mineral development could destroy populations or suitable habitat.

Cumulative Effects Unknown

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development. Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.

Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in the proposed LRMPs:

Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. None Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. None Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. None

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-17 Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. None Appendices Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. None Direction That Varies by Action Alternative Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. None

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1 - 5 TBNG Determination is "no effect" since the species has not been found on the this unit nor has potential habitat been identified. Surveys have been conducted but one additional area may need to be surveyed in the future. If the species is eventually found on the National Grassland, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be consulted to help insure that reasonable and prudent alternatives and conservation recommendations are implemented to protect and conserve the species on the National Grassland.

Consultation and Reviews

American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus)

Species Description These beetles are the largest carrion beetles in the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). These insects require carrion up to 10 ounces in size for reproduction (Lomolino et al. 1995, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). A chamber is excavated and the carrion is buried. Eggs are deposited with the food source and, remarkable for insects, the female cares for the young (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Without an adequate source of food for the young, successful reproduction cannot take place. This species plays an important ecological role in nutrient recycling and decomposition. The recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991) was a primary reference for additional information on this species.

H-18 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Distribution Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Professional entomologists have conducted surveys for the species on the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests and on the Fort Pierre National Grassland. Observations of a few individual beetles are confirmed on the Nebraska National Forest near Halsey and on the nearby Valentine National Wildlife Refuge. The species to date has not been found on the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest or on the Fort Pierre National Grassland. Forest Service maps of occurrence locations were consulted. This beetle was formerly distributed throughout temperate eastern North America and west as far as the Missouri River watershed in central Montana (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Its historic range has been reduced more than 90 percent and is currently limited to disjunct populations in Rhode Island, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Arkansas, and South Dakota (Ratcliff and Jameson 1992). Historically, documented distribution in South Dakota was limited to a few counties in the eastern part of the state and Haakon County. Recently (1995) live specimens were caught in Gregory and Tripp counties in the southcentral portion of South Dakota (Douglas Backlund, pers. comm., as found in Black Hills National Forest LRMP Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation). No known records, historical or contemporary, exist for Wyoming. Populations also exist in the Platte River Valley in west-central Nebraska (Raithel 1999) and the Nebraska Sandhills.

ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings ESA - Endangered; TNC/NHP - G2; NE - Endangered.

Habitat Existing populations inhabit a wide variety of habitats including maritime scrub plant communities in the Northeast; deciduous and coniferous communities on slopes and ridge-tops, deciduous riparian forest, and valley-bottom pastures in the South; and prairies with few trees in the Upper Midwest (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). They have also been founded in and near emergent vegetation around wetlands in the Nebraska Sandhills (Len McDaniels, pers. comm.). Their broad geographic range may indicate that vegetation structure and soil types are not constraining to the populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Common attributes identified in the Recovery Plan include level topography, well-drained soils, and a well-formed detritus layer (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Beetles found in South Dakota and Nebraska were associated with sandy soils, which conforms to other areas of the midwest.

Recovery and Conservation Planning A Recovery Plan was approved in 1991. The plan recommends protection and management of occupied habitat, captive propagation, inventory for other populations, and the re- establishment of two additional self-sustaining populations (one in the west), with a minimum of 500 individuals, as estimated by capture rates and blacklight inventories.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-19 Direct and Indirect Effects Two factors have been proposed as causal agents in the precipitous population declines in this species. First, is the reduction of the beetle’s optimum size prey, especially the young of passenger pigeons (Ecopistes migratorius) and greater prairie chickens (Tympanuchus cupido). These may have been the most important prey, but declines in the other birds and animals may have also contributed to the decline. Second, fragmentation of vast natural habitats (e.g. Eastern deciduous forest, Midwest prairies) has altered historic environments (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). In prairie states, increases in habitat edge has resulted in increases in vertebrate scavengers like raccoon (Procyon lotor) and skunk (Mephitis mephitis) that may compete with beetles for food. Grasshopper spraying could also cause beetle mortality.

Cumulative Effects None

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions None

H-20 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Appendices Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation measure should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Through ongoing and more intensive surveys, determine the extent of this species on the Bessey Ranger District. The goal for this species is to have populations on both the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests, and if necessary, consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on opportunities to initiate new populations on one or both of these planning units.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternative 1 NNF (BRD) AND SRMNF Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Beetles could be trampled by permitted livestock, recreational horses, and vehicles, but given their rarity, this is considered a "discountable effect." Under existing LRMP direction, grassland habitat improvements on these areas should help stabilize or increase populations of prairie grouse and other ground-nesting birds, which may be important food sources for the beetles. This is considered a possible "beneficial effect."

Alternative 2 NNF (BRD) AND SRMNF Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Beetles could be trampled by permitted livestock, recreational horses, and vehicles, but given their rarity this is considered a "discountable effect." Grasshopper spraying by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has never occurred on these units, but if spraying was proposed in the future, APHIS would have to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of ESA to mitigate any adverse effects to the burying beetle. The Forest Service could consider authorizing the insecticide application only after consultation has been successfully completed by APHIS.

Alternatives 3-5 NNF (BRD) AND SRMNF Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Beetles could be trampled by permitted livestock, recreational horses, and vehicles, but given their rarity this is considered a "discountable effect."

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-21 Under these alternatives, grassland habitat improvements on these areas should help stabilize or increase populations of prairie grouse and other ground-nesting birds, which may be important food sources for the beetles. This is considered a possible "beneficial effect." Grasshopper spraying by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has never occurred on these units, but if spraying was proposed in the future, APHIS would have to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of ESA to mitigate any adverse effects to the burying beetle. The Forest Service could consider authorizing the insecticide application only after consultation has been successfully completed by APHIS.

Consultation and Reviews

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

Species Description This is one of the rarest and largest North American birds. Whooping cranes are omnivorous feeders and seem to easily adjust to whatever suitable plant and animal foods they encounter during migration (EA Engineering, Science and Technology 1986, Armbruster 1990). The latest draft of the recovery plan for this species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994) and Lewis (1995) were two of the primary references consulted for additional information on this species.

Distribution Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Incidental use in the form of occasional foraging and roosting stops on or near several of the National Grasslands is uncommon and has to be considered incidental. Whooping cranes occur as rare spring and fall migrants in the planning area. Spring migration through the planning area generally occurs sometime from late March through early May, while fall migration can be expected sometime from early September through the first week in November. Standard surveys for the species on NFS lands are conducted since their occurrence is so sporadic and incidental. Forest Service maps of occurrence locations were consulted. There are two principle whooping crane populations in the wild (Whooping Crane Recovery Plan 1993). The population that migrates through portions of the planning area is known as the Aransas/Wood Buffalo population. These birds (approximately 120 in the population) winter in coastal Texas and nest in Canada (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). The second population is thought to have fewer than 12 members. These birds are referred to as the Rocky Mountain population. They migrate between wintering grounds in Bosque del Apache in west- central New Mexico and Gray River Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Idaho. This population is nonbreeding. Some of these birds were reared as part of a cross-fostering program with greater sandhill cranes.

H-22 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings ESA - Endangered; TNC/NHP - G1, N1; MT, NE, SD - Endangered.

Habitat Habitats used on or near NFS lands in the planning area by migrating whooping cranes include small ponds, upland grasslands, and rivers.

Recovery and Conservation Planning The latest revision of the recovery plan for this species was approved in 1994. Critical habitat is designated at nine sites. However, none of the sites occur near any of the National Grasslands or Forests in the planning area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Whooping cranes could be exposed to grain-based rodenticides used for prairie dog poisoning if during migration they would land on the National Grasslands to forage or rest in areas where rodenticides were recently applied. Fences and powerlines could also result in whooping crane mortality.

Cumulative Effects None

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions None

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-23 Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A1, GA3-A1, GA3-5 Nebraska N.F. Units GA1-A1, GA2-A1, GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1, GA7-A1, GA8-A1, GA9-A1 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Appendices Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. NA

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-5 Determination is "not likely to adversely affect" for the following NFS lands: • Nebraska National Forest (Bessey Ranger District) • Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest • Ft. Pierre National Grassland • Grand River/Cedar River National Grasslands • Little Missouri National Grassland • Buffalo Gap/Oglala National Grasslands The likelihood of whooping cranes landing on the National Grasslands and Forests where rodenticides (grain baits) were recently applied is so remote that it is considered a "discountable effect."

Consultation and Reviews

H-24 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Species Description There are two subspecies of the bald eagle. In the planning area, the subspecies of concern is the northern bald eagle (H. leucephalus alascanus). This subspecies is thought to originate in the central provinces of Canada and in the Great Lakes states (Dinan 1983). Bald eagles are relatively long-lived birds that tend to return annually, as adults, to the same wintering areas. Although fish and waterfowl are common food sources, during winter they also hunt uplands for birds and mammals. They will also scavenge for many types of carrion. The recovery plans for this species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983, 1984) were primary references consulted for additional information on this species.

Distribution Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. The bald eagle occurs primarily as a spring and fall migrant across the planning area. Migrating eagles are commonly observed along major rivers and in some of the coniferous forests within the planning area. They can also be observed hunting in prairie dog colonies along the major rivers. Successful nesting on or near NFS lands in the planning area was last recorded in 1975 along the Little Missouri River (Little Missouri National Grassland). Territorial pairs continue to be sighted on several of the National Grasslands, and recent nesting attempts have occurred on the Thunder Basin and Little Missouri National Grasslands. Numerous winter roost sites have been documented on the Thunder Basin National Grassland and are suspected along the Little Missouri River. Routine surveys for this species are conducted by Forest Service personnel and others. Forest Service maps of occurrence locations were consulted.

ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings ESA - Threatened; TNC/NHP - G4, N4; NE, SD - Endangered; WY - Species of Concern. The bald eagle was downlisted to threatened in 1995.

Habitat Three elements are considered important for effective winter habitat: perches, roosts, and food. Bald eagles are commonly seen perched and roosting in trees along streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. They are also seen in ponderosa pine forests within the planning area. Roost sites obviously need perches, and roosts are often located in areas protected from the wind by trees and/or terrain. Wintering eagles on and near NFS lands in the planning area are frequently observed feeding on carrion along roads and in areas where waterfowl concentrate. They are also commonly observed hunting in prairie dog colonies.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-25 Recovery and Conservation Planning Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota are included in the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Zone; Wyoming is in the Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Zone. Recovery plans for the northern states and Pacific states recovery zones were prepared in 1983 and 1984, respectively. Although critical habitat has been designated, none of the areas are on or near NFS lands within the planning area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Roosting and future potential nesting habitat in deciduous forests along streams and rivers can decline if livestock grazing practices prevent tree regeneration and/or accelerate tree declines already occurring. Reductions in prairie dog populations by poisoning can reduce winter feeding areas for bald eagles. Secondary poisoning risks from prairie dog poisoning are unlikely (Tietjen 1976). Power line electrocution can cause eagle mortality.

Cumulative Effects Reductions in the threats to the species across its range, such as DDT pesticides, have obviously reversed the population declines that lead to its ESA listing. The recent down-listing from endangered to threatened is indicative of positive changes across the range of the species.

H-26 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64, MA3.66 Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1 Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA1-A1, GA2-A(1,2,4,5), GA3-A(1,2,5), GA4-A1 Nebraska N.F. Units GA1-A1, GA2-A1, GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1, GA7-A1, GA8-A1, GA9-A1, GA10-A1, GA11-A1, GA11- B1 Thunder Basin N.G. GA1-A1, GA2-A1, GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1 Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. None

Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian and prairie dog direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian and prairie dog direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian and prairie dog direction

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-5 Determination is "not likely to adversely affect" for each National Grassland and Forest. However, implementation of alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 will result in enhanced positive trends in riparian habitats, when compared to Alternative 1. This is considered a "beneficial effect." Under these alternatives, management of at least 80 riparian areas will emphasize tree regeneration, which will slow, prevent, or possibly reverse the decline of roosting habitat associated with gallery forests. This is especially important for cottonwood floodplains, which are commonly used for roosting and perching. Implementation of Alternatives 3 through 5 will also result in substantial increases in prairie dog colonies, which are commonly used for hunting by migrating and wintering bald eagles.

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinis anatum) Species Description The race of this species that occurs in the planning area is Falco peregrinus anatum (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). This race suffered an unprecedented population decline during the

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-27 1950s, primarily from the bio-accumulation of pesticides, especially DDT. These chemicals have been linked to eggshell thinning and parental inattentiveness that leads to reproductive failure. Widespread use of chemical pesticides, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and DDT to control insect pests began in the late 1940s. Organochlorines continue to pose the main threat to peregrine falcons (Western Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1993).

Distribution Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. The species is considered a migrant on the NFS lands in the planning area. Spring migration through this area generally occurs in early May, and fall migrations are generally in September. Use of these NFS lands is rare, incidental, and unpredictable, and because of this, no attempt has been made to conduct routine standardized surveys or to map primary habitat used by migrating falcons. Forest Service maps of occurrence locations were consulted. No nesting of the species has been confirmed on or near the NFS lands in the planning area. In the 1970s, an attempt to establish nesting peregrine falcons in the cliffs on the NNF’s pine forests was attempted unsuccessfully.

ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings ESA - Endangered; TNC/NHP - G4T4, N3; MT, NE, SD - Endangered; WY - Species of Concern The species is currently being evaluated for delisting (Federal Register 8/26/98).

Habitat Adults travel up to 17 miles during hunting forays (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Preferred hunting areas include cropland, meadows, river bottoms, marshes, lakes, and young and mature conifer plantations (Mearns 1985, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Small birds are favored prey. Little is known of wintering habitats, but peregrines are frequently associated with large rivers or waterfowl refuges where prey are numerous. Migrating peregrines, on or near NFS lands in the planning area, have been observed in ponderosa pine forests and in open rangeland.

Recovery and Conservation Planning A existing recovery plan for this species was approved in 1984. Critical habitat has not been identified for this species. The species is currently being evaluated for delisting (Federal Register 8/26/98).

H-28 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.5(1), GO1.8 SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(1,3-5,9,10,16,17), SG-G(2,3), SG-I5, SG-M(1,3), SG-P3 Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(1,3), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.5(1), GO1.8 SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(1,3-5,9,10,16,17), SG-G(2,3), SG-I5, SG-M(1,3), SG-P3 Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64, MA3.66 Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1 Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A(1,2,4,5), GA3-A(1,2,5) Nebraska N.F. Units GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1, GA7-A1, GA8-A1, GA9-A1, GA10-A1, GA11-A1, GA11-B1 Thunder Basin N.G. GA1-A1, GA2-A1, GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1 Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2

Appendices Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. None Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-5 Determination is "no effect" for all of the National Grasslands and Forests in the planning area. There is no reasonable basis for expecting any of the activities or land allocations authorized by this planning effort to have an impact on the falcons’ incidental use of these lands. Also, any nesting that might be observed in the future on the NFS lands in the planning area would trigger consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to help insure that nesting would not be threatened by authorized activities.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-29 Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) Species Description The black-footed ferret is a medium-sized carnivore and the only ferret native to North America. The species is primarily nocturnal. Anderson et al. (1986), Clark (1989), and the national recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988) were consulted for additional information on this species.

Distribution Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Black-footed ferret surveys have been conducted on all NFS lands where prairie dog poisoning has occurred in the past and where it continues. Many of these surveys were initiated in the 1970s and have been conducted to varying degrees of standardization and intensity. Although occasional ferret-like sign was observed on the various NFS units, wild ferrets were never found and confirmed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists on or near these lands. An exception to this is a sighting by a biologist near the Buffalo Gap National Grassland but that sighting remains questionable, even though it is listed as a confirmed sighting by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is believed the last unquestionable record occurred near the Buffalo Gap National Grassland in 1965 and involved a roadkill near Cottonwood, South Dakota. It is believed that all ferrets on NFS lands in the planning area today are the result of an ongoing reintroduction program on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland and adjoining Badlands National Park. Planning maps attached to the planning documents show the location of this reintroduction area and other proposed reintroduction areas. All other known ferret populations in the wild are also the result of reintroduction programs. Other reintroduced populations occur in Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, and in a new site along the border of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings ESA - Endangered; TNC/NHP - G1, N1; MT, NE, SD - Endangered; WY - Species of Concern.

Habitat Prairie dogs and their colonies are the habitat of black-footed ferrets, and ferret movements off prairie dog colonies represent dispersal to find other prairie dog colonies. Complexes of several thousand acres and more of active prairie dog colonies provide suitable habitat for reintroductions. The total acreage of active prairie dog colonies on each National Grassland and Forest at the time of the last surveys (1995-1997) is as follows: • GRCRNG - 1,590 (1,000 acres protected from poisoning). • LMNG - 2,150 (1,600 acres protected from poisoning). • TBNG - 18,240 (4,810 acres protected from poisoning).

H-30 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation • ONG - 430 (150 to 250 acres protected from poisoning). • BGNG - 13,270 (6,100-7,350 acres protected from poisoning). • FPNG - 720 (150-250 acres protected from poisoning). • NNF - 70 (all acres protected from poisoning). The above acreages include fully and partially active colonies but do not include colonies that were inactive at the time of the last survey. The total acreage of active prairie dog colonies expected to occur in the next 10 years on each National Grassland and Forest, given the rodenticide-use criteria presented under each alternative, is presented below. The acreages of active prairie dog colonies would occur both in and outside (dispersal habitat) black-footed ferret reintroduction habitat areas.

Alternative GR/CRNG LMNG TBNG BG/ONG FPNG NNF 1 1,000 1,600 >5,400 6,250-7,600 150-250 100-150 2 <1,000 <1,600 <5,400 <6,250 <150 Unknown 3 1,500-3,700 2,900-7,300 23,300-59,700 20,200-48,500 700-1,700 Unknown 4 2,600-6,400 5,400-13,100 25,200-66,700 21,400-52,500 1,200-2,900 Unknown 5 1,500-3,700 2,900-7,300 21,900-56,400 20,000-47,800 700-1,700 Unknown

Recovery and Conservation Planning The latest recovery plan was approved in 1988 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988), and the recovery objective is to ensure the immediate survival of the species by accomplishing the following: 1. Increasing the captive population of black-footed ferrets to a census size of 200 breeding adults by 1991. 2. Establishing a prebreeding census population of 1,500 free-ranging black-footed ferret breeding adults in 10 or more populations, with no fewer than 30 breeding adults in any population by the year 2010, 3. Encourage the widest possible distribution of reintroduced black-footed ferret populations. An environmental impact statement for black-footed ferret reintroduction in the Badlands National Park and Conata Basin portion of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland was issued in 1994. Critical habitat has not been designated for the black-footed ferret.

Direct and Indirect Effects Prairie dog poisoning obviously reduces prey availability for black-footed ferrets. Repeated poisoning also reduces burrow availability for shelter. Primary and secondary poisoning of ferrets from consuming poisoned prairie dogs or bait are not considered significant threats. Use of burrow fumigants do pose a direct threat to individual ferrets.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-31 Currently, there is no empirical data from controlled experiments that document significant reductions in prairie dog populations as a result of recreational shooting. Accidental ferret mortality associated with prairie dog shooting is possible. Livestock grazing can be used to either help contain or increase prairie dog colony acreages, which in turn affects habitat availability and suitability for ferrets. Intense development and activity associated with oil, gas, and mineral development could result in direct and indirect negative effects.

Cumulative Effects It is likely that reductions in prairie dog populations on private lands through poisoning will continue, thereby resulting in further losses of ferret habitat. Additional reductions of prairie dog colonies on adjoining and nearby Indian Reservations could also occur in the future. Lands previously owned by The Nature Conservancy have been added to the potential ferret reintroduction area on the Thunder Basin National Grassland. Other opportunities to cooperate with tribal organizations in black-footed ferret recovery probably also exist, but additional coordination is needed to ascertain the likelihood of future cooperative projects with adjoining Indian reservations.

H-32 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A(1,2,4,5), GA3-A(1,2,5) Nebraska N.F. Units GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1, GA7-A1, GA8-A1 Thunder Basin N.G. GA1-A1, GA2-A1, GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1 Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. None

Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction

The land areas allocated to Management Area 3.63 (Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Area) varies by alternative (see below). The location and boundaries of each reintroduction area listed below are shown on the Alternative Maps attached to the DEIS and LRMPs.

LRMP NFS Current Colony Predicted Colony Acreage Reintroduction Area Alternative Acres Acreage in 10 Years Conata Basin/Badlands 1 8,050 4,400 <5,470 (BGNG + BNP) 2 61,510 10,480 16,400-38,200 3 83,870 10,910 17,100-39,700 4 87,970 10,970 17,200-39,900 5 61,510 10,480 16,400-38,200 Cheyenne River (TBNG) 1 33,750 2,600 2,240-5,400 2 41,230 9,740 2,240-5,400 3 51,400 12,430 19,600-46,200 4 129,060 15,860 25,000-58,600 5 41,230 9,740 15,400-36,500 Smithwick (BGNG) 1 0 NA NA 2 0 NA NA 3 25,270 300 1,200-2,800 4 32,960 300 1,200-2,800 5 25,270 300 1,200-2,800 Horse Creek (LMNG) 1 0 NA NA 2 0 NA NA

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-33 LRMP NFS Current Colony Predicted Colony Acreage Reintroduction Area Alternative Acres Acreage in 10 Years 3 0 NA NA 4 27,920 300 1,200-2,800 5 0 NA NA

The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: Little Missouri National Grassland a. The Horse Creek area should be included as potential black-footed ferret habitat (M.A. 3.63) under Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Buffalo Gap National Grassland a. The Smithwick area should be included as potential ferret habitat (M.A. 3.63) under Alternative 2.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternative 1 LMNG Determination is "likely to adversely affect." It is highly unlikely that ferrets currently occur in this area, but there is a shortage of sites to meet the national recovery objective of establishing 10 or more populations. At least one potential black-footed ferret reintroduction area occurs on this unit, yet no direction occurs in this alternative to evaluate, propose, or prepare that site. Without this additional site, the probability of the national recovery objective being met is significantly reduced. This determination is based on preliminary information regarding the biological suitability of this site as a potential future reintroduction area. Additional field evaluations to more thoroughly evaluate the biological suitability of this site will be conducted in the near future. If the area is found to be biologically unsuitable, this determination should be "not likely to adversely affect." SNG Not applicable. GR/CRNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future, opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate prairie dog colony expansion and the establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated. Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservations could also be evaluated in the future. The prairie dog populations maintained under the current prairie dog management direction, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog population growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize.

H-34 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation FPNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future, opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate prairie dog colony expansion and the establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated. Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservations could also be evaluated in the future. The prairie dog populations maintained under the current prairie dog management direction, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog population growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize. BGNG/ONG Determination is "likely to adversely affect." Ferret reintroduction in the Conata Basin/Badlands Reintroduction Area would continue under the direction in the current amended LRMP. Estimated current and 10-year ferret carrying capacities for this area, including the habitat on the Badlands National Park and adjoining dispersal habitat, are 114-141 and 127-156 ferret families, respectively (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). These estimated capacities far exceed the minimum of 30 breeding adults per site recommended in the national recovery plan. However, under this alternative, the recently identified Smithwick Reintroduction Habitat Area on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland is not evaluated, proposed, or prepared as a future site. Every potential reintroduction area is critical given the increasing threat of plague epizootics and the shortage of suitable sites to meet the national recovery objective f establishing 10 or more black-footed ferret populations by the year 2010. Without this additional site, the probability of the national recovery objective being met is significantly reduced. TBNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Direction in the current LRMP for black-tailed prairie dogs appears to provide sufficient habitat for a small ferret reintroduction area. It is estimated that this area could possibly support the minimum number of 30 adult ferrets recommended in the Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan (Northern Great Plains Viability Asses- sment). However, additional environmental analyses and public involvement beyon,d the existing LRMP and Record of Decision, would likely be necessary before the area could be allocated as potential black-footed ferret reintroduction habitat. Eventual authorization of this area for black-footed ferret reintroduction would be an obvious contribution to the national recovery program. NNF (PRRD) Not applicable. NNF (BRD) Determination is "no effect." It is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets occur in these small isolated colonies in the Nebraska Sandhills, and it is highly unlikely that the area supports any potential ferret habitat. This part of the Sandhills does not have the capability of supporting large prairie dog colony acreages because of steep and rough topography and the capability to

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-35 grow tall and dense vegetation. It appears that the area may not be able to support viable prairie dog populations over the long-term (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). SRMNF Not applicable.

Alternative 2 LMNG Determination is "likely to adversely affect." It is highly unlikely that ferrets currently occur in this area. However, due to the shortage of sites to meet the national recovery objective of establishing 10 or more populations, at least one potential reintroduction area occurs on this unit. Although there is a reintroduction area on the unit, no direction occurs in this alternative to evaluate, propose, or prepare this site. Without this additional site, the probability of the national recovery objective being met is significantly reduced. This determination could be reduced to "not likely to adversely affect" if this potential habitat was allocated to Management Area 3.63. This determination is based on preliminary information regarding the biological suitability of this site as a potential future reintroduction area. Additional field evaluations to more thoroughly evaluate the biological suitability of this site will be conducted in the near future. If the area is found to be biologically unsuitable, this determination should be "not likely to adversely affect." SNG Not applicable. GR/CRNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future, opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate prairie dog colony expansion and the establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated. Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservations could also be evaluated in the future. The prairie dog populations maintained under this the direction in this alternative, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog population growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize. FPNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future, opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate the establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated. Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservation also need further evaluation. The prairie dog populations maintained under the direction in this alternative, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog population growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize.

H-36 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation BGNG/ONG Determination is "likely to adversely affect." The Conata Basin/Badlands Ferret Reintroduction Area is substantially expanded under this alternative. Estimated current and 10-year ferret carrying capacities for this area including the habitat on the Badlands National Park and adjoining dispersal habitat are 181-223 and 416-514 ferret families, respectively (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). However, under this alternative the recently identified Smithwick Reintroduction Habitat Area on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland is not evaluated, proposed, or prepared as a future site. Every potential reintroduction area is critical, given the increasing threat of plague epizootics and the shortage of suitable sites to meet the national recovery objective of establishing 10 or more black-footed ferret populations by the year 2010. Without this additional site, the probability of the national recovery objective being met is significantly reduced. This determination could be reduced to "not likely to adversely affect" if this potential habitat was allocated to Management Area 3.63. TBNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect the species." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Direction in this alternative allocates a 41,230-acre reintroduction habitat area which expands significantly beyond the reintroduction area under Alternative 1. However, it was not possible to estimate current and future ferret capacities for this area (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). Authoriza- tion of this area for black-footed ferret reintroduction represents a significant contribution to the national recovery program, assuming that plague does not decimate prairie dog populations in the future. A recent, nearby plague epizootic suggests that plague poses a more immediate threat to this potential reintroduction area . NNF (PRRD) Not applicable. NNF (BRD) Determination is "no effect." It is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets occur in these small isolated colonies in the Nebraska Sandhills, and it is highly unlikely that the area supports any potential ferret habitat. This part of the Sandhills is not capable of supporting large prairie dog colony acreages because of steep and rough topography and the capability to grow tall and dense vegetation. It appears that the area may not be able to support viable long-term prairie dog populations (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). SRMNF Not applicable.

Alternative 3 LMNG Determination is "likely to adversely affect." It is highly unlikely that ferrets currently occur in this area. However, due to the shortage of sites to meet the national recovery objective of establishing 10 or more populations, at least one potential reintroduction area occurs on this unit. Although there is a reintroduction area on the unit, no direction occurs in this alternative to evaluate, propose, or prepare this site. Without this additional site, the probability of the national recovery objective being met is significantly reduced. This determination could be

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-37 reduced to "not likely to adversely affect" if this potential habitat was allocated to Management Area 3.63. This determination is based on preliminary information regarding the biological suitability of this site as a potential future reintroduction area. Additional field evaluations to more thoroughly evaluate the biological suitability of this site will be conducted in the near future. If the area is found to be biologically unsuitable, this determination should be "not likely to adversely affect." SNG Not applicable. GR/CRNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect the species." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future, opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate prairie dog colony expansion and the establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated. Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservations also need further evaluation. The prairie dog populations maintained under this the direction in this alternative, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog population growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize. FPNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect". Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future, opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate the establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated. Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservation also need further evaluation. The prairie dog populations maintained under the direction in this alternative, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog population growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize. BGNG/ONG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." The Conata Basin/Badlands Ferret Reintroduc- tion Area is substantially expanded under this alternative. Estimated current and 10-year ferret carrying capacities for this area, including the habitat on the Badlands National Park and adjoining dispersal habitat, are 197-243 and 464-573 ferret families, respectively (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). The Smithwick Reintroduction Habitat Area on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland is also allocated as a future 25,270-acre ferret habitat area under this alternative. This site will not be suitable for a reintroduction for another 10 to 15 years. Current prairie dog populations are small and inadequate, and expansion of these populations will be emphasized initially. Oppor- tunities to cooperate with the Pine Ridge Sioux Tribe and expand the reintroduction area into the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation also need further evaluation.

H-38 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation TBNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Direction in this alternative allocates an expanded 51,400 acre reintroduction habitat area. The current and future ferret capacities for this area and the adjoining dispersal habitat under this alternative are estimated to be 181-184 and 216-221 ferret families (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). Authorization of this area for black-footed ferret reintroduction represents a significant contribution to the national recovery program, assuming that plague does not decimate prairie dog populations in the future. A recent, nearby plague epizootic suggests that plague poses a more immediate threat to this potential reintroduction area . NNF (PRRD) Not applicable. NNF (BRD) Determination is "no effect." It is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets occur in these small isolated colonies in the Nebraska Sandhills, and it is highly unlikely that the area supports any potential ferret habitat. This part of the Sandhills is not capable of supporting large prairie dog colony acreages because of steep and rough topography and the capability to grow tall and dense vegetation. It appears that the area may not be able to support viable long-term prairie dog populations (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). SRMNF Not applicable.

Alternative 4 LMNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." It is highly unlikely that ferrets currently occur in this area. Direction in this alternative allocates the 27,920-acre Horse Creek reintroduction area. This area will not be suitable for a reintroduction for another 10 to 15 years. Current prairie dog populations are small and inadequate, and expansion of these populations will be emphasized initially. Authorization of this area for black-footed ferret reintroduction represents a significant contribution to the national recovery program, assuming that plague does not decimate prairie dog populations in the future. Under this alternative, approximately 11,700 acres of the reintroduction area is also allocated to "backcountry recreation nonmotorized." SNG Not applicable GR/CRNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future, opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate prairie dog colony expansion and the establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated. Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservations also need further evaluation. The prairie dog populations maintained under this the direction

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-39 in this alternative, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog population growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize. FPNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future, opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate the establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated. Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservation also need further evaluation. The prairie dog populations maintained under the direction in this alternative, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog population growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize. BGNG/ONG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." The Conata Basin/Badlands Ferret Reintroduc- tion Area is substantially expanded under this alternative. Estimated current and 10-year ferret carrying capacities for this area including the habitat on the Badlands National Park and adjoining dispersal habitat are 197-243 and 464-573 ferret families, respectively (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). The Smithwick Reintroduction Habitat Area on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland is allocated and expanded as a future 32,960-acre ferret habitat area under this alternative. This site will not be suitable for a reintroduction for another 10 to 15 years. Current prairie dog populations are small and inadequate, and expansion of these populations will be emphasized initially. Oppor- tunities to cooperate with the Pine Ridge Sioux Tribe and expand the reintroduction area into the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation also need to be evaluated in the near future. TBNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect the species." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Direction in this alternative allocates an expanded 129,060 -cre reintroduction habitat area. The current and future ferret capacities for this area and the adjoining dispersal habitat under this alternative are estimated to be 216-221 and 285-290 ferret families (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). Authoriza- tion of this area for black-footed ferret reintroduction represents a significant contribution to the national recovery program, assuming that plague does not decimate prairie dog populations in the future. A recent, nearby plague epizootic suggests that plague poses a more immediate threat to this potential reintroduction area . NNF (PRRD) Not applicable. NNF (BRD) Determination is "no effect." It is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets occur in these small isolated colonies in the Nebraska Sandhills, and it is highly unlikely that the area supports any potential ferret habitat. This part of the Sandhills is not capable of supporting large prairie dog colony acreages because of steep and rough topography and the capability to grow tall and dense vegetation. It appears that the area may not be able to support viable long-term prairie dog populations (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment).

H-40 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation SRMNF Not applicable.

Alternative 5 LMNG Determination is "likely to adversely affect." It is highly unlikely that ferrets currently occur in this area. However, due to the shortage of sites to meet the national recovery objective of establishing 10 or more populations, at least one potential reintroduction area occurs on this unit. Although there is a reintroduction area on the unit, no direction occurs in this alternative to evaluate, propose, or prepare this site. Without this additional site, the probability of the national recovery objective being met is significantly reduced. This determination could be reduced to "not likely to adversely affect" if this potential habitat was allocated to Management Area 3.63. This determination is based on preliminary information regarding the biological suitability of this site as a potential future reintroduction area. Additional field evaluations to more thoroughly evaluate the biological suitability of this site will be conducted in the near future. If the area is found to be biologically unsuitable, this determination should be "not likely to adversely affect." SNG Not applicable. GR/CRNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect the species." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future, opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate prairie dog colony expansion and the establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated. Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservations also need further evaluation. The prairie dog populations maintained under this the direction in this alternative, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog population growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize. FPNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Also, this National Grassland, given its current landownership patterns and prairie dog colony distribution, does not appear to have the capability to support a ferret reintroduction now or in the next 10 to 15 years. In the future, opportunities for landownership adjustment to facilitate the establishment of a future reintroduction area on the National Grassland could be evaluated. Opportunities to have a combined reintroduction area with the adjoining Indian reservation also need further evaluation. The prairie dog populations maintained under the direction in this alternative, barring a plague epizootic, will provide for future prairie dog population growth should opportunities for a future reintroduction area materialize.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-41 BGNG/ONG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." The Conata Basin/Badlands Ferret Reintroduc- tion Area is substantially expanded under this alternative. Estimated current and 10-year ferret carrying capacities for this area including the habitat on the Badlands National Park and adjoining dispersal habitat are 195-241 and 457-565 ferret families, respectively (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). The Smithwick Reintroduction Habitat Area on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland is allocated as a future 25,270 acre ferret habitat area under this alternative. This site will not be suitable for a reintroduction for another 10 to 15 years. Current prairie dog populations are small and inadequate, and expansion of these populations will be emphasized initially. Opportunities to cooperate with the Pine Ridge Sioux Tribe and expand the reintroduction area into the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation also need to be evaluated in the near future. TBNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect." Surveys indicate it is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets currently occur on this unit. Direction in this alternative allocates an expanded 129,060-acre reintroduction habitat area. The current and future ferret capacities for this area and the adjoining dispersal habitat under this alternative are estimated to be 170-174 and 214-218 ferret families (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). Authorization of this area for black-footed ferret reintroduction represents a significant contribution to the national recovery program, assuming that plague does not decimate prairie dog populations in the future. A recent, nearby plague epizootic suggests that plague poses a more immediate threat to this potential reintroduction area. NNF (PRRD) Not applicable. NNF (BRD) Determination is "no effect." It is highly unlikely that black-footed ferrets occur in these small isolated colonies in the Nebraska Sandhills, and it is highly unlikely that the area supports any potential ferret habitat. This part of the Sandhills is not capable of supporting large prairie dog colony acreages because of steep and rough topography and the capability to grow tall and dense vegetation. It appears that the area may not be able to support viable long-term prairie dog populations (Northern Great Plains Viability Assessment). SRMNF Not applicable.

Consultation and Reviews

H-42 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Species Description The mountain plover is a medium-sized, ground-nesting bird of the uplands. The diet of plovers is grasshoppers and other invertebrates. This species was first collected by John Kirk Townsend in 1832 along the Sweetwater River in Wyoming and named by Audubon as the Rocky Mountain plover. Knopf (1996) and Johnson et al. (1998) were primary references consulted for additional information on this species. The Johnson et al. (1998) report was also available on the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center web site: • (www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/grasbird.htm).

Distribution Table H1 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Surveys for the species on NFS lands by Forest Service biologists have been conducted on the Oglala and Thunder Basin National Grasslands. The species is believed to currently occur only on the Thunder Basin National Grassland. There are currently about 14,000 acres of nesting habitat being used on the National Grassland, and it is estimated that 30 to 40 nests occur annually on the National Grass- land. It is also estimated that approximately 150 adults and fledglings use the National Grassland annually. Maps of the current nesting habitat and nesting sites on the National Grassland maintained by the Forest Service were consulted for this evaluation. It is uncertain if potential habitat occurs on the Oglala and Buffalo Gap National Grasslands. The historical distribution of Mountain Plovers on the northern Great Plains included eastern and central Montana and sites throughout Wyoming. A single record of a plover in North Dakota is available (Roosevelt 1885), and the species was historically a rare breeder in western South Dakota. The most recent sighting in South Dakota was in 1977 (South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union 1991). Some birds have been recorded recently in western Nebraska. The species breeds exclusively on the dry tablelands of the western Great Plains and Colorado Plateau, and winters in California, southern Texas and Arizona, and in Mexico. It arrives on its breeding grounds in late March and April, long before the grasses begin to green. Adults and fledglings leave the breeding grounds by early August. Current estimated populations are estimated between 8,000 to 10,000 birds.

ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings: Proposed for Listing as Threatened Under ESA, Former ESA Candidate. TNC/NHP G2, N2B. FS and BLM Sensitive Species. State Listed and Species of Concern.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-43 Habitat The Mountain Plover nests primarily in shortgrass prairie sites of historically major herbivore assemblages, specifically prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), bison (Bison bison), and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana). It also nests sporadically in more xeric, desert shrub zones to the west. On its breeding range, this species prefers large, flat grassland areas with sparse and short vegetation and bare ground (Knowles et al. 1982, Graul 1973, Olson and Edge 1985, Giezen- tanner 1970). The plover is a bird of open, flat tablelands. An endemic breeding species of the Great Plains (Mengel 1970), the plover is generally considered an associate of the shortgrass prairie (Graul and Webster 1976) dominated by blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) (Knopf and Miller 1994). They avoid montane landscapes and seek areas of local aridity, disturbance, or short, intensively grazed grass when found on prairies. The plover is especially attracted to landscape altered by active prairie dog towns. They are commonly associated with blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) or buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides) (Johnson et al. 1998). In the northern Great Plains where grazing intensity is not as intense as it was historically and mixed grasses are more prevalent now, most plovers are found on remnant prairie dog towns (Tyler 1968, Knowles et al. 1982, Knowles and Knowles 1984, Olson-Edge and Edge 1987, Shackford 1991). The plover also breeds in semidesert sites within, and west of, the short grass prairie. These sites are mostly bare ground with scattered short shrubs of the genera Atriplex or Artemisia (Wallis and Wershler 1981, Parrish 1988, Day 1994), prickly pear (Opuntia) and Spanish-bayonet (Yucca spp.) (Coues 1874). In these areas too, birds often are associated with prairie dog activities or other forms of surface disturbance, such as areas of cattle concentrations. Open, dry alkali flats are also favored habitat (Knopf and Ruper 1995). In Colorado, minimum area needed per brood was at least 69 acres, with brooding areas often overlapping (Graul 1973, Knopf and Rupert 1996). Three males defended territories averaging 40 acres. Mountain plovers seem to prefer larger (>15 acres) prairie dog colonies for nesting (Knowles et al. 1982, Olson 1984). As previously mentioned, active prairie dog colonies are prime mountain plover nesting habitat. The current and predicted 10-year acreages of active prairie dog colonies for each National Grassland and Forest in the planning area have already been presented in the black-footed ferret evaluation in this document.

Recovery and Conservation Planning A recovery plan or conservation strategy has not been prepared for this species. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. Johnson et al. (1998) conducted a comprehensive review of mountain plover and their management and presented a list of management recommendations for conserving the species.

H-44 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Direct and Indirect Effects Livestock grazing at moderate and high intensities can improve habitat for this species by reducing vegetation cover (Wershler and Wallis 1987, Knowles et al. 1982. Bock et al. 1993). The risk of losing nests to livestock trampling is considered insignificant (Knopf 1996). Livestock grazing at reduced intensities can result in deterioration and loss of plover habitat. Burning to maintaining areas of shorter grass within mixed grassland can be beneficial (Wallis and Wershler 1981, Knopf 1996). Activities associated with oil and gas development may be compatible with mountain plover management in that open habitat with bare ground is commonly created (Day 1996). However, activities should be curtailed to reduce disturbance during peak breeding (Ball 1996). Since grasshoppers are important in the diet of mountain plovers, it is possible that grasshopper spraying on rangelands could negatively impact this species when its on its breeding range. Roadless designation and wilderness proposals would likely reduce prairie dog shooting, thereby enhancing mountain plover habitat and reducing disturbance of plovers. Possible nest loss due to motorized travel is also reduced. Wilderness proposals could lead to wilderness designation that could reduce opportunities to use prescribed fire specifically for mountain plover habitat enhancement.

Cumulative Effects Continued conversion of rangeland to croplands can be expected to occur on private lands. Although fallow cropland may attract nesting plovers, it may also pose additional risk to females and nests due to cultivation practices.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application for permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development. Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Livestock grazing permittees commonly request prairie dog poisoning on NFS lands to reduce forage consumption and clipping by prairie dogs.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-45 Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1 Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. GA1-A1&B1, GA2-A1&B1, GA3-A1&B1, GA4-A1&B1, GA5-A1&B1, GA6-A1&B1 Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. None Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction

The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction:

Thunder Basin National Grassland a. Use livestock grazing, prairie dogs, and burning in plover habitat to maintain large areas of shortgrass within a mosaic of lightly grazed and ungrazed areas. Burning large flats near or adjoining prairie dog colonies during late summer, fall, or before spring green- up is desired so large blackened areas are available when plovers arrive in the spring. The burns will also accelerate growth of adjoining prairie dog colonies. Until additional information becomes available, prescribed burns of a section or more should be emphasized. The lighter grazed and ungrazed areas provide sites with fuels for future burning, b. Promote large prairie dog colonies in mountain plover habitat.

Buffalo Gap and Oglala National Grassland a. Evaluate effectiveness of properly timed and located prescribed burns and livestock grazing in attracting mountain plover or in establishing nesting populations with reintroduced birds. Until additional information becomes available, prescribed burns of a section or more should be emphasized. The prescribed burning program needs to be closely coordinated with the livestock grazing program to insure that adequate fuels are available in those locations planned for burning.

H-46 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation b. Assign 3.64 management area direction to priority areas that are potential plover nesting habitat, and identify the desired acreages for very low grassland structure and for prescribed burning.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-5 TBNG Determination is "not likely to adversely affect" for all alternatives for the Thunder Basin National Grassland. The rationale for this determination is that all alternatives, including Alter- natives 1 and 2, would be anticipated to maintain or expand current prairie dog colony acreages, the prime nesting habitat on the National Grassland, until more specific recovery direction becomes available through development of a national recovery plan. Also, under Alternatives 3 through 5, the acreage of active prairie dog colonies will increase substantially as use of rodenticides is reduced. This is considered a "beneficial effect" since this will provide additional quality plover nesting habitat. Alternatives 2 through 5 also call for increases in prescribed burning on the National Grassland which, if strategically located and timed for plovers, would also result in enhanced habitat conditions for the species. This too is considered a "beneficial effect." BGNG/ONG Determination is "no effect." Plovers have not been confirmed on or near these areas. Efforts to survey for plovers and to evaluate the potential of establishing nesting populations through burning, livestock grazing, and possible plover reintroductions could eventually result in significant contributions to the recovery program for this species. This is considered a possible "beneficial effect." Current acreages of prairie dog colonies are maintained or increased under all alternatives while a national recovery plan is being prepared.

Consultation and Reviews Fritz Knopf, Senior Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-47 Section 3 - Biological Evaluation for Species that May be at Risk of Rangewide Imperilment but are Not Protected Under the Endangered Species Act The following table displays the distribution of plant and animal species in the planning area that may be at possible risk of extinction throughout their range but are not currently protected under the Endangered Species Act. Species identified by the Forest Service as sensitive are itali- cized. These species are ranked as G2 or G3 by the Natural Heritage Program.

Table H-2: Plant and Animal Species at Possible Risk of Extinction. National Grassland or Forest NNF NNF Species LMNG GRCRNF SNG TBNG BGNG FPNG ONG SRMNF PRRD BRD Dakota buckwheat K K K S Smooth goosefoot K S S Barr orphaca S K S Dakota skipper K S K Eastern skipperling K Regal fritillary K K K S K U U K S Sturgeon chub K S U K Swift fox U U K K N K K = Known occurrence in vicinity. Date of last observation indicates that species still occurs in area. S = Suspected occurrence. May be historic records but no recent observations. Suitable habitat likely. U = Unknown occurrence. More surveys may be needed. May be historic records. Potential habitat possible. N = No recent observations. Surveys recently completed. May be historic records. Potential habitat possible. OS = Off-site occurrence (downstream, etc.).

Species Eliminated From Further Analysis None

Species Evaluations Dakota Buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri) Species Description Dakota buckwheat is a regional endemic. In fact, this species has the distinction of being the only known vascular plant that is endemic to the Dakotas (Ode 1987). The species was first collected and identified as a new species by Stephen Sargent Visher in 1912 while he was conducting a geological reconnaissance for the South Dakota Geological Survey. Despite being described as a new species in 1913 by Aven Nelson, very few specimens were collected over the

H-48 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation subsequent years. The species did not receive full recognition as a taxonomically distinct species until James Reveal studied the genus Eriogonum more thoroughly in the 1960s. Dakota buckwheat first emerges in the spring from May through late June, depending on its geographic location. It is an annual species whose flowers first appear from late June to late July and continue to be produced into September. Seeds ripen and fall throughout this period. This species is wind-pollinated and self-fertile.

Distribution Table H-2 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Known occurrences on or near NFS lands within the planning area include the Little Missouri, Grand River/Cedar River, and Buffalo Gap National Grasslands. It is suspected that the species could occur on the Oglala National Grassland. Forest Service maps of occurrence locations were consulted. All of these National Grasslands contain potentially suitable habitats that could function as important refugia for the species and provide for its distribution throughout its known range. The McKenzie Ranger District of the Little Missouri National Grassland and the Buffalo Gap National Grassland contain some of the most extensive populations and largest occupied habitat of this species. The range of the species appears to be restricted to west-central North Dakota and west-central South Dakota

ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings TNC/NHP G3, N3; BLM - Sensitive; FS - Sensitive

Habitat Dakota buckwheat is considered an obligate resident of badlands. It is a primary successional species that inhabits mostly barren, actively eroding clay and shale substrates. Important habitats are toeslopes of eroding clay knobs. These badlands landforms contain habitats for a variety of plant and wildlife species not commonly found in the adjacent rolling grassland plains. Common native plant species found with Dakota buckwheat include: • Broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae). • Saltbush (Atriplex argentea). • Knotweed (Polygonum ramossissimum). Introduced plant species are also found with its badlands habitats, including the following: • Russian thistle (Salsola iberica). • Sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis). • Kochia (Kochia scoparia). Soil analyses demonstrate that Dakota buckwheat grows in a very harsh soil environment characterized by dense clay soils which are sodium-affected and nutrient-poor. In addition, these soils have a high shrink-swell capacity. All these characteristics contribute to a harsh

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-49 environment which inhibits secondary plant succession and provides Dakota buckwheat with a habitat niche which is largely free from most plant competition.

Conservation Planning A conservation strategy has not been prepared.

Direct and Indirect Effects Competition from non-native plants, such as Russian thistle and kochia, can be a significant threat. Heavy livestock grazing seems to encourage spread of these two exotic species. Trampling by livestock may be a problem under certain circumstances. Ground-disturbing activities associated with oil, gas, mineral, and other types of developments could result in destruction of plants and suitable habitat. Indiscriminate spraying of noxious weeds could result in plant mortality.

Cumulative Effects Similar threats to the species (exotic plants and trampling) occur on private lands.

H-50 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA1-A1, GA2-A(1,4,5), GA3-A(1,5) Nebraska N.F. Units GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1, GA7-A1, GA8-A1, GA10-A1 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Appendices Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation measure should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Prioritize this species for preparation of a conservation strategy. b. Locate range developments, including water developments, to avoid buckwheat populations or highly suitable habitat.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-5 LMNG, GRCRNG, BGNG/ONG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."

Consultation and Reviews

Smooth Goosefoot (Chenopodium subglabrum) Species Description This annual forb flowers from July through September. Its fruit is an indehiscent utricle.

Distribution Table H-2 summarizes smooth goosefoot occurrence in the planning area. The species is known from several populations on the Little Missouri National Grassland. Species distribution is

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-51 centered in Nebraska and South Dakota, with additional outlying populations found in southern Canada, eastern Oregon and Washington, through the western states to North Dakota, Kansas, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Montana, and Idaho. However, records from at least five of these states are in question (Lenz 1993). The species was first collected in North Dakota in 1946. All of the known populations in North Dakota are very small, and habitat is considered limited and threatened (Lenz 1993). The Flora of the Great Plains (1986) notes that smooth goosefoot is quite rare and has been collected infrequently during the past several decades. The population(s) located during the 1989 survey of Theodore Roosevelt National Park are among the most recent collections of this species anywhere. To date, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not considered the species for listing as threatened and endangered, and it cannot be considered until distribution and taxonomy are settled in western parts of the species’ distribution (Heidel 1990). There are three known smooth goosefoot populations on the Little Missouri National Grassland, all of which are located along the sandy floodplains of the Little Missouri River. There are an additional six populations in the Little Missouri River floodplain habitat on private and National Park Service land. In 1993, the Little Missouri River experienced significant flood events and some of the known populations for this species could not be relocated (S. Rinehart, field notes). It is not known if populations within the Park were also affected. Therefore the population base for this species may have been significantly reduced through this stochastic event. Populations may have become re-located along the Little Missouri River corridor. However, no target surveys have been conducted since the flood (North Dakota Heritage Program, personal communication).

ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings TNC/NHP G3; IUCN - Rare; COSEWIC - V; FS - Sensitive. It is given a rarity rank in Alberta, Manitoba, Nebraska, South Dakota, Saskatchewan, Wyoming, and Montana (Lenz 1993).

Habitat Smooth goosefoot appears to be restricted to sand dunes, sandy soils, and riverbanks. It is considered a primary successional species on actively eroding slopes at the edge of stabilizing sand. Populations are highest in areas of finer and more compacted sand. In addition, the species is tolerant of alkali-impregnated areas, including areas which are so sodium affected that few other plants will grow there. The species is considered both a halophyte (salt-loving) and xerophyte (adapted for growth under dry conditions) plant. Populations throughout its range on all habitats are always very low (Smith and Bradley 1990). In Canada, the species is found on sand dunes and sandy hills within the mixed grass plains. The primary threats to its habitat occur from conversion of native grassland to tame pasture and cropland, loss of natural habitat through changes in grazing and fire regime, invasion of non- native species, and management which has favored stabilization of sand dunes (Smith and Bradley 1990). A study on stabilization of sand dunes in Canada attributes a lack of fire cycle to a loss in the dynamic nature of actively moving sandy areas. Large areas of sandy plains in Canada have become stabilized over the last forty years (Smith and Bradley 1990).

H-52 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Conservation Planning A conservation strategy has not been prepared.

Direct and Indirect Effects In North Dakota, primary management threats are invasion by exotic species, particularly leafy spurge which can overrun habitat along the Little Missouri River (Lenz 1993). All of the 1989 populations on the Theodore Roosevelt National Park were in proximity to leafy spurge (Heidel 1990). Additional threats include herbicide spraying, livestock trampling, and changes in river hydrology which may result in loss of floodplain habitat. Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge can be a significant threat to this species. Leafy spurge prefers riparian habitats and large populations are found along the Little Missouri River in habitats occupied by smooth goosefoot. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of habitat but, at the same time, efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to sensitive species. In addition, many chemicals are restricted for use within riparian zones. Livestock grazing management, including changes in the type of animal (sheep/goats), grazing season, and/or intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in some situations for the control of noxious weeds. Biocontrol may be especially important in habitats occupied by smooth goosefoot. Competition from non-native invasive plants can be a significant threat to this species. Invasive species such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome can be found within suitable habitats preferred by this species such as along riverine systems. In addition, on drier sites, exotic species such Russian thistle (Salsola iberica), sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), and kochia (Kochia scoparia) significantly reduce the diversity of native species. Some types of livestock grazing seem to encourage spread of these invasive species, while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment and spread. Under some circumstances, livestock trampling in riparian areas and repeated visits to these areas for water can be a problem for smooth goosefoot. Individual plants may be directly affected by trampling. Trampling can interfere with reproduction of smooth goosefoot, depending upon the time of year the disturbance occurred. Livestock may graze on smooth goosefoot, preventing the species from completing its life cycle or resulting in loss of individuals. However, livestock grazing may be beneficial after seed set. Grazing can reduce dead material and open up canopy layers of plants, allowing for the germination and establishment of new plants. Burning and livestock grazing can have positive or negative effects on this sensitive plant species, depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance. Many sand dunes and actively eroding sandy areas have been stabilized by changes in grazing and fire regimes from those open soil conditions under which this species evolved. Sand dune habitat for smooth goosefoot may require a fire regime to retain the active nature of these communities. At the same time, burning may directly impact the sensitive plant species by causing mortality to individuals and populations.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-53 Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations. Information is lacking about specific pollinators for this sensitive plant species. Management activities can cause a loss of equilibrium in riparian systems, resulting in excessive flooding events along drainages and excessive erosion, sedimentation, and/or channelization. This, in turn, may reduce habitat for this sensitive plant species. Excessive removal of vegetation on uplands can result in rill, sheet, and gully erosion and excessive soil and water runoff. Ground-disturbing activities associated with oil, gas, mineral, and other types of development could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Roads management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles and travel management plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of recreational use; road and trail use patterns and intensities; rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes; and other factors.

Cumulative Effects The following effects can be expected to occur/continue on private lands: • Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands and tame pasture can be expected to occur on private lands. • Stabilization of sand dunes and actively eroding sandy areas, resulting in continued loss of habitat for this species. • Development activities such as road and building construction, resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for this species and some possible plant and population mortality. • Changes in livestock grazing and fire regimes that are unfavorable for the conservation of this sensitive plant species. Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, non- native plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and croplands. Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect pollinators for this species.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD), eventual on-site development, and additional roads, traffic, and pipelines.

H-54 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in the proposed LRMPs: Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8 SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG O(1,2), SG-Q2 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A(1,4,5), GA3-A(1,5) Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Appendices Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation measures are recommended for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Prioritize this species for preparation of a conservation strategy. b. Provide management direction for sand dunes and other actively eroding sandy areas in habitat supporting this species or in selected areas of highly suitable habitat. These areas should not be stabilized or actively seeded with the intent of providing vegetative cover. Actively eroding sandy zones should be managed through fire regimes and grazing to maintain open conditions. For example, it is hypothesized that late summer or fall fires formerly created lush green areas the following spring. These green patches may have attracted large herds of grazing bison and resulted in re-activation of the sand dunes (Smith and Bradley 1990). However, livestock should be discouraged from concentrating in sand dunes all summer long as this may result in species mortality.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-55 c. Manage riverine and sand dune habitats as high priority areas for noxious weed control. In addition, these habitats should be monitored periodically for new starts of noxious weeds. These areas should also be priority areas for control. d. Range improvements such as fences, salt, and water developments should not be placed near sand dune or riverine habitats, unless the specific purpose is to initiate active erosion.

Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 LMNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." This determination was based upon the limited amount of habitat and small number of known populations for this species within the planning area, combined with the significant threats to smooth goosefoot habitat. The riverine and sand dune habitats needed by this species comprise a very small part of the total land base within the planning area. Threats to both these habitats are very high and include noxious weed and exotic plant species and habitat loss through sand dune stabilization. The levels of prescribed fire within Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are a positive move towards restoring the fire regime under which this species and its habitats evolved. However, it is not known if the treatments will occur in areas which will benefit this species. Alternatives 3 and 5 also provide for no net increase (from current levels) of noxious weeds. Alternatives 2 and 4 provide for a 15% reduction (from current levels) of noxious weeds. Again, it is not known if the treatments will occur in areas which will benefit this species. Also, chemical use is restricted within riparian zones. The spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the maintenance of habitat for this species. All of the known populations of this species in the planning area are found in western North Dakota along sandy riverine habitat. Small populations of smooth goosefoot are found in the south unit of Teddy Roosevelt National Park. It is suspected that additional suitable habitat for this species occurs in actively eroding sandy areas within the planning area. However, many of the sandy areas on the northern Great Plains have been stabilized through historic settlement practices. In addition, alteration of presettlement fire and grazing regimes has resulted in vegetative cover and stabilization of other prairie sandy areas. Implementation of the conservation measures presented on the previous two pages would reduce the severity of this determination for Alternatives 2 through 5.

Consultation and Review

H-56 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Barr Orphaca (Astragulus barii) Species Description This perennial forb, also known as Barr’s milkvetch, is endemic to this region. The plant grows in low, dense mats and its trifoliate leaves are densely pubescent. The species flowers from June through August, depending on locality and annual weather patterns. As a long-lived perennial, it may produce few or no flowers in any particular year. Barr orphaca was first described by R.C. Barneby in 1956.

Distribution Table H-2 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. The species is known to occur on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland and is suspected of occurring on the Oglala and Thunder Basin National Grasslands. Throughout its range, barr orphaca occurs in sparse populations in four counties in southwest South Dakota, six counties in northeast Wyoming, and three counties in eastern Montana (Schassberger 1990).

Status and Other Organization Rankings TNC/NHP G3; IUCN - Rare; FS - Sensitive

Habitat The species occurs in areas of sparse vegetative cover. Within the planning area, it is found on eroding knolls, buttes, and hilltops in thin barren soil that has eroded from sandstone or siltstone. The species appears to be restricted to specific rock stratum in and along several major drainages in the three states where it occurs. Schassberger (1988) speculates that due to its intolerance to competition from other plant species, it may not be present in habitat in more advanced successional stages. In other parts of its range (Montana), the species has occassion- ally been found with overstory cover such as ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), and shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) (Schassberger 1988). In Montana, the species is found on eroding knolls and barren hilltops of a particular limestone caprock. In Wyoming, the Powder River populations of barr orphaca are found on eroding sandstone bluffs. Drought-induced loss of individual barr orphaca plants in Montana suggests that a long-term change towards a warmer and drier climate might threaten the existence of some populations, especially those on more exposed locations (Schassberger 1990).

Conservation Planning A conservation strategy has not been prepared.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-57 Direct and Indirect Effects Competition from non-native invasive plants can be a threat. Some types of livestock grazing seem to encourage spread of these invasive species, while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment and spread. Noxious weeds, such as leafy spurge and Canadian thistle, occur in scattered populations throughout the mixed grass and shortgrass plains. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of sensitive species habitat. At the same time, efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to sensitive species. Livestock grazing management, including changes in the type of animal (sheep/goats), grazing season, and/or intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in some situations for the control of noxious weeds. Burning and livestock grazing can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant species, depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive characteristics of the individual plant species. Livestock grazing can reduce dead material within plant communities and open up canopy layers of plants, allowing germination and establishment of new plants. Excessive livestock grazing can interfere with reproduction of species such as barr orphaca that reproduce by seed. However, this species may lie too close to the ground to receive much grazing pressure. Livestock trampling during wet times of year can be a problem under some circumstances. Excessive and repeated soil compaction may result in reduced plant vigor. Individual plants may be directly affected by trampling. Burning may directly impact the species by causing mortality or indirectly through modification of its habitat. Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations. Information about specific pollinators for this sensitive plant species is lacking, however it is suspected to be insect pollinated (Schassberger 1990). Excessive removal of vegetation on uplands can result in rill, sheet, and gully erosion and excessive soil and water runoff. Increased erosion can result in lowered water tables. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of sensitive plant species may place individual plants or populations at risk. Ground-disturbing activities associated with oil, gas, mineral, and other types of development could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk.

Cumulative Effects Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the exchange of invasive, non- native plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and croplands.

H-58 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation On private lands, the following effects are likely to occur/continue: • Development activities, such as road and building construction on private lands, which will result in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and possibly some mortality of sensitive plants and population loss. • Livestock grazing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species. • Conversion of rangelands to croplands resulting in continued loss of suitable habitat. • Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands, which may reduce or threaten insect pollinators for some sensitive plant species. Road management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles and travel management plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants, depending on habitat fragmentation; road use restrictions; rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes; loss of suitable habitat to travel routes; and other factors. Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of recreational use; road and trail use patterns and intensities; rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes; and other factors.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-59 Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Appendices Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation measure should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction for all units containing this species: a. Prioritize this species for the preparation of a conservation strategy.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 BGNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." This species occurs in a very limited number of populations in the planning area. However, potential habitat seems to be readily available within the planning area. In addition, threats to known populations and potential habitat seem to be low from proposed management activities under all alternatives. Under all alternatives, sufficient low structure habitat would be present, which may enhance its competitive edge over other plant species. Barr orphaca habitat does not seem to be highly suitable for noxious weed establishment. The species provides low forage interest for livestock. Habitat has low potential for fire. The highest potential threat may come from livestock water developments or livestock trailing. Additional threats may come from human disturbance activities such as road or facilities construction.

Dakota Skipper (Hesperia dacotae) Species Description Like others in the skipper family, adults are diurnal and feed on nectar of selected forbs. Larvae eat leaves of selected grasses. Both sexes emerge in mid-June in western North Dakota and the third week of June in eastern North Dakota. Mating is single generational and occurs shortly after emergence. Main flight lasts from two to three weeks. Females oviposit near floodplains.

H-60 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Distribution Table H-2 summarizes species occurrence in the planning area. Several extant sites are documented in North and South Dakota, including the Little Missouri and Sheyenne National Grasslands. Forest Service maps of occurrence locations were consulted. The species is suspected of occurring on the Grand River and Cedar River National Grasslands, but inventories are incomplete. The Dakota skipper historically occurred from southern Manitoba across portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois.

ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings TNC/NHP G2G3, N3; FS Sensitive; State listed and species of concern.

Habitat The Dakota skipper is considered an obligate resident of undisturbed tallgrass to mixed grass prairies. It tolerates only light livestock grazing in tallgrass prairie. In particular, preferred habitats on the Sheyenne National Grassland are wet mesic sites dominated by big and little bluestem (Andropogon geradii and A. scoparius respectively), with a variety of Compositae to serve as a nectar source for adults (e.g. Echinacea angustifolia, Ratibida columnifera, Petalostemum candidum, Campanula rotundifolia, Erigeron spp., Gaillardia spp., and Rudbeckia spp). There also appears to be a high preference for areas with little bluestem and white camas (Zigadenus elegans). Dry, ungrazed or lightly grazed mesic sites in rolling prairie near river valleys or on north slopes are preferred habitats on the Little Missouri National Grassland. Vegetation communities are dominated by little bluestem and needlegrasses (Stipa spp.). Forb associates include harebell (Campanula rotundifolia), wood lily (Lilium philadelphicum), and alkalai grass (Zigadenus elegans). These sites typically consist of extensive stands of narrow-leaf purple coneflower, Gaillardia, and black-eyed Susan. Adult flights are strongly synchronized with narrow-leaf purple coneflower bloom.

Conservation Planning A conservation strategy has not been prepared. However, Moffat, and McPhillips (1983) provide a general set of habitat management guidelines for butterflies in the northern Great Plains.

Direct and Indirect Effects Projects that lower groundwater levels could negatively impact this species and its habitat. Grasshopper spraying on rangelands could negatively impact this species depending on timing. Invasion of native grassland communities by woody plants and exotic vegetation could reduce larval-host plant species. Bluestem grasslands are being converted to bluegrass- (Poa spp.) and smooth brome- (Bromus inermis) dominated areas. Prescribed burns can kill adults and larvae. Heavy and moderate livestock grazing can alter preferred species composition and vegetation

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-61 structure, thereby reducing habitat suitability for this species. Major expansion of prairie dog populations could possibly alter preferred vegetation communities and vegetation structure.

Cumulative Effects Additional threats to the species on private lands are the continuing conversion of native grasslands to cropland and the use of grasslands for hay production.

Interrelated and Independent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.

H-62 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian mananagement direction See Appendix D (DEIS) for noxious and undesirable plant direction Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation measures and mitigation should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Inventory and identify locations of rare butterfly and skipper populations prior to prescribed burning, mowing, and grasshopper spraying. b. Consult Moffat and McPhillips (1993) or the most current references on management recommendations for butterflies and skippers as part of the biological evaluation process for prescribed burns, mowing, livestock grazing, grasshopper spraying, and other activities or permits. c. Manage so that suitable habitats (vegetation composition and structure) are available on an annual basis for adults and butterfly larvae. Protect these sites to ensure population availability for recolonization of suitable habitats. d. Establish well-distributed populations on the Sheyenne and Little Missouri National Grasslands. Increase the size and juxtaposition of occupied habitats and avoid management activities that further isolate populations. e. Cooperate with other agencies and landowners to identify and manage populations adjoining National Grasslands.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale

Alternatives 1-2 SNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." In this case, the concern is population viability on the Sheyenne National Grassland and vicinity. The relative lack of native grasslands off the National Grassland makes it less likely that there would be other populations available to recolonize populations lost on the National Grassland as a result of authorized activities. Implementation of the conservation measures identified on the previous page would reduce the severity of this determination for Alternative 2.

Alternatives 3-5 SNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." Under these alternatives, adjustments in livestock grazing intensities and added emphasis on restoring native vegetation should result in positive habitat trends for this species.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-63 Alternatives 1-5 LMNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." The basis for this determination is the considerable acreages of private, tribal, state, and other federal grasslands, including the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, that adjoin or are near the National Grassland. It is assumed that these other areas would likely serve as a source of butterflies to recolonize local populations that could be lost on the National Grassland as a result of authorized activities.

Alternatives 1-5 GRCRNG Determination is "no impact." The species is not known to occur on these National Grasslands. It is possible and perhaps likely that this species will eventually be found on these areas. If they are located and found to be widespread on these units, the determination would change to "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." The basis for this determination is the considerable acreages of private, state, and tribal grasslands that adjoin or are near the National Grassland. It is assumed that these other areas would likely serve as a source of butterflies to recolonize local populations that could be lost on the National Grassland as a result of authorized activities.

Consultation and Reviews

Eastern Skipperling (Oarisma powesheik) Species Description The eastern skipperling is another member of the skipper family. Peak emergence in the Dakotas for this species is in late June through mid-July. Mating is single generational and occurs shortly after emergence. Main flight lasts from two to three weeks.

Distribution Table H-2 summarizes occurrence in the planning unit. The only known occurrence within the planning area on NFS lands is on the Sheyenne National Grassland. Historically, it occurred throughout the Sheyenne National Grassland in the McLeod area and in the vicinity of the Stack Slough National Wildlife Refuge. The species historically was common across the prairies and is now restricted to isolated, remnant prairie sites. Its current distribution extends from Michigan west to southeastern Manitoba, eastern North Dakota and South Dakota. Several extant sites are documented in southeastern North and northeastern South Dakota.

H-64 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings TNC/NHP G2/G3; State Listed and Species of Concern.

Habitat The eastern skipperling is considered an obligate resident of undisturbed/ungrazed tallgrass/wetland ecotones. Important habitats are composed of perennial forb, grass, and sedge components growing on saturated soils. These areas form the transition area between aquatic and upland sites. Lowland to Midland sites on the SNG are potentially important habitats. Indicator plants of suitable habitat include the following: • Joe Pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum). • marsh milkweed (Asclepias incarnata). • marsh aster (Aster simplex). • gayfeather (Liatris pynostachya). Indicator grass species include the following: • big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii). • prairie code grass (Spartina pectninata). • green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens). • spikerushes (Eleocharis spp.). Spikerush is potentially an important larval host. The eastern skipperling is frequently associated with areas that support Dakota skippers and Arogos skippers (Atrytone arogos). It is also roughly synchronous and sympatric with these species. The presence of a significant Asteraceae component is also considered a requisite. Important nectar sources include narrow-leaf purple coneflower (Echinacea angunstifolia), long-headed coneflower (Ratidiba columnifera), and black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia spp.).

Direct and Indirect Effects Projects that lower groundwater levels could negatively impact this species and its habitat, as could grasshopper spraying on rangelands, depending on timing. Invasion of native grassland communities by woody plants and exotic vegetation could reduce larval-host plant species. Prescribed burns can kill adults and larvae. Livestock grazing reduces habitat suitability for this species. Mowing can also reduce habitat suitability for this species.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-65 Cumulative Effects Additional threats to the species on private lands are the continuing conversion of native grasslands to cropland and the use of grasslands for hay production.

H-66 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian mananagement direction See Appendix D (DEIS) for noxious and undesirable plant direction Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Inventory and identify locations of rare butterfly and skipper populations prior to prescribed burning, mowing, and grasshopper spraying. b. Consult Moffat and McPhillips (1993) or the most current references on management recommendations for butterflies and skippers as part of the biological evaluation process for prescribed burns, mowing, livestock grazing, grasshopper spraying, and other activities or permits. c. Manage so that suitable habitats (vegetation composition and structure) are available on an annual basis for adults and butterfly larvae. Protect these sites to ensure population availability for recolonization of suitable habitats. d. Establish well-distributed populations on the Sheyenne National Grassland. Increase the size and juxtaposition of occupied habitats and avoid management activities that further isolate populations. e. Cooperate with other agencies and landowners to identify and manage populations adjoining or near National Grasslands.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Specific determinations are not made for this species since it is not listed under ESA and is not designated as sensitive by the Forest Service. However, the likely effects under each alternative are identified and compared.

Alternative 1-2 SNG Under these alternatives, the emphasis continues to be livestock grazing, and preferred undisturbed (rested) habitats are restricted to flooded areas, which may be minimal some years. The concern with these alternatives is population viability on the Sheyenne National Grassland and vicinity. The relative lack of native grasslands off the National Grassland reduces the likelihood that other populations would be available to recolonize populations that could be lost on the National Grassland as a result of authorized activities.

Alternatives 3-5 SNG Under these alternatives, more emphasis is given to restoring native prairie and maintaining a more diverse grassland, both in terms of plant species composition and grassland structure. This should result in positive habitat trends for this species.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-67 Consultation and Reviews

Regal Fritillary (Spyeria idalia) Species Description This species is a very distinctive and large butterfly of the brush-footed butterfly family (Nymphalidae). Males emerge in early to mid-June and appear through early July. Females follow one to two weeks later. Female flights continue into August. Eggs are laid near but not necessarily on violets, and larvae over-winter in leaves and litter. The larvae emerge in the spring and feed on violets (Fritz 1997). The species tends to widely disperse over large areas. Royer and Marrone (1992) was a primary reference consulted in this evaluation.

Distribution Table H-2 summarized occurrence in the planning area. The species is known or suspected to occur on or near the Little Missouri, Grand River/Cedar River, Sheyenne, Fort Pierre, and the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands and on the Samuel R. McKelvie and Nebraska National Forests (Bessey Ranger District). The Regal fritillary historically occurred from the eastern United States, west to Manitoba and North and South Dakota.

ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings TNC/NHP G3, N3; FS Sensitive

Habitat The species is most commonly associated with undisturbed tallgrass to mixed grass/bluestem prairies. Preferred habitats include big and little bluestem (Andropogon geradii and A. scoparius), wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.), and needlegrass (Stipa spp.), with a variety of Asteracea species that serve as nectar sources for adults (e.g. Echinacea angustifolia and E. pallida, Ratibida columnifera, Petalostemum candidum, Campanula rotundifolia, Erigeron spp., Gaillardia spp., and Rudbeckia spp.). Swampy and subirrigated meadows are also used by adults (Arnett 1997, Fritz 1997). Other nectar sources for adults include Viola spp., Asclepias spp., Cirsium spp., Monarda spp., and Liatris spp. Larvae feed only on species of violets (Viola spp.). The principle requirement in all habitats appears to be the presence of extensive grasslands with high densities of violet and other nectar sources.

Conservation Planning A conservation strategy has not been prepared. However, Moffat and McPhillips (1983) provide a general set of habitat management guidelines for butterflies in the northern Great Plains. Recommendations are also provided by Royer and Marrone (1992).

H-68 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Direct and Indirect Effects Projects that lower groundwater levels could negatively impact this species and its habitat. Grasshopper spraying on rangelands could negatively impact this species, depending on timing. Invasion of native grassland communities by woody plants and exotic vegetation could reduce native plant species vital to this butterfly. Prescribed burns can kill adults and larvae. Livestock grazing can reduce habitat suitability for this species. Mowing can reduce habitat suitability for this species.

Cumulative Effects Additional threats to the species on private lands are the continuing conversion of native grasslands to cropland and use of grasslands for hay production.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-69 Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction See Appendix N (LRMP) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian mananagement direction See Appendix D (DEIS) for noxious and undesirable plant direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian mananagement direction See Appendix D (DEIS) for noxious and undesirable plant direction Thunder Basin N.G.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-2 SNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." Under these alternatives, the emphasis continues to be livestock grazing. Undisturbed (rested) areas are restricted to flooded areas, which may be minimal some years. The concern with these alternatives is population viability on the Sheyenne National Grassland and vicinity. Another concern is the relative lack of native grasslands off the National Grassland. This situation reduces the likelihood that other populations would be available to recolonize populations lost on the National Grassland as a result of authorized activities. The determination for Alternative 2 could be reduced to "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide" by emphasizing an increase in native prairie restoration efforts, undisturbed and ungrazed habitat, and high structure grasslands.

H-70 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Alternatives 3-5 SNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." Under these alternatives, more emphasis is given to restoring native prairie and maintaining a more diverse grassland, both in terms of plant species composition and grassland structure. This should result in positive habitat trends for this species.

Alternatives 1-5 LMNG, GRCRNG, FPNG, BGNG, NNF (BRD), SRMNF Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." The basis for this determination is the considerable acreages of private, state, tribal, and other grasslands that adjoin or are near the National Grasslands. These other areas would likely serve as a source of butterflies to recolonize local populations that could be lost on the National Grass- lands as a result of authorized activities.

Consultation and Reviews

Sturgeon Chub (Macrohybopsis gelida)

Species Description The sturgeon chub is a slender minnow with small eyes, a small horizontal mouth, and low ridges or keels along the sides and back. It is unique within the Cyprinidae family in having keeled scales. Adults typically range in size from 50 to 70 mm, with maximum sizes near 100 mm. It is presumed to be a benthic taste feeder and is highly specialized for swift and turbid water (Lee et al. 1980). It has small, conical barbels at the corners of its mouth and a long, somewhat flattened snout that projects far beyond the upper lip (Pflieger 1978). Sturgeon chub mature reproductively at 2 years of age, and it is thought that they spawn in deep water in swift current (Botrell et al. 1964).

Distribution Table H-2 summarizes sturgeon chub distribution in the planning area. In South Dakota it is found in the Missouri River, White River, Cheyenne River, and Grand River (Bailey and Allum 1962). The Buffalo Gap, Fort Pierre, and Grand River National Grasslands are within the immediate watersheds of these rivers. More current surveys indicate it is still in portions of the Cheyenne and White Rivers (G. Cunningham personal communication, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Sturgeon chub have recently been reintroduced into the Little Missouri River in North Dakota near the Little Missouri National Grassland. The species was considered widely distributed in the Little Missouri River in the late 1970s (Reigh 1978 and Reigh and Owen 1979, cited in Kelsh

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-71 1993). However, Kelsh (1993) did not document this species on 24 sampling stations along the Little Missouri between Marmarth and Medora. Other later surveys of the Little Missouri River (Peterka 1993) also failed to document sturgeon chub in this river system. Kelsh (1993) hypothe- sizes that the extended droughts of the 1980s may have resulted in the extirpation of sturgeon chub from this system. The sturgeon chub was historically found in the Mississippi and Missouri River drainages, extending from Louisiana, northwest into Montana and Wyoming. It is now extirpated from 23 of 27 tributaries where it occurred historically (Werdon 1993). The species is still documented in the Yellowstone River in Montana.

ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings FWS Candidate; TNC/NHP G2 N2; FS and BLM Sensitive Species; State listed and species of concern.

Habitat Sturgeon chub are associated with medium to large Great Plains rivers. Sturgeon chub appear to be turbid water specialists that live primarily over gravel in the current of turbid, silty, and free-flowing rivers (Baxter and Simon 1970, Pflieger 1978). Turbid water adaptations for this species include small eyes and external taste buds abundantly developed over head, body, and fins. The taste buds are probably of primary importance in locating food. The feeding habits of the sturgeon chub have not been studied (Baxter and Simon 1970). The function of the keels on the scales is unknown, but they may act as current detectors for orientation (Pflieger 1978).

Conservation Planning A conservation strategy has not been prepared for this species.

Direct and Indirect Effects The primary threat to this species has been the major impoundment projects on the Missouri River and its major tributaries. Water development projects, channelization, and irrigation diversions on the Missouri River and its tributaries have flooded riffle habitat, altered temperature and flow regimes, and reduced turbidity. Small impoundments on private and federal rangelands may modify hydrological flow patterns, especially during droughts, and reduce downstream flow. Additional water developments may result in future water depletions. Water depletions probably make isolated populations in smaller tributaries more vulnerable to extirpation during droughts. Stocking of piscivorous game fish also threatens disjunct and isolated sturgeon chub populations. This problem is probably further exacerbated by the reduced sturgeon chub stock or lack of stock for recolonizing areas of local extinction.

Pollution and toxic spills from industry and agriculture could alter water quality, reduce habitat suitability, and/or poison sturgeon chub. Sand and gravel extraction operations have restricted

H-72 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation fish movements and destroyed habitat. Agricultural water uses may affect water availability in streams and rivers during drought.

Cumulative Effects Same as direct and indirect effects identified above.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-73 The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Cooperate with states and others in identifying tributaries where minimum instream flows and other special considerations are needed to protect sturgeon chub populations. b. Cooperate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others in assessing impacts of small impoundment developments on NFS lands on hydrologic flow patterns and downstream sturgeon chub habitat. If the species is proposed or listed under ESA, consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the possible impacts of small impoundment construction on NFS lands. c. Conduct a risk assessment for accidental oil and gas discharge from NFS lands into waters occupied by prairie fishes that are imperiled, and if necessary, take corrective actions. d. Conduct project-level biological evaluations assessing potential risks of issuing special use permits for sand and gravel extraction along rivers on NFS lands and oil and gas pipeline construction.

Alternatives 1-5 LMNG, GRNG, BGNG, FPNG It is assumed that the conservation measures listed above will mitigate any adverse effects from Forest Service authorized activities and allocations.

Consultation and Reviews

Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) Species Description Scientists have long debated the taxonomic status of the two arid land foxes, the swift fox and kit fox (Kahn et al. 1997). These two taxa are the smallest canids in North America. We presume the swift fox taxa only occurs in the planning area. Swift fox are considered endemic residents of grassland prairies on the Great Plains, while kit fox occupy the more desert environments further south (Kahn et al. 1997). Adult swift fox are usually about 12 inches tall and weigh about 5 to 6 pounds. They are monestrous and apparently monogamous They form pairs in early winter that may last for years. Litter size, based on pup counts, ranges from 4 to 5, and dispersal begins in September

H-74 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation and August. Swift fox use dens year-round to protect themselves from predators and the weather.

Distribution Table H-2 summarizes occurrence in the planning area. Populations occur on and near Thunder Basin, Buffalo Gap, and Oglala National Grasslands. Forest Service maps of occupied swift fox habitat on NFS lands were reviewed for this evaluation. Recent accounts suggest that the swift for may be increasing and reoccupying some portions of their historic range (Sammuel and Martin 1982). Current swift fox distribution can be considered as relatively widespread and includes portions of South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska. Swift fox are apparently absent from North Dakota although several recent confirmed observations suggest the species may exist at extremely low densities in the southwestern counties. In Wyoming, swift fox occupy much of their historical range, although surveys in some counties are incomplete. Swift fox are known to occur in very limited numbers in the panhandle and southwestern Nebraska. Distributions and associated densities appear highly variable.

ESA Status and Other Organization Rankings FWS Candidate; TNC/NHP G3, N3; FS and BLM Sensitive Species; State listed and species of concern; COSEWIC - Endangered. This species was petitioned for listing under ESA in 1992. The 90-day finding from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that a species listing may be warranted range-wide. The 12- month finding issued in 1995 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service resulted in a "warranted, but precluded decision," concluding that the magnitude of threats to the species is low to moderate although the immediacy of threats remains imminent. The current candidate status of the swift fox is reviewed annually.

Habitat Swift fox appear to be habitat generalists and occupy a variety of shrubland and grassland types. Habitats commonly include intermittent and permanent water sources during most years. The species also occurs in predominately agricultural landscapes and appear to be very adaptive to these unnatural habitats. There is a tendency for swift fox to prefer level to moderately rolling terrain that affords good visibility for detecting other predators, such as coyotes and golden eagles (Hillman and Sharps 1978, Hines 1980). They are opportunistic feeders taking a variety of prey and carrion. Small mammals including black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomy ludovicianus), northern pocket gophers (Thomomys talpoides) and thirteen-lined ground squirrels (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus) made up most of their summer diet in South Dakota (Uresk and Sharps 1986); small birds, grasshoppers, beetles, grass and cactus (Opuntia spp.) comprised the rest. Swift fox are commonly observed hunting road sides, presumably in search of carrion.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-75 Conservation Planning A conservation strategy was prepared by state wildlife agencies in 1998.

Direct and Indirect Effects Prairie dog poisoning on NFS lands could reduce prey availability, especially during winter when some prey species are unavailable. Swift fox may be more vulnerable to coyotes and other predators when they hunt fewer and smaller prairie dog colonies. The effects of coyote damage control to reduce livestock losses on swift fox are uncertain. Use of M-44s by government animal damage control agents could result in accidental swift fox mortality. Increased roads and vehicle traffic associated primarily with oil and gas development could also increase swift fox mortality.

Cumulative Effects Predator control on private lands to reduce livestock losses may result in accidental swift fox mortality. In some areas, predator control on private lands may have an indirect effect of enhancing swift fox populations by reducing overall coyote populations, thereby reducing predation on swift fox.

Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1

H-76 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1, GA7-A1, GA8-A1, GA10-A1 Thunder Basin N.G. GA1-A1, GA2-A1, GA3-A1, GA4-A1, GA5-A1, GA6-A1 Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. None Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-5 TBNG, BGNG/ONG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." Additional oil and gas development could result in additional roads and traffic and additional swift fox mortality.

Consultation and Reviews

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-77 Section 4. Biological Evaluation for Species that may be at Risk of Regional or More Local Imperilment The distribution of plant and animal species of concern in the planning area that may be at risk of regional or more local imperilment are listed in Table H-3 (following page). Some species may have local populations within the planning area or on NFS lands that may be at risk of being extirpated. These species are ranked as G4 or G5 by the Natural Heritage Program.

Species Eliminated from Further Analysis Screen 1 • white-faced ibis • common loon • osprey • plains spotted skunk Screen 2 • river otter • Townsend’s big-eared bat • northern short-horned lizard • pale milk snake • upland sandpiper • tiger salamander • mountain lion Screen 3 • dwarf shrew

H-78 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Table H-3: Distribution of Plant and Animal Species of Concern Possibly at Risk of Regional/Local Imperilment. National Grassland or Forest NNF NNF Species Classification LMNG GRCRNG SNG TBNG BGNG FPNG ONG SRMNF PRRD BRD Labrador bedstraw FS - Sensitive K Marsh bellflower FS - Sensitive K S S K Buckbean FS - Sensitive K IA - Threatened Nodding buckwheat FS - Sensitive K S S S Slender cottongrass FS - Sensitive K S S S Lanceleaf cottonwood FS - Sensitive K S S Torrey’s cryptantha FS - Sensitive K S Dogberry FS - Sensitive K Crested shield fern FS - Sensitive K S S Marsh fern FS - Sensitive K S S K Oak fern FS -Sensitive K IA - Threatened Sensitive fern FS - Sensitive K S S K Leathery grape-fern FS - Sensitive K Little grape-fern FS - Sensitive K Spinulose woodfern FS - Sensitive K S K Lady-fern FS - Sensitive K S Shining flatsedge FS - Sensitive K S S S S Umbrella flatsedge FS - Sensitive K S S Frostweed FS - Sensitive K S S S Broad-leaved goldenrod FS - Sensitive K Beach heather FS - Sensitive K Marsh horsetail FS - Sensitive K Meadow horsetail FS - Sensitive K S Sand lily FS - Sensitive K S S S S

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-79 National Grassland or Forest NNF NNF Species Classification LMNG GRCRNG SNG TBNG BGNG FPNG ONG SRMNF PRRD BRD Sandgrass FS - Sensitive K S S MN - Spp Concern Showy lady’s slipper FS - Sensitive K IA - Threatened Small white lady’s slipper FS - Sensitive K S S IA, MN - Spp Concern COSEWIC - E Blue lips FS - Sensitive K S S S Alyssum-leaf phlox FS - Sensitive K S S S Limber pine FS - Sensitive K Upright pinweed FS - Sensitive S K S S Alkali sacaton FS - Sensitive K S S Delicate sedge FS - Sensitive K IA - Spp Concern Foxtail sedge FS - Sensitive K Handsome sedge FS - Sensitive K Wahoo spindle-tree FS - Sensitive K Golden stickleaf FS - Sensitive K Adder’s tongue FS - Sensitive K S K IA - Spp Concern Hooker’s townsendia FS - Sensitive K Loesel’s twayblade FS - Sensitive K S K Bog willow FS - Sensitive K IA - Threatened Tawny crescent butterfly FS - Sensitive K S S K Prairie skipper IA - Spp Concern K S U U U U U U MN - Threatened FS - Sensitive Flathead chub FS - Sensitive K K K K U K K

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-80 National Grassland or Forest NNF NNF Species Classification LMNG GRCRNG SNG TBNG BGNG FPNG ONG SRMNF PRRD BRD Longnose sucker SD - Threatened K U Plains topminnow FS - Sensitive K U U K K Northern leopard frog FS - Sensitive K K K K K K K K K K MT - Spp Concern COSEWIC - V Northern short-horned lizard COSEWIC - Vulnerable K K K K K FS - Sensitive SD - Rare Tiger salamander FS - Sensitive K K K K K K K K K K Western smooth green snake MT - Spp Concern K K U U IA - Threatened Pale milk snake FS - Sensitive S S U U U K S MT - Spp Concern Blanding’s turtle IUCN - Lower Risk S K SD - Endangered American bittern FS - Sensitive K K K U K K K S K PIF - Moderate Priority WY - Spp Concern Priority Greater prairie chicken FS - Sensitive K K K MN - Spp Concern COSEWIC - XT Yellow-billed cuckoo FS - Sensitive U U K K K K K K K K PIF - Moderate Priority MT, WY - Spp Concern Long-billed curlew FS - Sensitive K S K K U K K K BLM - Sensitive COSEWIC - V WY - Spp Concern PIF - High Priority WY-PIF - Level 1

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-81 National Grassland or Forest NNF NNF Species Classification LMNG GRCRNG SNG TBNG BGNG FPNG ONG SRMNF PRRD BRD Dickcissel BLM - Sensitive S S K K U K K K PIF - Moderate Priority Northern goshawk FS - Sensitive S S S K S S S S BLM - Sensitive MT, WY - Spp Concern Sage grouse FS - Sensitive K K K WY-PIF - Level 1 COSEWIC - E Ferruginous hawk FS - Sensitive K K U K K K K K K K BLM - Sensitive COSEWIC - V MT, WY - Spp Concern WY-PIF - Level 1 Swainson’s hawk BLM - Sensitive K K K K K K K K K K WY-PIF - Level 1 White-faced ibis FS - Sensitive U U U K BLM - Sensitive MT, WY - Spp Concern Common loon FS - Sensitive K BLM - Sensitive Merlin FS - Sensitive K U S K K K K K K K WY - Spp Concern Osprey SD - Threatened U U K U U U U Short-eared owl COSEWIC -V K K K K K K K K K PIF - Moderate IA -Threatened MN - Spp Concern WY-PIF - Level 1

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-82 National Grassland or Forest NNF NNF Species Classification LMNG GRCRNG SNG TBNG BGNG FPNG ONG SRMNF PRRD BRD Western burrowing owl FS - Sensitive K K U K K K K K K K BLM - Sensitive COSEWIC - E MT - Spp Concern MN - Endangered WY-PIF - Level 1 Upland sandpiper FS - Sensitive K K K K K K K K K K Loggerhead shrike FS - Sensitive K K K K K K K K K BLM - Sensitive COSEWIC - T MT - Spp Concern PIF - Moderate Priority MN - Threatened WY-PIF - Level 1 Baird’s sparrow FS - Sensitive K K K K U U BLM - Sensitive MT - Spp Concern PIF - High Priority MN - Endangered WY-PIF - Level 1 Fox sparrow FS - Sensitive K K K K Trumpeter swan IUCN - Lower Risk K U FS - Sensitive BLM - Sensitive MT,WY - Spp Concern WY-PIF - Level 1 Black tern FS - Sensitive K K K K K K K K K K BLM - Sensitive PIF - Moderate Priority IA - Spp Concern WY-PIF - Level 1 Lewis woodpecker FS - Sensitive K K K

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-83 National Grassland or Forest NNF NNF Species Classification LMNG GRCRNG SNG TBNG BGNG FPNG ONG SRMNF PRRD BRD Black-backed woodpecker FS - Sensitive K BLM - Sensitive WY - Spp Concern Townsend’s big-eared bat IUCN - Vulnerable S U K U U FS - Sensitive BLM - Sensitive MT,WY - Spp Concern Black-tailed prairie dog COSEWIC - Vulnerable K K K K K K K N BLM - Sensitive MT,WY - Spp Concern FS - Sensitive Mountain lion SD - Threatened S K K S S K Plains pocket mouse MN - Spp Concern U K K IA - Endangered Fringe-tailed myotis WY - Spp Concern U U S K K K FS - Sensitive River otter NE - Endangered K K K S S SD - Threatened California bighorn sheep FS - Sensitive K Dwarf shrew FS - Sensitive U MT, WY - Spp Concern Plains spotted skunk MT - Spp Concern U U U U U U U U U U MN, IA - Spp Concern Least weasel MN - Spp Concern K K K U S U U K = Known occurrence in vicinity, date of last observation indicates that species still occurs in area. S = Suspected occurrence, may be historic records but no recent observations, suitable habitat likely. U = Unknown occurrence, more surveys may be needed, may be historic records, potential habitat possible. N = No recent observations, surveys recently completed, may be historic records, potential habitat possible. OS = Off-site occurrence (downstream, etc.).

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-84 Species Descriptions for Fine Filter Analyses These descriptions are for those Table H-3 species that warrant fine filter analyses because of more complex land use relationships.

Sand Lily (Leucocrinum montanum) Species Description This perennial forb is peripheral to its range within the planning area. It is a low growing perennial with deeply buried rootstocks. Sand lily is an early flowering species generally blooming in May.

Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The species is known to occur on the Little Missouri National Grassland and is suspected of occurring on the Grand River/Cedar River National Grassland, the Buffalo Gap National Grassland, the Nebraska National Forest, the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grassla- nds. Within the planning area, sand lily is known from sparse populations. However, it is more plentiful in the main part of its range in the western part of the United States.

Habitat The species occurs in sandy areas on mixed grass prairie. Within the planning area it is found on sandy terraces, sandy swales, hillsides and open coniferous woods.

Conservation Planning Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been developed for this species in the planning area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Competition from non-native invasive plants can be a threat. Some types of livestock grazing seem to encourage spread of these invasive species while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment and spread. Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge and Canadian thistle occur in scattered populations throughout the mixed grass and shortgrass plains. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of sensitive species habitat but at the same time, efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to sensitive species. Livestock grazing management, including changes in the type of animal (sheep/goats), grazing season, and/or intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in some situations for the control of noxious weeds. Burning and livestock grazing can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant species, depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-85 characteristics of the individual plant species. Burning may directly impact the species by causing mortality or indirectly through modification of its habitat. Grazing can reduce dead material within plant communities and open up canopy layers of plants, allowing for the germination and establishment of new plants. Excessive livestock grazing can interfere with reproduction of sand lily. Sand lily is considered palatable to livestock. Early season grazing can impact plant growth and flowering during its most vulnerable period. Livestock trampling during wet times of year can be a problem under some circumstances. Excessive and repeated soil compaction may result in reduced plant vigor. Individual plants may be directly affected by trampling. Excessive removal of vegetation on uplands can result in rill, sheet, and gully erosion and excessive soil and water runoff. Increased erosion can result in lowered water tables. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of sensitive plant species may place individual plants or populations at risk. Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations. Information is lacking about specific pollinators for this sensitive plant species, however it is suspected to be insect pollinated. Ground-disturbing activities associated with oil, gas, mineral, and other types of development could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Road management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles and travel management plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants, depending on habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.

Cumulative Effects Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, non- native plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and croplands. Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue, resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible mortality of sensitive plants and population loss. Livestock grazing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private lands. Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands can be expected to occur on private lands. Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect pollinators for some sensitive plant species.

H-86 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.

The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Do not graze livestock in habitats supporting this species during the early season when the species is growing and flowering. To control the timing of livestock grazing may require development of riparian pastures that include occupied and unoccupied habitat for this species. b. Manage mixed grass and shortgrass habitats that supports the species to provide for a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes within the landscape. Especially important may be seral stages which provide a high component of species diversity. Well-distributed plant communities of high species diversity will be needed to act as

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-87 seed sources for other areas within the landscape where diversity may be reduced. Landscapes which do not provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in loss of suitable habitat for this sensitive species and others.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1 and 2 LMNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." This species is known from a very limited number of populations within the planning area. Historic and current occurrence records for the Little Missouri National Grasslands shows this species prefers sandy soils usually with added moisture conditions. All element occurrence records from the Grassland place the species along sandy terraces adjacent to drainages. These drainageways have historically and into the present provided watering sources to livestock. Many of the habitats associated with the drainageways have been altered from pre-settlement conditions, resulting in loss of quality habitat for this species. In addition, available evidence seems to indicate a downward trend in number of individuals and populations. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the levels of grazing, combined with other direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, may result in the loss of habitat and populations of the species within the planning unit. There is no concern for population viability in other parts of the planning area or rangewide however. Alternative 2 would provide for decreases in mid to higher seral conditions which reduces suitable conditions for the species and its habitats. This alternative provides for higher levels of noxious weed control, however it also provides for increased livestock use with the potential for increases in the spread and establishment of noxious weeds and exotic species. Noxious weeds and many exotics prefer riparian habitats and areas of added moisture. In addition, many chemical treatments are reduced for use within riparian zones. The two units of Theodore Roosevelt National Park provide similar habitat conditions. However, there are no known populations of this species in either unit of the Park. Implementation of the recommendations presented in the Conservation and Mitigation Measures section for this species would reduce the severity of this determination for Alternative 2. Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of "may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide" for Alternative 2.

H-88 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Upright Pinweed (Lechea stricta) Species Description This perennial forb flowers from May through July depending on location and weather conditions.

Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The species is known to occur on the Sheyenne National Grassland and suspected of occurring on the Little Missouri National Grassland and the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests.

Habitat Upright pinweed is categorized as a generalist species being found within several habitats across the tallgrass and mixed grass prairie. It’s found primarily in habitats within the tallgrass prairie and choppy sandhills on the Sheyenne National Grassland, but may also occur on the mixed and shortgrass prairie in the western part of the planning area. Within the Northern Great Plains planning area, the habitat components associated with this species are uncommon and occupy a very small percentage of the total land base. The tallgrass prairie on the Sheyenne National Grassland is dominated by grass species such as big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi), indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). These communities intergrade into mixed grass prairie in the eastern portion of the Sheyenne Grasslands (Seiler 1974). Within these communities, the disturbance processes of herbivory, fire, and climatic fluctuations were the significant determinants for plant distribution and community composition.

Conservation Planning Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been developed for this species in the planning area.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-89 spread of these invasive species while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment and spread. Burning, livestock grazing, and mowing can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant species depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive characteristics of the individual plant species. Properly timed burning, grazing, and mowing may be beneficial in maintaining the quality of native grassland habitats. Lack of disturbance can cause some sites to convert to shrub habitats dominated by willow species. Burning may directly impact this species by causing mortality or indirectly impact the species through effects on its habitat. Mowing and summer burning may prevent completion of the life cycle for upright pinweed. Early spring and late fall burning should have no effect on the species and may be beneficial. Livestock grazing can prevent sensitive plants from completing their life cycles and producing seeds or sprores. Excessive and continuous livestock grazing on sensitive plants can lead to impacts on plant regrowth, thereby reducing the vigor of plants within the population. Upright pinweed is not considered palatable to cattle but could be grazed by sheep or goats. Grazing can reduce dead material within plant communities and open up canopy layers of plants, allowing for the germination and establishment of new plants. Livestock trampling can be a problem under some circumstances. Trampling could be detrimental to individual plants. In addition, excessive and repeated soil compaction from trampling may result in reduced plant vigor. Repeated mowing may prevent upright pinweed from completing its life cycle and may also reduce carbohydrate reserves. Mowing should have no affect after seed set. Ground-disturbing activities associated with road and trail development could result in mortality of plants or place their populations at risk. Road management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of spread of invasive, non- native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors. Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations for upright pinweed. Information is lacking about specific pollinators for many sensitive plant species. Increased rates of channelization in drainages can result in a lowered water tables. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of some sensitive plant species may place individual plants or populations at risk.

H-90 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands can be expected to occur on private lands. Livestock grazing and mowing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private lands. Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue, resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible mortality of sensitive plants and population loss. Drainage ditches on adjacent private land may lower water table levels below the root zone of some sensitive plant species, putting individuals or populations at risk. Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect pollinators for some sensitive plant species. Wilderness designation may reduce the opportunity to prescribe burn specifically for enhancing sensitive plant species habitat.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-91 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation measure should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. This species should be a priority for preparing a conservation strategy. The conservation strategy should address the estimated number of individuals and the distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species throughout its existing range within the planning area. In addition, the conservation strategy should address maintaining stable or increasing populations for this species and will discuss the methodology for assessing population trend. The relationship of this species to vegetation succession under various disturbance regimes needs to be determined. This analysis could also be incorporated into a conservation stragegy. b. Manage the habitats where this species occurs as a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 SNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." This determination is based upon the limited habitat available to this species within the planning units, planning area, and rangewide. Habitat quality may be affected by grazing intensity, season of use, livestock distribution, and trampling. Exotic species populations may continue to expand negatively affecting the sensitive plant populations. The known population of this species may be affected by grazing intensity, season of use, livestock grazing distribution, and trampling. Alternatives 3 and 5 would provide for increases in mid to higher seral conditions which should favor the mosaic of landscape habitat conditions needed to ensure suitable habitat for the species. The acres of rangeland annually rested from livestock grazing under Alternatives 3 and 5 also more closely approximate the grazing conditions under which this species and tallgrass prairie habitats evolved as compared to current grazing conditions. In addition, the level of prescribed fire under Alternatives 3 and 5 is a step towards restoring the fire regime under which the species evolved. On a broad scale, both alternatives also provide for no net increase (from current levels) of noxious weeds. The existence and spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the maintenance of high quality, tallgrass prairie habitat. Both occupied and unoccupied habitat for this species should be a priority for noxious weed control.

H-92 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Alternative 2 SNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide". This determination was based upon the low number of known populations of this species and the limited habitat available within the planning units, planning area, and rangewide. Under this alternative, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of management activities may result in the loss of known populations with the potential to affect population viability within the planning unit. Alternative 2 would provide for decreases in mid to higher seral conditions which may reduce suitable conditions for the species and the habitats upon which it depends. Alternative 2 provides for higher levels of noxious weed control, however it also provides for increased livestock use with the potential for increases in the spread and establishment of noxious weeds and exotic species. The acres of rangeland annually rested from livestock grazing do not approximate the grazing conditions under which this species or tallgrass prairie habitats evolved. In addition, the levels of prescribed fire do not approximate the fire regime under which this species or tallgrass prairie habitats evolved.

Handsome Sedge (Carex formosa) Species Description This perennial sedge is cespitose with short, tough rootstocks. The fruit is an achene, and fruiting occurs from early June to mid-July.

Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The species is known to occur on the Sheyenne National Grassland. The population on the SNG represents the western-most extension of this species’ range. This species is a rare inhabitant of mesic deciduous forests throughout its range, which is centered around the Great Lakes and extends from New England to North Dakota (Challey and Heidel 1993).

Habitat The species appears to be restricted to moist eastern deciduous woodlands on alluvial soils. Dominant vegetation includes green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and aspen (Populus tremuloides). The one known population on the Sheyenne National Grassland is found in the riverine wetlands complex, consisting of mesic areas resulting from upland drainage patterns of the Sheyenne River. Here it occurs on the river bottom near the base of north-facing bluffs along the river valley margin.

Conservation Planning Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been developed for this species in the planning area.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-93 Direct and Indirect Effects Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge occur in scattered populations throughout the tallgrass prairie. Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge, Canada thistle, and purple loosestrife reduce the quality of habitat for this species but at the same time, efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to the species. In addition, many chemicals are restricted for use within riparian areas. Competition from non-native invasive plants (exotics) can be a threat. Invasive species such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome have the potential to compete with this species for habitat, significantly reducing population numbers. Encroachment by exotic woody species may also threaten species habitat. Livestock trampling and trailing can be a problem for this species. Habitat occurs in areas which are typically very shaded and livestock use these areas for shade in the heat of the summer, if accessible. In addition, excessive and repeated soil compaction from trampling may result in reduced plant vigor. Livestock grazing can prevent this species from completing its life cycle and producing seeds. In addition, excessive and continuous livestock grazing can lead to impacts on plant regrowth, thereby reducing the vigor of plants within the population. This species may have moderate palatability to cattle . It is considered a grasslike plant and may be inadvertently chosen by livestock also. Increased rates of channelization in drainages can result in a lowered water tables. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone may place individual plants or populations at risk. Ground-disturbing activities associated with road and recreational trail development could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Road management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.

H-94 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and croplands. Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands and draining of croplands can be expected to occur on private lands. Livestock grazing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private lands. Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue, resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and possible mortality of sensitive plants and population loss. Drainage ditches and irrigation can alter the hydrologic regime of mesic habitats, inducing drier conditions to these habitats, preventing the plants from completing their life cycle, and/or killing the plants.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining federal range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-95 Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation and mitigation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction for all units containing this species: a. This species should be a priority for preparing a conservation strategy. The conservation strategy should address the estimated number of individuals and the distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species throughout its existing range within the planning area. In addition, the conservation strategy should address maintaining stable or increasing populations for this species and will discuss the methodology for assessing population trend. The relationship of this species to vegetation succession under various disturbance regimes needs to be determined. This analysis could also be incorporated into a conservation stragegy. b. Manage habitats for this species as priority areas for noxious weed control. In addition, habitats should be monitored periodically for new starts of noxious weeds and these areas should also be priority areas for control. Biocontrol of noxious weeds using goats or sheep should be avoided in these areas. c. Current and future populations of the species should be protected from livestock grazing. This may require fencing. d. Water developments, oilers, and livestock salt and mineral should be not be placed near or in these habitat types. e. Hiking, horseback, ORV, and mountain bike trails in habitats supporting this species should be designated through planning, to prevent habitat damage from dispersed use. f. The riverine habitats along the Sheyenne River are highly dependent upon maintenance of the hydrologic regime in the Grassland. Any activities which would change the hydrologic regime should be discouraged.

Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 SNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend towards federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." This species is known from only one population on the Sheyenne National Grassland and it occurs in a riverine wetland habitat which is also extremely rare in the planning area. The determination was based upon the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of introduced plant species, livestock grazing and recreation on the known population of this species and its limited habitat. In addition the riverine habitat with which it is associated has a very low tolerance to disturbance. New or increased populations of exotic and noxious weeds may be hard to control since many chemicals are restricted for use within riparian zones. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the known population lies within Management Area 6.1 Rangeland Resource Production. Under Alterna- tives 3 and 5, the known population lies within proposed wilderness areas. Under Alternative

H-96 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation 4, the known population lies within Management Area 4.22 Scenic Areas, Vistas, or Travel Corridors.Disturbance from recreational use, exotics, and livestock grazing and trampling in occupied and unoccupied habitat may result in loss of the one known population and the habitat upon which it depends within the planning unit and possibly within the planning area. There should be no concerns for population viability rangewide, however. In addition, these sites are highly dependent upon maintenance of the hydrologic regime in the Grassland. Habitat for this species may be found within the Sheyenne Springs RNA although no populations are known from this area. Protection may also be provided by the Nature Conservancy’s Pigeon Point Preserve and the ND State Game and Fish Department Mirror Pool Wildlife Management Area. Implementation of the following conservation measure plus those recommended under the Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this species would reduce the severity of this determination for Alternatives 2 through 5: Under all alternatives, the known population and associated habitat are recommended for placement within Management Area 2.1 Special Interest Area (SIA) or 3.64, special plant and wildlife habitat. Under Alternative 3, the area occurs within a proposed wilderness area (Management Area 1.2) which would be compatible with both 2.1 and 3.64 Management Area designations. Under Alternative 3, 2.1 or 3.64 designation would place an added layer of specific management direction for this species and its habitat. The intent of the 2.1 or 3.64 management area designation under all alternatives is to provide additional direction specifically for the one known popula;tion of this species on the Sheyenne National Grassland and its rare habitat. The proposed wilderness under Alternative 5 is much larger than the area proposed under Alternative 3, and recreational use may be more highly dispersed under that alternative . Implementation of the conservation measures recommended under the Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this species would reduce the severity of this determination for Alter- native 5. Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of "may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide" for all the alternatives.

Consultation and Reviews Kurt Hansen, Range Management Specialist, USDA-Forest Service, Medora RD Darla Lenz, Botanist, North Dakota Natural Heritage program

Tawny Crescent Butterfly (Phyciodes batesii) Species Description The tawny crescent is a medium-sized member of the brush-footed butterfly family (Nymphalidae). Adults mate in June and lay egg clusters on the underside of aster (Aster laevis and A. simplex) leaves. Larvae overwinter and then pupate the following June to emerge as adults. Dogbane (Apocynum spp.) and spurge (Euphorbia spp.) are favored nectar sources for

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-97 adults. Fritz (1997) was a primary reference for this species. The TNC website (http://biosource.heritage.tnc.org) was also consulted for information on this species.

Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The species is known to occur on the Little Missouri National Grassland and the Nebraska National Forest (Pine Ridge). It’s suspected to occur on the Thunder Basin and Oglala National Grasslands.

Habitat Preferred habitats in the planning area include ponderosa pine savannah and associated riparian habitats. The more moist sites associated with north slopes, springs and riparian zones are favored. Other forest and grassland ecotones are also used. As mentioned above, aster serves as larvae hosts, and dogbane and spurge are favored nectar sources for adults.

Direct and Indirect Effects Projects that lower groundwater levels could negatively impact this species and its habitat. Herbicide treatments to control leafy spurge reduces nectar sources. Grasshopper spraying on rangelands could negatively impact this species depending on timing. Prescribed burns can kill adults and larvae. Livestock grazing can reduce habitat suitability for this species, especially where riparian and other wetland sites are degraded. Mowing can cause direct mortality and reduced habitat suitability for this species.

Cumulative Effects An additional threat to the species on private lands is the continued use of insecticides, conversion of native grasslands to cropland and tame grasslands used for hay production (Finch 1991).

Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in the proposed LRMPs:

H-98 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.7(1), GO1.8 SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,5,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3) Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.7(1), GO1.8 SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,5,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3) Thunder Basin N.G. NA Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A(1,2,4), GA3-A(1,2) Nebraska N.F. Units GA11-A1 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Inventory and identify locations of rare butterfly and skipper populations prior to prescribed burning, mowing and grasshopper spraying. b. Consult Moffat and McPhillips (1993) or the most current references on management recommendations for butterflies and skippers as part of the biological evaluation process for prescribed burns, mowing, livestock grazing, grasshopper spraying and other activities or permits. c. Manage so that suitable habitats (vegetation composition and structure) are available on an annual basis for adults and butterfly larvae. Protect these sites to ensure population availability for recolonization of suitable habitats. d. Help establish well-distributed populations. Increase the size and juxtaposition of occupied habitats and avoid management activities that further isolate populations. e. Cooperate with other agencies and landowners to identify and manage populations adjoining or near National Grasslands.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-99 Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-5 LMNG, NNF (Pine Ridge), TBNG, ONG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide".

Consultation and Reviews

Prairie Skipper (Hesperia ottoe) Species Description Like others in the skipper family (Hesperidae), adults are diurnal and feed on nectar of selected forbs. Eggs are laid in the grass canopy and larvae feed on leaves of selected grasses. Mating is single generational, and occurs shortly after emergence. Main flight occurs from June into early August. Females oviposit near floodplain. Adults feed on nectar from a variety of plant species including blazing star (Liatris spp.), hoary vervain (Verbena stricta), purple coneflower (Echinacea angustifolia). Populations are generally small and localized. The TNC website (http://biosource.heritage.tnc.org) was a primary source for information on this species.

Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. This species is known to occur on the Little Missouri National Grassland and is suspected of occurring on the Grand River/Cedar River National Grassland.

Habitat This is a species of undisturbed open mid-grass to tallgrass prairie. Drier prairie sites may be favored.

Conservation Planning A conservation strategy has not been prepared. However, Moffat and McPhillips (1983) provide a general set of habitat management guidelines for butterflies in the northern Great Plains. The information on the TNC website for this species also provides a comprehensive set of habitat management guidelines for this species.

H-100 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Direct and Indirect Effects Grasshopper spraying on rangelands could negatively impact this species depending on timing. Prescribed burns can kill adults and larvae. Livestock grazing can reduce habitat suitability for this species. Mowing can reduce cause direct mortality and reduced habitat suitability for this species.

Cumulative Effects Continued use of insecticides and conversion of rangeland to croplands can be expected to occur on private lands (Finch 1991). An additional threat to the species on private lands is grassland mowing for hay production.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-101 Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Inventory and identify locations of rare butterfly and skipper populations prior to prescribed burning, mowing and grasshopper spraying. b. Consult Moffat and McPhillips (1993) or the most current references on management recommendations for butterflies and skippers as part of the biological evaluation process for prescribed burns, mowing, livestock grazing, grasshopper spraying and other activities or permits. c. Manage so that suitable habitats (vegetation composition and structure) are available on an annual basis for adults and butterfly larvae. Protect these sites to ensure population availability for recolonization of suitable habitats. d. Help establish well distributed populations on the Little Missouri National Grassland. Increase the size and juxtaposition of occupied habitats and avoid management activities that further isolate populations. e. Cooperate with other agencies and landowners to identify and manage populations adjoining or near the National Grassland.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-5 LMNG, GR/CRNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."

Consultation and Reviews

Flathead Chub (Platygobio gracilis)

Species Description This member of the Cyprinidae family is a large silvery minnow that as adults grow to 95 to 190 mm in length. This species spawns during mid or late summer when water temperatures are relatively high. They feed primarily on terrestrial insects and small invertebrates (Lee et al. 1980) but also consume some aquatic vegetation. Flathead chubs provide a forage base for larger piscivorous fish and are commonly used as baitfish by anglers (Baxter and Stone 1995; Lee et al. 1980).

H-102 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The species is currently found in the Cheyenne River (Buffalo Gap National Grassland and Thunder Basin National Grassland) and Little Missouri River (Little Missouri National Grassland) and some of their tributaries. It also occurs in the Bad River (Buffalo Gap National Grassland), Dismal River (Nebraska National Forest), Niobrara River (Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest), Hat Creek (Oglala National Grassland) and Antelope Creek (Thunder Basin National Grassland). The flathead chub is found in large, turbid rivers from the Northwest Territories south through the Great Plains states of the United States.

Habitat This species inhabits a wide variety of habitats. They can be found in turbid rivers in swift current to pools in small clear streams. The species appears to be tolerant of a wide variety of environmental conditions.

Conservation Planning A biological evaluation conducted by Forest Service resource specialists in 1995 assessed the effects of livestock grazing on the plains topminnow. This evaluation also identifies numerous conservation and mitigation measures.

Direct and Indirect Effects Recent studies have indicated that the range and populations of this species may be declining (Tabor 1993). Primary causes for these apparent declines are not definitive. Commercial exploitation as baitfish is a possible contributing factor. Toxic spills into rivers and streams could threaten local populations. Destructive livestock grazing along small streams could degrade habitat (USDA Forest Service 1995).

Cumulative Effects Same as those identified under previous section.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-103 Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in the proposed LRMPs: Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.8, GO1.9, GO1.10 SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3) Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.8, GO1.9, GO1.10 SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3) Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.8, GO1.9, GO1.10 SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3) Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1 Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A2, GA3-A2 Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. None Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. None Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction

H-104 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation d. Cooperate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others in assessing impacts of small impoundment developments on NFS lands on hydrologic flow patterns and downstream sturgeon chub habitat. e. Conduct project-level biological evaluations assessing potential risks of issuing special use permits for sand and gravel extraction along rivers on NFS lands and oil and gas pipeline construction.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-5 LMNG, BGNG, TBNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide".

Longnose Sucker (Catastomus catastomus) Species Description This member of the Catostomidae family range from dwarf forms to over 600 mm in length. Its highly variable morphologically across its range (Lee et al. 1980). This species spawns in during spring and early summer when water temperatures are relatively cold. Bottom invertebrates make up the diet of this species.

Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The only NFS lands in the planning area associated with this species is the Little Missouri National Grassland where the species occurs in the Little Missouri River. This sucker is the most widespread sucker species in North America. It’s found in Canada and Alaska, south from western Maryland, north to Minnesota, west and north through northern Colorado and through Washington.

Habitat The longnose sucker is found in cool, spring-fed streams where it feeds on the bottom on algae, crustaceans, snails and insect larvae . It spawns in lakes or in shallow-flowing streams over gravel. The longnose sucker does not sexually mature until 4 to 9 years of age.

Conservation Planning None

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-105 Direct and Indirect Effects Toxic spills into rivers and streams could threaten local populations. Destructive livestock grazing along small streams could degrade habitat. Small impoundments on private and federal rangelands may modify hydrological flow patterns, especially during droughts, and reduce downstream flow.

Cumulative Effects Same as those identified under previous section.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. This further results in the need to provide livestock water, often in the form of small impoundments in drainages. Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.

H-106 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Appendices Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Conduct a risk assessment for accidental oil and gas discharge from NFS lands into waters occupied by imperiled fish species and, if necessary, take corrective actions. b. To determine appropriate site-specific conservation and mitigation measures for the effects of livestock grazing on imperiled fish species, consult the latest biological evaluations for the reissuance of term livestock grazing permits. c. Cooperate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others in assessing impacts of small impoundment developments on NFS lands on hydrologic flow patterns and downstream native fish habitat. d. Cooperate with states and others in identifying tributaries where minimum instream flows and other special considerations are needed to protect sturgeon chub populations. e. Cooperate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others in assessing impacts of small impoundment developments on NFS lands on hydrologic flow patterns and downstream sturgeon chub habitat. f. Conduct project-level biological evaluations assessing potential risks of issuing special use permits for sand and gravel extraction along rivers on NFS lands and oil and gas pipeline construction.

Alternatives 1-5 LMNG It’s assumed that the conservation measures listed above will mitigate any adverse effects from Forest Service authorized activities and allocations.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-107 Plains Topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus) Species Description This is a small fish (38-64 mm) that is olive brown in color, with bronze reflections. It lacks the side-bars present on the banded killifish. Breeding males have orange or red colored fins (Ashton and Dowd 1991). Spawning occurs in early summer and eggs are deposited by females on submerged aquatic vegetation and algae. Likely food items consist of small aquatic insects and aquatic vegetation (Baxter and Stone 1995; Lee et al. 1980).

Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. It’s known to occur in the Dismal River (Nebraska National Forest), Niobrara River (Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest), and Cheyenne River (Thunder Basin National Grassland), and Antelope Creek (Thunder Basin National Grassland). There are two population centers for this species. One is centered in Nebraska and the other is mostly limited to Missouri (Lee et al. 1980).

Habitat The plains topminnow prefers shallow streams with clear water and sand or gavel substrates. This species will utilize sloughs and backwater habitats also. Special habitat requirements include abundant aquatic vegetation. They are a good indicator of unpolluted streams that should be expected to run clear.

Direct and Indirect Effects Destructive livestock grazing along small streams could degrade habitat (USDA Forest Service 1995). Toxic spills into rivers and streams could threaten local populations.

Cumulative Effects Same as those identified under previous section.

H-108 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.

Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in the proposed LRMPs: Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.8, GO1.9, GO1.10 SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-C(1-3,6), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3) Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.8, GO1.9, GO1.10 SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-C(1-3,6), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3) Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1 Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. None Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. None Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-109 c. Cooperate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others in assessing impacts of small impoundment developments on NFS lands on hydrologic flow patterns and downstream native fish habitat. d. Cooperate with states and others in identifying tributaries where minimum instream flows and other special considerations are needed to protect sturgeon chub populations. e. Cooperate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others in assessing impacts of small impoundment developments on NFS lands on hydrologic flow patterns and downstream sturgeon chub habitat. f. Conduct project-level biological evaluations assessing potential risks of issuing special use permits for sand and gravel extraction along rivers on NFS lands and oil and gas pipeline construction.

Preliminary Determination and Rationale Alternatives 1-5 NNF, SRMNF, TBNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."

Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) Species Description This species occurs as both a summer resident and a rare yearlong resident. They feed on tree- boring insects and also catch flying insects. Like other woodpeckers, they are cavity nesters and have an average clutch size of 6 to 7 eggs.

Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. They are known to occur on the Thunder Basin and Oglala National Grasslands and on the Nebraska National Forest (Pine Ridge).

Habitat Preferred habitat is cottonwood floodplains and burned ponderosa pine woodlands with abundant snags. Open ponderosa pine savannah is also preferred habitat.

Conservation Planning Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been developed for sage grouse in the planning area.

H-110 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Direct and Indirect Effects Fire suppression in ponderosa pine woodlands can result in long-term incremental decline in habitat suitability for the species. Prescribed burns can help maintain ponderosa pine savannah and preferred habitat for Lewis’ woodpecker. Lack of silvicultural treatments to maintain ponderosa pine savannah can result in long-term incremental decline in habitat suitability for the species.

Cumulative Effects Fire suppression is very active on adjoining private lands. Thinning and harvest of ponderosa pine on private lands have increased substantially over the last 2 decades which is probably compensating, at least in part, for habitat deterioration resulting from fire suppression.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining and classifying timber lands as suitable for commercial harvests can result in additional acres of ponderosa pine thinning and improved habitat conditions for the Lewis’ woodpecker.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-111 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. None Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction

The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Include desired forest vegetation conditions (for open ponderosa pine stands) as standards and guidelines to Management Area 5.12 or to Geographic Area Descriptions for Oglala and Thunder Basin National Grasslands.

Preliminary Determination and Rationale The following preliminary determinations are made in the absence of having information on the desired acreages of dense ponderosa pine forests versus savannah. Hopefully, this information will be available for preparation of the final biological assessment and evaluation.

Alternatives 1 and 3 TBNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." Acres burned during wildland fires would likely be similar across all alternatives since suppression efforts do not vary. The acres likely to be prescribed burned are similar under Alternatives 1 and 3.

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 TBNG Determination is "beneficial impact." Although the acres burned during wildland fires would be the same across these alternatives, the acres prescribed burned would likely increase under these alternatives when compared to Alternatives 1 and 3.

Alternatives 1 and 2 NNF (Pine Ridge R.D.) and ONG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." Acres burned during wildland fires would likely be similar across all alternatives since suppression efforts do not vary. Prescribed burning is not anticipated under these alternatives.

H-112 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Alternative 3-5 NNF (Pine Ridge R.D.) and ONG Determination is "beneficial impact." Although the acres burned during wildland fires and the acres of ponderosa pine thinning would be the same across these alternatives, the acres prescribed burned would likely increase under these alternatives when compared to Alterna- tives 1 and 2.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) Species Description Black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) are diurnal, burrowing rodents that live in densely populated colonies on North American grasslands and shrublands. Densities ranging from 3 to 18 prairie dogs per acre have been documented in South Dakota (Cincotta 1985, Hoogland 1995). This species is monoestrus and typical litter size, when young first emerge from their natal burrows, ranges from 1 to 6 with an average of approximately 3 (Hoogland 1995). Prairie dogs eat a variety of plant material and their diets vary depending on local plant species composition (Fagerstone 1981). They seem to prefer grasses including western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), and buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides). Forbs and various plant parts including roots are also consumed. They also clip vegetation to maintain visibility. Long-term colonization of a site frequently results in a reduction in grasses and an increase in forbs and bare ground (Coppock et al. 1983, Archer et al. 1987), and colonies frequently expand to fill adjoining suitable habitat. Some yearling prairie dogs will normally disperse in May or June to other colonies or to establish new colonies. Dispersal distances up to 10 km have been documented (Knowles 1985). Hoogland (1995) and Jones et al. (1983) were consulted as primary references for detailed descriptions and additional information on this species.

Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. Maps of prairie dog colonies maintained by the Forest Service were reviewed for this evaluation. Status of active and partially active prairie dog colonies based on the latest inventories (1995-97) and existing LRMPs (Alternative 1) is as follows:

NFS Unit Total Colony Acreage Number of Colonies Acreage Protected from Poisoning LMNG 2,860 123 1,600 SNG 0 0 NA GR/CRNG 1,590 19 1,000 FPNG 720 42 150-250 BG/ONG 14,150 305 6,250-7,600 NNF (BRD) 0 0 NA NNF (PRRD) 70 8 All SRMNF 0 0 Not Applicable

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-113 NFS Unit Total Colony Acreage Number of Colonies Acreage Protected from Poisoning TBNG 18,240 146 4,810

Black-tailed prairie dog colonies now cover about 800,000 acres in the United States, Canada and Mexico, and this represents an overall reduction in colony acreage since European settlement of North America of greater than 90% (Knowles 1998, Mulhern and Knowles 1997). The species was recently petitioned for listing as a threatened species by several conservation organizations.

Habitat This species occurs mostly on shortgrass and mixed grass prairie on the Great Plains. Some populations are also found in the Nebraska sandhills. Suitability of habitats for this species is enhanced by low vegetative cover and increased visibility to detect predators. Because of this, these animals prefer areas with disturbed soils and/or grasslands grazed by cattle or bison. They can also modify shrublands to meet their needs by cutting down individual shrubs from the perimeter of their colonies. They typically colonize grasslands of a wide variety of soil types and that are flat to gently rolling. They avoid wetlands and areas with high water tables. Hoogland (1995), Jones et al. (1983), Knowles (1982), and Clippenger (1989) were consulted for additional information on the habitat relationships of this species.

Conservation Planning Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies involving federal, state, county and tribal agencies and other interested organizations have not been prepared.

Direct and Indirect Effects Prairie dog poisoning reduces or eliminates prairie dog populations. Criteria as to when, where and why rodenticides can be used on NFS lands to poison prairie dogs varies by alternative. The total acreage of active prairie dog colonies predicted to occur in 10 years after rodenticide use under each alternative is as follows:

NFS Unit Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 LMNG 1,600 < 1,600 2,900-7,300 5,400-13,100 2,900-7,300 SNG 0 0 0 0 0 GR/CRNG 1,000 < 1,000 1,500-3,700 2,600-6,400 1,500-3,700 FPNG 150-250 < 150 700-1,700 1,200-2,900 700-1,700 BG/ONG 6,250-7,600 < 6,250 20,200-48,500 21,400-52,500 20,000-47,800 NNF (BRD) 100-150 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown NNF (PRRD) 0 0 0 0 0 SRMNF 0 0 0 0 0 TBNG > 5,400 < 5,400 23,300-59,700 25,200-66,700 21,900-56,400

In addition to the amount of prairie dog poisoning, precipitation patterns over the next 10 years and the resulting vegetative growing conditions will have a significant influence on the

H-114 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation dynamics of prairie dog colonies. The predicted colony acreages shown in the table above for alternatives 3, 4 and 5 are expressed as a range. The upper end of the range is more likely if drought conditions and unfavorable growth conditions dominate during this period. Under drought and unfavorable moisture conditions, vegetative growth is minimal and prairie dog colonies expand at faster rates. The lower end of the ranges is more likely if precipitation patterns and growth conditions are favorable and prairie dog colony expansion rates are reduced. Colony acreages under alternatives 1 and 2 are constrained by the use of rodenticides to specified maximum acreages or to minimize effects on forage for permitted livestock on NFS lands. Livestock grazing and its affects on vegetation can be managed to either help contain or increase prairie dog colony acreages. Ground-disturbing activities associated with development of impoundments, rangeland ripping and pitting, pipelines, oil and gas, and other construction activities can enhance habitat suitability for prairie dogs. Prairie dogs are popular targets for many recreational shooters. However, empirical data, resulting from controlled experiments, that document significant reductions in prairie dog populations as a result of recreational shooting are unavailable at this time. As a minimum, it’s suspected that recreational shooting of prairie dogs can significantly reduce prairie dog densities and indefinitely maintain reduced densities in smaller isolated colonies. Shooting prairie dogs in colonies that have been previously poisoned could likely prevent or slow population recovery in those colonies. Regulating shooting of prairie dogs is recognized by the Forest Service as being primarily under state authority. However, the Forest Service can issue closure orders for prohibiting specific activities including shooting or the discharge of firearms. Roadless designation and wilderness proposals could likely reduce recreational shooting of prairie dogs in those areas. Plague, an exotic disease that’s highly lethal to prairie dogs, is a serious threat to the persistence of local and possibly regional black-tailed prairie dog populations. The impact of a plague epizootic and periodic reoccurrences of the disease on local prairie dog populations is undoubtedly influenced by the size and distribution of prairie dog colonies, which are largely determined by the use of rodenticides.

Cumulative Effects Approximately 55% of all prairie dog colonies occur on private and state lands (Mulhern and Knowles 1995). It’s likely that reductions in prairie dog populations on private lands through poisoning, loss of habitat (cultivation), and shooting will continue.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Livestock grazing permittees or grazing associations commonly request prairie dog poisoning on NFS lands to reduce forage consumption and clipping by prairie dogs.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-115 Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in the proposed LRMPs: Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.8 SG-F(1,50-54), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3) Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.8 SG-F(1,50-54), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3) Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.8 SG-F(1,50-54), SG-G(2,3), SG-M(1,3) Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64, MA3.63(4&5) Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1, MA3.63(4&5) Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA1-E1, GA2-E1, GA3-E1 Nebraska N.F. Units GA4-E1, GA5-E1, GA8-E1, GA9-E1, GA10-E1 Thunder Basin N.G. GA2-E1 Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-5 (Short-term Viability Assuming No Plague Risk) LMNG, GR/CRNG, FPNG, BG/ONG, TBNG A determination of "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide" is concluded for the prairie dog populations on each National Grassland under each alternative. The rationale for this determination is that each alternative provides for the maintenance (no rodenticides) of multiple colonies on each National Grassland, and almost every colony and colony complex on these areas expand and appear to serve as "source" populations

H-116 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation in the absence of rodenticides, plague, and excessive shooting. This determination assumes that all or most rangelands supporting prairie dog colonies will continue to be grazed by livestock, thereby retaining high habitat suitability levels for prairie dogs. It’s acknowledged that the prairie dog populations on the Nebraska National Forest (BRD) may not be viable, not because of Forest Service authorized activities but because of marginal habitat (predominance of loose sandy soils and other unfavorable habitat characteristics). Prairie dog poisoning is not authorized on this unit.

Alternatives 1-5 (Long-term Viability With Plague Risk) LMNG, GR/CRNG, FPNG, BG/ONG, TBNG For prairie dog populations on any National Grassland to be considered in this evaluation as having a "moderate" probability of long-term persistence, prairie dog management direction would have to maintain at least one colony complex of at least 1,000 acres and 10 colonies (see NGP Viability Assessment). Multiple complexes on each National Grassland are considered as providing a "high" probability of persistence and likelihood of recolonization following a plague epizootic. The Little Missouri, Buffalo Gap and Thunder Basin National Grasslands are extensive enough to support multiple and more widely dispersed colony complexes, making it less likely that a plague epizootic could simultaneously impact all colonies across any of the three National Grasslands. Obviously, recolonization of impacted colonies is more likely when there’s multiple complexes, making long-term persistence more probable. The number of complexes currently existing or expected under each alternative is as follows:

Alternative NFS Unit 1 2 3 4 5 LMNG 1 0-1 1 2 1 SNG NA NA NA NA NA GR/CRNG 0 0 1 1-3 1 FPNG 0 0 1 1 1 BG/ONG 1 1 2-3 2-3 2-3 NNF (PRRD) NA NA NA NA NA NNF (BRD) 0 0 0 0 0 SRMNF NA NA NA NA NA TBNG 1 1 1 2 1

When considering both the number of complexes and the relative size of each NFS unit, the following preliminary determinations are made:

Alternative NFS Unit 1 2 3 4 5 LMNG MAII LRLV MAII BI MAII SNG NA NA NA NA NA GR/CRNG LRLV LRLV MAII BI MAII FPNG LRLV LRLV MAII BI MAII

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-117 Alternative NFS Unit 1 2 3 4 5 BG/ONG MAII MAII MAII BI MAII NNF (PRRD) NA NA NA NA NA NNF (BRD) NI NI NI NI NI SRMNF NA NA NA NA NA TBNG MAII MAII MAII MAII MAII NA = not applicable. NI = no impact. BI = beneficial impact. MAII = may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide. LRLV = likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of viability rangewide.

The LRLV determinations in this table for Alternative 2 could be reduced in severity to a MAII determination if interior colonies were protected from poisoning in the same manner that they are protected under Alternatives 3 and 5.

Consultation and Reviews

Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Species Description This small raptor is a ground-dwelling owl that is active both day and night. They prefer open grasslands with an abundance of burrows often constructed by prairie dogs and other burrowing mammals. Abandoned burrows are used for nesting, shelter and security. In some parts of their range where soils conditions permit, they excavate their own burrows. Burrowing owls on the northern plains are mostly migratory, breeding within the planning area and then apparently wintering in dispersed locations including Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Mexico (Haug et al. 1993). They begin arriving in the planning area in April and most migrate out of the area in September and October (South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union 1991). Prey consists primarily of invertebrates, including grasshoppers, and small mammals, but they will also consume small birds, reptiles, and amphibians (Haug et al. 1993). They tend to be opportunistic feeders. They have one nest annually but they sometimes re-nest if their first nest is destroyed. Clutch sizes range for 3 to 12 eggs. The Canadian National Recovery Plan for the Burrowing Owl (Canadian Burrowing Owl Recovery Team), Haug et al. (1993) and an earlier biological evaluation for burrowing owls prepared by Region 2 of the Forest Service were primary references consulted for additional information and descriptions for this species.

H-118 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. They are known to occur on all NFS units in the planning area except the Sheyenne National Grassland. Burrowing owls have been essentially extirpated from eastern North Dakota over the last 15 to 30 years (Murphy et al. 1998). Maps of prairie dog colonies (burrowing owl habitat) maintained by the Forest Service were reviewed for this evaluation. As previously mentioned, active prairie dog colonies are prime burrowing owl habitat. The current and predicted 10-year acreage of active prairie dog colonies for each National Grassland and Forest in the planning area have already been presented in the black-footed ferret and prairie dog assessment (pages 27, 78 and 79). Their breeding range covers most of the western half of the United States.

Habitat Prairie dog colonies are the preferred habitat of burrowing owls in the western part of the planning area, and all prairie dog colonies are considered potential burrowing owl habitat. Prairie dog colonies provide burrows and early successional grasslands with low structure that burrowing owls prefer (McCraken, Uresk, and Hansen 1985, Plumpton 1992). Evidence suggests that burrowing owl productivity may be increase with increasing colony size (Desmond et al. 1995, Pezzolesi 1994). Prairie dog colonies that fail to repopulate after poisoning remain suitable for owls for a while but eventually degrade and become unsuitable (Desmond 1991). In Nebraska, burrowing owls also used abandoned badger holes as burrows (Desmond 1991). Observations of non-breeding burrowing owls on the Nebraska National Forest (PRRD) and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest, where there are no prairie dog colonies, have been incidental. Richardson’s ground squirrels (Spermophilus richardsonii) colonies are used by nesting burrowing owls in the eastern part of the planning area (Konrad and Gilmer 1984). Burrowing owls are territorial around their nests. Brood and breeding pair densities on the Badlands National Park and Buffalo Gap National Grassland ranged from approximately 100 to 170 acres per brood/breeding pair (Martell et al. 1993).

Conservation Planning Canada has a recent national recovery plan for the species (Canadian Burrowing Owl Recovery Team 1995). Much of their conservation measures involve retaining rodent populations and restricting grasshopper spraying.

Direct and Indirect Effects Poisoning of prairie dogs reduces and further fragments burrowing owl habitat. However, the risk of primary or secondary poisoning of burrowing owls during rodent poisoning appears to be negligible (James et al. 1990). The acres of active prairie dog colonies currently on each National Grassland and Forest and expected over the next 10 years under each alternative is presented in the black-tailed prairie dog evaluation in this document. Prairie dogs are also

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-119 popular targets for many recreational shooters. Burrowing owls can be accidentally shot by prairie dog shooters. Prairie dog shooting could also indirectly affect availability of prairie dog colonies as burrowing owl habitat. See the preceding prairie dog evaluation in this report for more additional information on the effects of prairie dog shooting. Regulating shooting of prairie dogs is recognized by the Forest Service as being primarily under state authority. However, the Forest Service can issue closure orders for prohibiting specific activities including shooting or the discharge of firearms. Livestock grazing at moderate and high intensities can improve habitat for this species by reducing vegetation cover and encouraging growth and establishment of prairie dog colonies. Since grasshoppers and other invertebrates are important prey species for burrowing owls, it is possible that grasshopper spraying on rangelands could negatively impact owls on their breeding range.

Cumulative Effects Continued use of insecticides and conversion of rangeland to croplands can be expected to occur on private lands (Finch 1991). Approximately 55% of all prairie dog colonies occur on private and state lands (Mulhern and Knowles 1995). It is likely that reductions in prairie dog populations on private lands through poisoning, loss of habitat (cultivation), and shooting will continue.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Livestock grazing permittees or grazing associations commonly request prairie dog poisoning on NFS lands to reduce forage consumption and clipping by prairie dogs.

H-120 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. None Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale

Alternatives 1-5 - Short-term viability assuming no plague risk LMNG, GR/CRNG, FPNG, BG/OGNG, TBNG, NNF (BRD) A determination of "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide" is concluded for short-term viability of prairie dog populations and associated burrowing owl habitat. This determination assumes no active plague in prairie dog colonies in the future. The rationale for this determination is that almost every prairie dog colony and colony complex on mixed and shortgrass prairie expand and appear to serve as "source" populations in the absence of rodenticides, plague and excessive shooting and in the presence of livestock grazing. The prairie dog populations on the Nebraska National Forest (BRD) may not be viable because of marginal habitat (loose sandy soils and other unfavorable habitat characteristics). This puts burrowing owl habitat at risk on this unit but this appears not to be the result of Forest Service actions.

Alternatives 1-5 - Long-term Viability With Plague Risk) LMNG, GR/CRNG, FPNG, BG/OGNG, TBNG, NNF (BRD) Because of burrowing owl dependence on prairie dog colonies on the northern plains, the determinations for long-term viability of prairie dog populations are the same for burrowing owls.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-121 Consultation and Reviews

California Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) Species Description The subspecies, Ovis canadensis auduboni, originally occupied the northern plains, including the eastern portions of Wyoming and Montana and western North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska (Jones et al. 1983). The last known survivors in western North Dakota, Nebraska and South Dakota were recorded in 1905, 1918 and 1924, respectively (Jones et al. 1983). The last known Audubon was shot in eastern Pennington County, South Dakota, not too far from the present day Buffalo Gap National Grassland. In addition to hunting, disease associated with domestic and feral livestock probably also contributed their demise of this species (Knue 1991). The subspecies, Ovis canadensis californiana and canadensis, are being reintroduced in an effort to return bighorn sheep to the badlands and grasslands of this region. It is important to note that some taxonomists believe the evidence to recognize the Audubon bighorn as a subspecies is very weak (Jones et al. 1983). Bighorns are highly social animals that usually separate into ram bands, and nursery bands comprised of ewes, lambs, and subadults. After 2 years of age, young rams leave the nursery herd to join a ram band. The bands are organized into social hierarchies where rank is determined by strength and horn size, which are related to age. Adult bighorns reach sexual maturity at about 2-3 years of age. Breeding season occurs in November and December when rams aggressively compete for females. Bighorns are promiscuous, but most of the breeding is performed by dominant rams. Lambing occurs in May and June, usually a single lamb per ewe, and twins are rare. Ewes and lambs band together in nursery herds.

Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. Distribution of California bighorn sheep on NFS lands in the planning area is limited to the Little Missouri National Grassland. In 1956, 18 California bighorn sheep from British Columbia were reintroduced to the North Dakota badlands along Magpie Creek. A number of additional transplants have occurred since then resulting in a herd of 250 to 270 sheep (Jensen 1992). Four potential bighorn sheep metapopulations that utilize substantial portions of the Little Missouri National Grassland have been identified by the North Dakota Game and Fish Depart- ment (Jensen 1992). Using a minimum viable population estimate of 125 sheep (Smith et al. 1991) per metapopulation, the Southern Badlands metapopulation comes close to meeting the minimum. However, additional protected habitat and release areas are needed to supplement existing herds and to approximate or exceed the minimum viable population in the remaining metapopulations located north of I-94. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department in cooperation with the Forest Service has identified those additional portions of the Little Missouri National Grassland needed to help increase the individual metapopulations and overall population on the National Grassland and adjoining areas. It’s estimated that the total

H-122 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation sheep population could increase to over 400 animals with the additional releases and protected habitat on the National Grassland. It is important to note that the minimum viable population of 125 animals recommended by Smith et al. 1991) is based on a 95% probability of surviving at least 100 years. Maps of occupied and potential bighorn sheep habitat maintained by the Forest Service were reviewed for this evaluation.

Habitat Bighorn sheep are well-adapted to a wide variety of habitats. In the planning area they use badlands and other steep grassland topography as their primary escape cover. Sheep in North Dakota are primarily browsers with buffaloberry being an important diet component (Jones et al. 1983). They also feed on grasses, sedges and forbs.

Conservation Planning Jensen (1992) presents a good conservation strategy for this species on the Little Missouri National Grassland and vicinity.

Direct and Indirect Effects Sweanor et al. 1994, Sayre 1996 and Feist 1997 were the primary references consulted for identifying potential effects. Bighorn sheep are sensitive to disturbance and may become susceptible to disease when stressed. Management activities that displace or disturb bighorn, especially when lambing, can negatively affect reproduction. Sayre (1996) concluded that the most significant disturbance to bighorns in North Dakota was vehicle traffic and activity associated with oil well maintenance. Bighorn sheep are susceptible to disease spread by domestic sheep and goats. Coyote predation on lambs may be a problem in reintroduction programs. Fences, if improperly constructed, could interfere with bighorn movements and could also result in direct mortality. Fire suppression can result in increased juniper cover which reduces habitat suitability for bighorns. Livestock grazing could either enhance or degrade forage availability and quality for bighorn sheep, depending primarily on the timing and intensity of the grazing. Wilderness status would prohibit motorized travel and reduce development and associated impacts on bighorn sheep. However, if dispersed recreation use increases as a result of wilderness status, impacts to bighorns associated with human disturbance would likely increase. Wild river status could result in increased dispersed recreation use which would increase impacts to bighorn sheep associated with human disturbance.

Cumulative Effects Oil and gas development activities are occurring on adjoining private lands.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-123 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines. Wilderness and wild river designations could eventually result in wilderness and wild river status. This could reduce disturbances associated with traffic.

Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in the proposed LRMPs:

Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1),GO1.3, GO1.8 SG-D(3,6,12), SG-F(4,26-28), SG-G(2,3), SGI9, SG -M(1,3), SG-Q(1,2,12-14) Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA1.31(10), MA3.51 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A6, GA2-B(1&2), GA3-B1 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix B (LRMP) for big game fence specifications direction Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The number and total acreage of 3.51 management areas for bighorn sheep on the Little Missouri National Grassland varies by alternative as follows:

H-124 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation LMNG Alternative Acres 1 27,940 2 118,840 3 118,720 4 124,270 5 118,800

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternative 1 LMNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." Although the Southern Badlands metapopulation would likely maintain the species on the National Grassland and adjoining lands under this alternative, one or more of the northern metapopulations could be lost without continued supplemental releases.

Alternatives 2-5 LMNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." Beneficial effects for bighorn sheep obviously accrue from this management direction, but the overall determination results from possible impacts from concurrent land uses, including oil and gas development, mineral development and human disturbance. The allocation of habitat for the additional proposed release areas for bighorn sheep management and allocation of substantial areas of bighorn habitat to "backcountry recreation nonmotorized" on the Little Missouri National Grassland represents a substantial commitment to an intensive bighorn sheep restoration and management program.

Consultation and Reviews

Merlin (Falco columbarius) Species Description Richardson’s merlin (Falco columbarius richardsonii) is the subspecies of this small falcon that inhabits the sparsely wooded grasslands in the northern Great Plains (Becker and Sieg 1987). Their breeding range includes western North and South Dakota, northwestern Nebraska and northern Wyoming. They’re primarily monogomous and raise a single brood annually. They usually do not build their own nests but instead use old magpie, crow or hawk nests where they will lay 1 to 8 eggs (mean = 4) (Sodhi et al. 1993). Small birds are their primary prey but they also consume small mammals, insects and reptiles (Sodhi et al. 1993). Merlins can be found on the northern plains yearlong although they are considered neotropical migrants.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-125 Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The merlin is known to occur on all units except the Sheyenne National Grassland. Although not confirmed, it is suspected of occurring on the Grand River/Cedar River National Grasslands. Nesting is known to occur on the Little Missouri National Grassland and fledglings have been observed on the Nebraska National Forest (PRRD). Merlins are wide-spread and breed throughout the northern forests and prairies of North America, Europe and Asia. Merlin in the western portions of Canada and the Unites States winter from southern Canada south into South America (Sodhi 1993).

Habitat Merlins use diverse habitats and prey. This includes urban environments as well as open country. Preferred habitats in the planning area consists of a mosaic of ponderosa pine stands, riparian areas and grassland/sagebrush rangelands (Becker and Sieg 1987). The sagebrush and grassland habitats are preferred hunting areas during the breeding season. Nesting frequently occurs in deciduous riparian forests or in relatively open ponderosa pine stands on side slopes along sagebrush or grassland ecotones (Sieg and Becker 1990). Home ranges varied from 13-28 square kilometers in southeastern Montana (Becker and Sieg 1987).

Conservation Planning Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been prepared for this species.

Direct and Indirect Effects Intensive grazing by livestock and over-grazing can lead to a decrease in the vegetative diversity of sagebrush/grassland habitats, with a responding decrease in merlin prey diversity (Becker and Sieg 1987, Becker 1984). Disturbances involving oil and gas activities, timber management or other activities can result in nest abandonment. Grasshopper spraying could reduce insect prey availability for merlins. Timber management can destroy nests and nesting habitat. Timber management prescriptions that maintain open ponderosa pine stands and reduce catastrophic fires can help maintain merlin nesting habitat.

Cumulative Effects All of the activities listed above under direct and indirect effects are likely occurring on private lands.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.

H-126 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Determining ponderosa pine forests to be within the suitable timber base can result in pre- commercial thinning and commercial timber sales. Wilderness and wild river designations could eventually result in wilderness and wild river status. This could likely reduce disturbances associated with traffic.

Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in the proposed LRMPs: Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8 SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(5,12, 13), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SG-M(1,3), SG-P(3,8) Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8 SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(5,12, 13), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SG-M(1,3), SG-P(3,8) Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8 SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-F(5,12, 13), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SG-M(1,3), SG-P(3,8) Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA1.31(10), MA2.1, MA3.64, MA5.12 Nebraska N.F. Units MA1.31(10), MA2.1, MA3.64, MA5.12 Thunder Basin N.G. MA1.31(10), MA2.1, MA5.12 Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA2-B1, GA3-B1 Nebraska N.F. Units GA11-B&C Thunder Basin N.G. None Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction

The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Emphasize low to moderate livestock grazing intensities on sagebrush/grassland habitat within several miles of active nests (Becker 1984). b. Timber management prescriptions for ponderosa pine on side slopes should be designed to protect existing nests, prevent catastrophic stand-replacing fires and maintain open

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-127 stands. Include desired forest vegetation conditions (for open ponderosa pine stands) as standards and guidelines to Management Area 5.12 or to Geographic Area Descrip- tions for Oglala and Thunder Basin National Grasslands.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale

Alternatives 1-5 All Units Except SNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide".

Consultation and Reviews

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Species Description The goshawk is the largest member of the North American genus Accipiter. Some remain in planning area yearlong while others occur primarily as migrants and winter visitants. This species preys on medium to large sized birds and small mammals, including American robins (Turdus migratorius), grouse, woodpeckers, tree squirrels, and grouse (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Most nests will contain 2 to 4 eggs. Squirres and Reynolds (1997), Bock et al. (1994), Reynolds et al. (1992), and The Wildlife Society (1996) were primary references consulted for additional information and descriptions. A biological evaluation prepared in 1996 by Forest Service biologists for the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest was also a valuable reference for this species.

Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The species is known to occur, possibly as a breeder, on the Thunder Basin National Grassland and is suspected to occur as winter migrant on the Nebraska National Forest (PRRD) and Oglala, Buffalo Gap, Fort Pierre, Grand River/Cedar River, Little Missouri and Sheyenne National Grasslands. However, no nesting is known to occur on the NFS units in the planning area. Northern goshawks breed from western and central Alaska and northern Yukon to Labrador and Newfoundland, south to southern Alaska, central California, southern New Mexico, western South Dakota, northern Minnesota, and northwestern Connecticut, and in the northern Appalachian Mountains (DeGraaf 1991).

H-128 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Habitat The northern goshawk is a forest habitat generalist that uses a wide variety of forest conditions. Nests in the planning area primarily in mature, dense ponderosa pine with canopy closures of 60 to 85% and at least 120 square feet basal areas (Erickson 1987, Bartelt 1977). Nest trees in the Black Hills ranged from 8 to 16 inches diameter at breast height. As many as 2 to 4 alternate nests may be used by pairs and some nests may not be used for several years and then reused. Although nest sites are usually located in dense forest stands, they also tend to be near a forest opening or road (Erickson 1987; Speiser and Bosakowski 1987; Bartelt 1977). Bartelt (1977) felt that increasing the number of small (less than one acre) openings in the forest canopy would increase the amount of suitable nesting habitat. He also found dense pole or post pine to be associated with all of his nest sites. Because nest stands are not static elements, replacement stands managed for good nest site attributes should be considered in management strategies (Reynolds et al. 1992). Forest management is a viable tool for goshawk conservation, if key features such as well-canopied stands of mature trees and mature forest edges are sustained (Hargis et al. 1994). Emphasis should be on a diversity of seral stages, including mature, and avoidance of large tracts of homogenous, mid-seral stands. Large clearcuts can be more deleterious than commercial thins, shelterwood and sanitation cuts (Woodbridge and Detrich 1994). Goshawks hunt in various habitats including open sagebrush and grasslands, riparian deciduous forests and coniferous forests. Since goshawks need relatively open understories for efficient hunting (Speiser and Bosakowske 1987), denser understories can reduce foraging habitat quality in forested environments.

Conservation Planning A statewide or regional habitat conservation strategy has not been prepared for this species.

Direct and Indirect Effects Disturbance during the nesting period can cause nest abandonment (Reynolds et al. 1992; Bartelt 1977). Reynolds et al. (1992) recommended minimizing human presence until young leave the area (approximately March 1 through September 30). Timber management could result in destruction of nests and alteration of foraging habitat and prey availability. Fire suppression has caused many ponderosa pine stands to become denser with considerably more trees in the understory. The increased ladder fuels translate into a greater potential for stand-replacing fires and loss of preferred goshawk nesting habitat. Dense stands also are more vulnerable to insects and disease, especially mountain pine beetles. Thus, the potential for sustaining a significant portion of the forest landscape in dense mature ponderosa pine in tenuous.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-129 Cumulative Effects The same impacts listed above under Direct and Indirect Effects are probably occurring on private and state lands.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines. Determining ponderosa pine forests to be within the suitable timber base can result in pre- commercial thinning and commercial timber sales. Wilderness and wild river designations could eventually result in wilderness and wild river status. This could likely reduce disturbances associated with traffic.

H-130 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units NA Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction

The habitat guidelines presented for this species in the Black Hills National Forest LRMP and Biological Evaluation should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction:

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-5 LMNG, SNG, GRCRNG, FPNG, BGNG, ONG Determination is "no impact". Breeding does not apparently occur in the vicinity of these NFS units. Use of these areas by this species is rare and incidental, and it’s highly unlikely that NFS activities and allocations would negatively impact individuals or their habitat.

Alternatives 1-5 TBNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide". Although the Thunder Basin National Grassland is within the breeding range of this species, nesting has not been confirmed and the amount of potential breeding habitat is minimal to insignificant when considering the amount of potential goshawk habitat within the planning unit.

Consultation and Reviews

Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Species Description This species, the largest member of the Tetraonidae family, is a sagebrush obligate. Sage grouse are unique in that they lack a muscular gizzard like other gallinaceous birds and cannot grind and digest seeds (Wallestad 1975). So they feed exclusively on soft material, mostly sagebrush (Artemesia) during the winter and a combined diet of sagebrush and various forbs during the spring and summer. Juveniles initially consume a diet of forbs and invertebrates. Although sage grouse can make significant seasonal movements, they’re considered nonmigratory in the planning area. Like other grouse, they utilize communal display grounds called strutting grounds for courtship and breeding. They have a single nest annually with a clutch of usually 6 to 13 eggs. Some re-nesting may occur if the first nest is destroyed.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-131 It’s possible that the species will soon be separated into 2 separate species, Gunnison sage grouse (C. minimus) and the northern sage grouse (C. urophasianus). A biological evaluation prepared by U.S. Forest Service biologists in 1995 for this species was a primary reference for additional information and descriptions for sage grouse. Other key references consulted for additional information included Braun et al. (1977) and numerous abstracts presented at the Western States Sage/Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Workshop held July 26-28, 1993, in Fort Collins, Colorado and the 7th International Grouse Symposium also held in Fort Collins, August 20-24, 1996.

Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. The species occurs on the Little Missouri, Buffalo Gap (Fall River County) and Thunder Basin National Grasslands. The potential and occupied habitat on the Little Missouri National Grassland is limited to approximately 5,500 acres. The number of display grounds is currently thought to be between 20 to 25. Approximately 3,000 acres of the 11,000 potential habitat acres on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland are occupied and only 1 display ground was located in 1998. Sage grouse occupy over 500,000 acres on the Thunder Basin National Grassland and between 25 and 30 display grounds have been recently located on this unit. Maps of sage grouse display grounds and sagebrush habitat maintained by the Forest Service were consulted for this evaluation. This species historically occurred in at least 14 states and 3 provinces in western North America (Braun 1993). They are now extirpated from Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska and British Columbia. Populations in North and South Dakota are probably marginal as are those in Colorado, California, Utah and Washington. Secure statewide populations now occur only in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Wyoming, although small population extinctions are probably occurring in those states (Braun 1993). Long-term trends in 5 states that monitor sage grouse production indicate that productivity has fallen 26% over the last 10 years (Connelly and Braun 1996).

Habitat Sagebrush shrubland is the habitat of the sage grouse. Sagebrush is the primary food of sage grouse during the summer and is almost the exclusive diet during winter. Almost all sage grouse activity occurs in sagebrush or in meadows or openings adjacent to sagebrush. Because of this, they are considered habitat specialists. Most nests are found under or adjacent to a sagebrush canopy. Studies in Wyoming and other states have demonstrated that nesting sage grouse select for areas with > 20% canopy cover of big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata) and typically nest where the tallest sagebrush and tallest and densest grass occurs (Heath et al. 1996, Wakkinen 1992, Webb 1993, Sveum et al. 1998). Having tall and dense residual herbaceous cover left over from the previous growing and grazing season appears to be a critical habitat component since nest construction and egg-laying begins in April before spring growth. Young broods are typically found in areas with less canopy cover and more forbs but move to the denser sagebrush in the fall. Optimum winter habitat includes areas with the tallest sagebrush where grouse can still find and forage on sagebrush during periods of deep snow. Sagebrush height for winter foraging is especially important on the grasslands since the naturally shorter Wyoming big sagebrush (A. tridentata wyomingensis) is the dominant upland sage, as compared

H-132 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation to the taller mountain big sagebrush (A. tridentata vaseyana) that occurs across much of the sage grouse habitat occurring in foothills and mountain habitat. Across much of the mountain range of the sage grouse, species composition and structure of their sagebrush habitat varies greatly in time and space as a function of climate, geology, topography, soils and disturbance. The variability of the basin and range landscape enables sage grouse to be mobile to find preferred seasonal habitat components (Miller and Eddleman 1996). However, the sagebrush habitat for this species on the National Grasslands is much less varied due to the flat to gently rolling topography and other factors. This may make the species and it’s habitat on the northern plains more vulnerable to habitat alteration.

Conservation Planning Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been developed for sage grouse in the planning area. Petitions to have the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list both species as threatened under ESA are expected soon.

Direct and Indirect Effects Spraying sagebrush with herbicides can reduce habitat suitability for sage grouse due to loss of sagebrush and reduced abundance of preferred forb species. Livestock grazing can cause unfavorable changes in plant species composition and structure on sagebrush dominated shrublands. Disturbance can cause disruption of breeding or abandonment of display grounds. Since grasshoppers and other insects are important foods for sage grouse broods, it is possible that grasshopper spraying on rangelands could negatively impact sage grouse populations.

Cumulative Effects The same impacts listed above under Direct and Indirect Effects are probably occurring on private and state lands.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.

Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in the proposed LRMPs:

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-133 Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(1,2), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1), GO1.8 SG-F(1-4,19,34-42), SG-I(3,4,6), SG-M(1,3) Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(1,2), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1), GO1.8 SG-F(1-4,19,34-42), SG-I(3,4,6), SG-M(1,3) Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(1,2), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1), GO1.8 SG-F(1-4,19,34-42), SG-I(3,4,6), SG-M(1,3) Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1 Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA3-A1,GA3-E1 Nebraska N.F. Units GA5-A(1,2),GA5-E1 Thunder Basin N.G. GA1-A1, GA1-E1, GA2-A1, GA2-E1, GA3-A1, GA3-D1, GA4-A1, GA4-D1, GA5-A1, GA5-E1, GA6-A1, GA6-E1 Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. None

The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Within 3 years, identify nesting, brooding and wintering habitat for sage grouse and prioritize for habitat suitability evaluations and habitat enhancement. b. Within 5 years, identify population goals for the small sage grouse populations for each National Grassland in cooperation with the State wildlife agencies. Also identify any linkages with other populations.

H-134 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation c. Adopt, modify as biologically appropriate for the northern plains, and implement the most recent "Guidelines for Habitat Protection in Sage Grouse Range" developed by the Western States Sage Grouse Committee. d. Do not prescribe burn or spray herbicides in nesting and brooding habitat of sage grouse. e. This species should be prioritized for preparation of a conservation strategy.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-2 BGNG, LMNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." The sage grouse populations on both National Grasslands are dangerously small and the primary concern is viability in the planning area. Active restoration of native sagebrush and associated forb communities and management of sage grouse are needed to help maintain or enhance sage grouse habitat and populations on these NFS units. This includes making necessary adjustments in livestock grazing strategies as well as other management actions that are not specifically addressed or prioritized under these alternatives. This determination could be reduced in severity for Alternative 2 by adopting the sagebrush and sage grouse management direction provided under Alternatives 3, 4 and 5. However, it is acknowledged that the sage grouse population on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland may be so low that it is beyond recovery regardless of conservation measures. TBNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." Sage grouse populations are more widespread on this National Grassland and are probably linked with other populations.

Alternatives 3-5 BGNG, LMNG, TBNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." Active management actions prescribed under these alternatives, if implemented, would result in better protected and improved habitat and stricter regulation of disturbance-causing activities. However, it’s acknowledged that it may be too late for the Buffalo Gap National Grassland population and extirpation of this small population may occur at anytime, regardless of management efforts.

Greater Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus) Species Description Overall, the pinnated grouse (prairie chickens) have done poorly in the path of Euro-American civilization. Of the 3 subspecies of prairie chickens still in existence, the greater prairie chicken

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-135 (T. c. pinnatus) remains the most abundant. The Atwater prairie chicken (T. c. attwateri) is classified as endangered under ESA and is near extinction in the wild, and the lesser prairie chicken (T. c. pallidicinctus) is a candidate for protection under ESA. The heath hen or eastern pinnated grouse (T. c. cupido) was classified as extinct in 1932. Although locally abundant in a few places, the greater prairie chicken has also undergone considerable reductions in distribution. The greater prairie chicken is one of the more colorful and vocal avian residents of the prairie and grasslands. They’ve also played significant cultural roles. They were a major export item from these regions to eastern markets during the late 1800s and also helped feed many pioneering families and railroaders on their journeys west. Many of the native American Indian dances duplicate the unusual courtship displays of the prairie chicken and other prairie grouse. Like sharp-tailed grouse and sage grouse, greater prairie chicken establish spring display grounds for courtship and breeding. The location of some display grounds become traditional and are used year after year or they may be used intermittently from one year to the next. Shifts in annual locations of individual display grounds also occur in response to changing cover conditions and other factors. The number of display grounds also varies with annual fluctuations in prairie chicken populations. Hens usually nest once annually and clutch sizes typically range from 9 to 14 eggs but may re-nest if their initial nest is destroyed (Johnsgard 1979). Although prairie chickens can make considerable seasonal movements, they are considered non-migratory in the planning area. Their primary diet as adults is forb and grass seeds supplemented occasionally with woody fruits and buds and insects. During winter they increasingly rely on agricultural grains. However, on the Nebraska National Forest in the Nebraska sandhills they seem to rely almost exclusively on native foods throughout the year. Young broods rely strongly on a diet of insects and succulent greens. Several key references were consulted and reviewed as part of this evaluation. Those publica- tions included Prose (1985), Bjugstad (1987), Schroeder and Robb (1993), Kobriger (1964), and Bergerud and Gratson (1988). The Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page was also used to access Integrated Management of the Greater Prairie Chicken and Livestock on the Sheyenne National Grassland by Svedarsky and Van Amburg (1996) [http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/sheyenne/sheyenne.htm. version 16Jul97].

Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. Greater prairie chicken occur on the Sheyenne and Fort Pierre National Grasslands and the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests. There’s over 100,000 acres of habitat for greater prairie chicken on the private and federal lands within the Sheyenne National Grassland of which approximately 50,000 is on federal land. Recent surveys have indicated approximately 20 active prairie chicken and mixed display grounds in this area, most of which are on federal land. Annual counts of the number of males on display grounds have been conducted most years since 1961 (Kobridger et al. 1987). The number of males counted has fluctuated from a high of 410 (1980) to a low of 69 (1997) and some of this variation is undoubtedly the result of varying survey methods and intensities. Recent male counts are below the last 10 and 20 year averages of 173 and 215, respectively (B. Stotts, official file correspondence). Based on the 1997 and 1998 display ground counts, prairie

H-136 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation chicken currently make up approximately 34% of the prairie grouse population on the National Grassland. Approximately 114,000 acres of the Fort Pierre National Grassland is considered greater prairie chicken habitat. Recent surveys indicate there’s approximately 90 active prairie chicken and mixed display grounds on or near the National Grassland. The number of males counted on display grounds in a 10% block sample of this unit over the last ten years has varied from 12 to the most recent inventory of 244 (1998). Extrapolating the average number of males per display ground (7.6 per prairie chicken display ground and 3.8 per mixed display ground) to the estimated number of active display grounds on the National Grassland results in a current estimate of approximately 600 males for the entire unit. Assuming a 50:50 sex ratio, the estimated pre-breeding prairie chicken population for the Fort Pierre National Grassland and some of the adjoining private lands is approximately 1200 birds. This is undoubtedly an underestimate for the National Grassland and all the intermingled private lands since some prairie chicken display grounds on private lands were probably missed. Like elsewhere, annual fluctuations in prairie chicken populations are to be expected and can be considerable, especially during drought. Long-term population trend and the magnitude of annual fluctua- tion are more meaningful analyses. Enhanced nesting, brooding and roosting cover can reduce the magnitude of annual population fluctuations during droughts. Based on the 1997 and 1998 display ground counts, prairie chicken currently make up approximately 78% of the prairie grouse population on the National Grassland and have substantially increased over the last 5 years. This percentage has varied from 51 to 69% since monitoring began in 1992. Habitat conditions have been enhanced over the last several years due to very favorable precipitation and modified range management practices. There are approximately 4,000 acres of primary habitat for prairie chicken in the larger valleys of the Nebraska National Forest (Bessey Ranger District). The adjoining hills provide additional habitat. Not all of the potential habitat is currently occupied by prairie chicken. Recent surveys identified 9 active display grounds but additional grounds were likely missed. Reliable and repeated counts of males on display grounds have not been made. No estimates of total population of prairie chickens can be made since display ground surveys have been incomplete. Based on the 1996 and 1997 harvests, prairie chicken currently make up approximately 21% of the prairie grouse population on the National Forest (Len McDaniel, official file correspondence). This percentage has varied from 0 to 36% since monitoring began in 1980. There are approximately 31,000 acres of primary habitat in the larger valleys for prairie chicken on the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest, and the adjoining hills provide additional habitat. This habitat is essentially unoccupied by prairie chicken. Recent surveys identified 2 active display grounds but they were present for only 1 year and were not observed subsequently. It’s possible that one or more display grounds on the National Forest were probably missed. Since harvests were first monitored in 1979, prairie chickens have made up 2% or less of the annual prairie grouse population on the National Forest (Len McDaniel, official file correspondence). Descriptions of the original range-wide distribution and acquired range of the species are provided in Schroeder and Robb (1993), and the following information on population trend for the greater prairie chicken is provided by these authors:

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-137 State or Province Population Trend During Last 25 Years (Original Range) Arkansas Extirpated in 1913 Illinois No Change Indiana Extirpated in 1972 Iowa Extirpated in 1984 Kansas Decreased Kentucky Extirpated in 1874 Michigan Decreased Minnesota Decreased Missouri Decreased Nebraska Increased Ohio Extirpated in 1934 Oklahoma Decreased South Dakota Decreased ? Tennessee Extirpated in 1850 Texas Extirpated in 1925 Wisconsin Increased (Acquired Range) Alberta Extirpated in 1965 Colorado No Change Manitoba Extirpated in 1970 North Dakota Decreased Ontario Extirpated in 1975 Saskatchewan Extirpated in 1976

The acquired range referred to in the previous table included the states and provinces west and north of the greater prairie chicken’s original range where the species expanded following the demise of the great bison herds and the initial plowing of the drier prairies. This range expansion likely occurred as a result of the increase in mid and tall grass species due to the reduced bison grazing intensity and the availability of high-energy winter foods in the form of cultivated crops (Schroeder and Robb 1993).

Habitat Breeding: Displaying prairie chicken males prefer areas with short and sparse vegetation. Where available, elevated sites are also frequently used for displaying and courtship activities. Nesting: Greater prairie chickens on the grasslands in the planning area usually select the tallest and densest mid and tall grass cover available for nesting. Quality nesting cover in this area is generally found in areas that are annually grazed by livestock at light grazing intensities or in areas that have received one or more years of rest from livestock grazing, burning or mowing (undisturbed habitat). Cover can become too tall and dense in the more productive prairies east of the planning area, but this is seldom a problem on most sites in the grasslands within the planning area. Greater prairie chicken productivity is maximized where quality nesting cover is provided over large areas, rather than as small islands or patches within a moderate or

H-138 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation heavily grazed landscape. Nest densities and overall prairie chicken production in the planning area decrease as the nesting cover is reduced in height, density and patch size. Most nest sites are selected and egg-laying initiated before significant spring plant growth so residual cover from previous growing seasons is critical, especially during drought periods. There is also some evidence of nest-site fidelity by nesting hens. Providing traditional nesting areas, while recogn- izing the need for periodic but infrequent disturbance, is probably beneficial in enhancing prairie chicken production. Hens selecting nest sites also preferred pastures without livestock present. Although mid to tall, warm-season grass species are more rigid and better withstand snowpack, plant species composition of herbaceous nesting cover on the public rangelands in the planning area does not seem overly important. The exception to this generalization is where shortgrass species like blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) dominate a potential mid or tall grass site because of extended heavy livestock grazing. In these cases, cover is usually insufficient to attract, conceal or shelter a nesting hen. Providing quality nesting cover on uplands rather than in lowlands subject to frequent flooding is also important. On the Sheyenne National Grassland, important nesting habitat occurs in the hummocky sandhills habitat association on mid and upland sites and on upland sites in the deltaic plain habitat association (Manske and Barker 1987). On the mid-grass prairies of the Fort Pierre National Grassland, nesting occurred primarily on rolling and flat uplands and seldom along lowland drainages (Rice and Carter 1984). However, unlike sharp-tailed grouse that frequently nest in the steeper hills, greater prairie chickens in the Nebraska sandhills nest primarily in the more productive valleys and meadows, including areas approaching a wetlands classification (Len McDaniel, personal communication, Kobriger 1964). Brooding: Broods need some disturbed habitats (grazed, mowed, or burned) reasonably close to the nesting habitat. Broods seem to prefer areas disturbed in previous years and not during the current year. Quality brood habitat provides a mosaic of structural stages from tall and dense vegetation patches for shelter and protection to more open vegetation for ease of mobility and foraging on insects and succulent greens. Roosting: Prairie chickens roost on the ground in the night. Preferred vegetation structure at night roosts is mid and tall vegetation typically 2.0 dm VOR or greater. Like sharp-tailed grouse, greater prairie chickens will use snow burrows for roosting when snow depths are adequate. Winter: Most northern plains grasslands typically provide marginal high-energy winter foods for prairie chickens. Winter grains on private croplands including corn, sorghum and sunflower are important winter staples, especially during periods of deep snow. However, in the Nebraska sandhills, winter grains are less critical, and it appears that some prairie chicken populations generally find sufficient high-energy foods such as rose hips in the native grasslands.

Conservation Planning Apparently secure prairie chicken populations exist across much of the Nebraska sandhills including the Nebraska National Forest (Bessey Ranger District). Long-term trends in South Dakota populations are downward, but the prairie chicken population on the Fort Pierre National Grassland seems reasonably secure although the effects of future extended droughts

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-139 on this population need to be closely monitored. Additional conservation planning to ensure viability appears to be currently unnecessary for these units. Prairie chickens are essentially absent from the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest even though there’s potential habitat on the unit. There’s also nearby huntable populations. A comprehensive conservation strategy to promote viable populations on this large public area has not been developed. The species is protected yearlong in North Dakota, and a literature review and background study that addresses prairie chicken on the Sheyenne National Grassland has been recently prepared. This study includes a set of prairie chicken management recommendations, and efforts to develop a comprehensive conservation strategy by the Forest Service, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, and others to implement the recommendations are continuing.

Direct and Indirect Effects Livestock grazing during droughts can further reduce the quality and quantity of nesting, brooding and roosting cover thereby exasperating the negative effects of drought on prairie chicken habitat and populations. Annual livestock grazing at moderate and high grazing intensities can reduce and eliminate quality nesting cover. It can also encourage changes in plant species composition that reduce the ability of range sites to produce quality nesting cover, even in the absence of annual livestock grazing. Annual livestock grazing in planned grazing systems at light grazing intensities can improve the quality of brood habitat. Livestock grazing systems that combine periodic annual rest (undisturbed habitat) between periods of light to moderate grazing intensities can improve the quality of nesting and brooding habitat. Livestock grazing can also influence predator populations, hunting efficiency of predators and ultimately prairie chicken survival and nest success. Coyote reductions on the Sheyenne and Fort Pierre National Grasslands to reduce losses to permitted livestock and livestock on adjoining private lands can indirectly result in increases in red fox , a more serious threat to prairie chicken. Continued spread of leafy spurge on the Sheyenne National Grassland can further deteriorate prairie chicken habitat both displacing native vegetation and increasing competition between prairie chickens and permitted livestock for a decreasing base of grassland vegetation. On the other hand, use of herbicides to reduce and control leafy spurge can reduce important forbs and other plants used by prairie chicken. Mowing can influence suitability of nesting and brooding habitat either favorably or negatively, based on timing, extent, location and frequency. Mowing can also help control development of undesirable woody vegetation in or near brooding, nesting and roosting habitat. Prescribed burning can influence suitability of nesting and brooding habitat either favorably or negatively, based on timing, location and extent. Burning can also help control development of undesirable woody vegetation in or near brooding, nesting and roosting habitat. Human disturbance can cause disruption of breeding or abandonment of display grounds. Since grasshoppers and other insects are important foods for prairie chickens and their broods, it’s possible that grasshopper spraying on rangelands could negatively impact prairie chicken populations.

H-140 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Gallinaceous birds are vulnerable to grain-based rodenticides. Prairie chickens could be poisoned by rodenticides being used to reduce or eliminate prairie dog populations. Expansion of prairie dog colonies could, depending on colony distribution and extent of expansion, create an unfavorable or more favorable balance of nesting, breeding and brooding habitat for prairie chickens on the Fort Pierre National Grassland.

Cumulative Effects The same impacts listed above under Direct and Indirect Effects are probably occurring or have the same or greater likelihood of occurring on private and state lands. In addition, loss of native grasslands to cultivation continues on private lands. The continued loss of native grasslands on private land has been substantial in the vicinity of the Sheyenne National Grassland, and much of the new cropland is being allocated to potato production that provides no value to prairie chickens. Most meadows on private sandhill ranches are mowed annually for hay production and the stubble is then sometimes grazed by livestock. Although this may be beneficial for broods, it can reduce the amount of quality nesting habitat below critical levels if other quality nesting cover is not available in adjoining areas.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-141 Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix H (LRMP) for management indicator species direction See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. NA

All recommendations and comments presented on pages 92 through 97 of the report by Svedarsky and Van Amburg (1996) should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction for the Sheyenne National Grassland. Some but not all of these recommendations are included in the recommended conservation measures listed below: a. Evaluate the probable effects of coyote reductions on the Sheyenne National Grassland to reduce livestock losses on red fox populations. Increases in red fox populations resulting from reduced coyote populations would likely result in increased prairie chicken predation and mortality. b. On the Sheyenne National Grassland, conduct an active lowland burning and mowing program but leave a third of the lowlands in prairie chicken habitat undisturbed for a year. c. Conduct an active program of tree removal (especially eastern red cedar on Samuel R. McKelvie and Nebraska National Forests) in existing prairie chicken nesting, brooding and roosting habitat. d. Do not plant trees in prairie chicken habitat. e. Provide quality residual nesting cover well distributed on at least 30% of the occupied and potential prairie chicken nesting habitat. Maximize the size of nesting cover blocks. f. In cooperation with the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, develop and implement a conservation strategy for securing prairie chicken populations on the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest. The conservation strategy should prioritize habitats located in the large broad valleys and flats located along Steer Creek and just south of the Niobrara River. g. Conduct and evaluate an aggressive and timely program of burning and spring livestock grazing to restore native warm-season grasses on midland and upland sites for prairie chickens on the Sheyenne National Grassland. Some cultivation and native grass reseeding may be needed for high priority sites.

H-142 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation h. Consult and cooperate with North Dakota Game and Fish Department on opportunities for establishing strategically located winter feeding areas on the Sheyenne National Grassland.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-2 SNG, SRMNF Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." The prairie chicken population on the Sheyenne National Grassland is dangerously small and the primary concern is viability in the planning area, not rangewide viability. Also, the prairie chicken population on the Sheyenne National Grassland is essentially isolated with no linkages to other secure and stable populations. It is also threatened by the continued spread of leafy spurge. These 2 alternatives fail to prescribe an aggressive and timely program of habitat restoration for this species including adjustments in mowing, burning and livestock grazing practices to substantially benefit prairie chickens. Additional priority is also needed to intensify leafy spurge control on the Sheyenne National Grassland. There is essentially no prairie chicken population on the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest. Small groups of prairie chickens periodically try to establish on the unit but they are consi- stently unsuccessful due to several reasons including a lack of suitable nesting cover. It’s recognized that this unit is on the western edge of the current prairie chicken distribution, but a substantial amount of potentially suitable habitat exists on the unit. These 2 alternatives fail to establish a deliberate and proactive prescription to secure stable and viable prairie chicken population on this unit. This determination could be reduced to "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide" for Alternative 2 if all or most of the conservation measures listed on the previous page were adopted.

Alternatives 3-5 SNG, SRMNF Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." This determination assumes full implementation of the management actions prescribed under these alternatives and also assumes that all or most of the conservation measures recommended above is included in the final direction. Otherwise, the most appropriate determination would likely be the same as that given for Alternatives 1 and 2 above.

Alternatives 1,3,4 and 5 FPNG, NNF (BRD) Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." Prairie chicken populations under the current land management programs (Alternative 1) on both units appear to be secure and viable, at least for the short term. Prairie chickens on both

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-143 units are part of larger populations that extend beyond NFS boundaries. However, prairie chicken numbers on both units should continue to be monitored to determine their ability to remain viable and recover after extended droughts that will undoubtedly occur in the future. Habitat suitability for greater prairie chickens are expected to be enhanced over that occurring under Alternative 1 due to lighter livestock grazing intensities and more high structure grasslands under Alternatives 3,4 and 5. Prairie dog population expansion levels expected to occur on the Fort Pierre National Grassland under Alternatives 3,4 and 5 are not expected to significantly decrease overall habitat suitability for prairie chickens over the planning period since high-structure grasslands on the national grassland are either unsuitable or marginally suitable for prairie dogs.

Alternative 2 FPNG, NNF (BRD) Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." The primary concern is viability in the planning area, not rangewide viability. Under this alternative, emphasis on livestock grazing would likely result in reduced and insufficient amounts of quality nesting and brooding cover to maintain prairie chicken populations, especially during droughts. This determination could be reduced to "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide" if all or most of the conservation measures listed on the previous page were adopted.

Consultation and Reviews Len McDaniel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Larry Fredrickson, retired, South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department.

Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Species Description This widespread grassland species occurs as a breeding summer migrant in the planning area. Their prey consists of a wide variety of small birds, small mammals and reptiles. Grasshoppers also seem to be a preferred prey item of Swainson’s hawks. Most nests are located in trees but some occur on the ground and on cliffs. Clutch size is typically 2 to 4 eggs.

Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. They occur on all NFS lands within the planning area. Almost the whole population of Swainson’s hawk migrates annually between breeding areas of North America and wintering grounds of South America (England et al. 1997). These hawks breed north to portions of Washington and Oregon east of Cascades, S. Idaho, W. Montana, southern half of eastern Alberta, west-central and southeast Saskatchewan and southwest

H-144 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Manitoba. They also breed west to central Washington and Oregon, extreme northeast California, west and south Nevada, north and souteast Arizona and disjunctly in the Sacra- mento and San Joaquin Valleys of California. Their primary winter range is located on the pampas of Argentina.

Habitat Grasslands and shrublands are the preferred habitats of this species. Although most nesting occurs in scattered trees in these open environments, some nesting also occurs on the ground and on cliffs.

Conservation Planning Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been developed for this species in the planning area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Power line electrocution can cause raptor mortality. Fences can cause some mortality (Houston and Schmutz 1995). Disturbances from oil and gas activities can result in nest abandonment.

Cumulative Effects Conversion of native habitat to croplands and urban development continues on private lands.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-145 Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units See desired vegetation matrices for each Geographic Area Nebraska N.F. Units See desired vegetation matrices for each Geographic Area Thunder Basin N.G. See desired vegetation matrices for each Geographic Area Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction

Alternatives 1-5 All Units The conservation measures and mitigation listed above should prevent any adverse effects on populations of Swainson’s hawks that use the National Grasslands and Forests.

Consultation and Reviews

Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) Species Description The ferruginous hawk is one of the largest North American buteos. This widespread grassland species occurs as a breeding summer migrant in the planning area. Their prey consists of a wide variety of small birds, small mammals and reptiles. Ferruginous hawks in the planning area are commonly seen hunting on prairie dog colonies, and black-tailed prairie dogs are primary prey items where available in the planning area, especially for wintering ferruginous

H-146 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation hawks. Most nests are located in trees but some occur on the ground and on cliffs. Clutch size is typically 3 to 5 eggs. A biological evaluation on the effects of grazing permit reissuance recently prepared by Region 2 of the Forest Service was a primary reference for this species.

Distribution and Status Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. This species is known to occur on all NFS units in the planning area, with the exception of the Sheyenne National Grassland. The ferruginous hawk is found chiefly in the semi-arid regions of the Western U.S. and the southern-most portion of the prairies in the Canadian provinces (Snow 1974).

Habitat Foraging habitat consists of grasslands and shrublands in the planning area. Ferruginous hawks do best in those habitats which favor the production of rabbits, prairie dogs, or other ground squirrels (Call 1979). Although most nesting occurs in scattered trees in these open environments, some nesting also occurs on the ground and on buttes.

Conservation Planning Statewide or regional habitat conservation strategies have not been developed for this species in the planning area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Human disturbance during the breeding season and conversion of grassland habitat to croplands, are considered to be the two main factors causing the decline of the species (USDI 1982; Kantrud 1981). Poisoning of prairie dogs reduces prey availability and foraging habitat. Prairie dogs are popular targets for many recreational shooters. Ferruginous hawks are occasionally shot by prairie dog shooters. Prairie dog shooting can also indirectly affect availability of prairie dog colonies as prey species for ferruginous hawks. Power line electrocution can cause raptor mortality. Fences probably causes some mortality. Disturbances from oil and gas and other human activities can result in nest abandonment.

Cumulative Effects Conversion of native habitat to croplands and urban development continues on private lands. Prairie dog poisoning on private lands continues to reduce prey availability and foraging habitat.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-147 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines. Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Livestock grazing permittees or grazing associations commonly request prairie dog poisoning on NFS lands to reduce forage consumption and clipping by prairie dogs. This can result in reduced prey availability and foraging habitat for ferruginous hawks.

Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this species are included in the proposed LRMPs: Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8 SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-D(3,6,12), SG-F(1,5,11,16,51-54), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SG- M(1,3), SG-P(3,8) Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8 SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-D(3,6,12), SG-F(1,5,11,16,51-54), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SG- M(1,3), SG-P(3,8) Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1,2), GO1.8 SG-B(3, 7, 13, 14), SG-D(3,6,12), SG-F(1,5,11,16,51-54), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6), SG- M(1,3), SG-P(3,8) Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1 Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. None Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction

H-148 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for prairie dog management direction

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1-5 LMNG, GR/CRNG, FPNG, BG/OGNG, TBNG, NNF (BRD) A determination of "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." Prairie dog management undoubtedly has a substantial influence on ferruginous hawks on the northern plains. However, because it’s not uncommon to find ferruginous hawks foraging and nesting on the northern plains in areas that have been void of prairie dogs for an extended time, prairie dog management is considered to be a factor that, in and of itself, will not determine the ultimate fate of this species in this region.

Consultation and Reviews

Coarse Filter Analyses Coarse filter analyses were used to evaluate effects of the planning alternatives on the remaining plant and animal species in Table H-3. These analyses involved identifying and evaluating groups of animals and plants with similar habitat or site requirements. This analysis approach was used for these species because the primary factor influencing how these species respond to direction in the Land and Resource Management Plans is vegetation structure and/or vegetation composition. It is believed that other activities and allocations in LRMPs have little or no influence on these species.

Animals Grasslands Several of the remaining bird species identified in Table H-3 are grassland species influenced primarily by the structure of grassland vegetation. The preferred community types (SG = shortgrass prairie; MG = mixed grass prairie; TG = tall grass prairie) and grassland structure (Low, Moderate, or High) for these species are shown below:

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-149 SG MG TG Species Low Moderate High Low Moderate High dickcissel X X X X short-eared owl X X X X Baird’s sparrow X X X X long-billed curlew X X X

Although preferred structural classes are identified above, balanced mosaics of all structural levels within their home ranges probably provide suitable habitat for these species and a broad array of other grassland wildlife. Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Livestock grazing is the primary authorized activity that influences grassland structure, especially on mixed grass and tallgrass prairie. Moderate to heavy livestock grazing intensities generally result in moderate and low grassland structure while periodic annual rest and light grazing intensities tend to promote high grassland structure. Season (dormant versus growing season), timing, frequency and duration of grazing also influence grassland structure. Wildland fires and prescribed burning also influences grassland structure on the National Grasslands and Forests but on a much smaller scale than livestock grazing. The direct effects of fire on grassland structure on an individual site is usually short-term. Fire can play a key role in reducing woody encroachment and structure on grasslands.

Cumulative Effects Additional threats to these species on private lands is the continuing conversion of native grasslands to cropland and the use of grasslands for hay production.

Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this animal group are included in the proposed LRMPs:

H-150 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1), GO1.8 SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3) Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1), GO1.8 SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3) Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1), GO1.8 SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3) Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1 Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units See fire, rest and desired vegetation direction for each geographic area Nebraska N.F. Units See fire, rest and desired vegetation direction for each geographic area Thunder Basin N.G. See fire, rest and desired vegetation direction for each geographic area Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. None

Determinations and Rationale The current and desired amounts of low, moderate and high structure grasslands for each National Grassland and Forest in each alternative are identified in Chapter 3 of the DEIS and are not repeated here.

Alternatives 1 and 2 Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." This determination applies to each of the grassland species identified above and obviously only to those NFS units where each species occurs.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-151 Alternatives 3-5 Determination is "beneficial impact" because each alternative provides a more balanced mosaic of grassland structural classes than Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 4 provides the most balanced mosaic of grassland structure.

Riparian Habitats The remaining species associated primarily with the woody vegetation in riparian areas are as follows: • Loggerhead shrike • Fox sparrow • Yellow-billed cuckoo • Fringe-tailed myotis The species associated primarily with the woody vegetation in riparian areas rely heavily on either the shrub and sapling midstory and/or overstory trees. The key to maintaining these woodland communities is insuring that both the shrub and tree species are allowed to regen- erate and survive. If livestock grazing reduces or prevents development and survival of midstory plants, riparian conditions deteriorate and eventually a type-conversion from a prairie woodland to a grassland type occurs along the drainage. In some cases, a shrubland type may persist for a while after the overstory tree component is lost, but eventually the shrub community will also likely be lost or severely reduced and degraded. Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Livestock grazing can prevent regeneration of trees and shrubs in riparian areas. Estimates of the amount of riparian and wooded draw habitat that are not currently regenerating are presented in Chapter 3 of the DEIS under "Rangeland and Forest Health".

Cumulative Effects The threats listed above are also occurring on private lands.

Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this animal group are included in the proposed LRMPs:

H-152 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8 SG-B(3,7,13,14), SG-F(1-3,55), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(5), SG-M(1,3) Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8 SG-B(3,7,13,14), SG-F(1-3,55,56), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(5), SG-M(1,3) Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(4,5), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8 SG-B(3,7,13,14), SG-F(1-3,55), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(5), SG-M(1,3) Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1 Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA-A1, GA4-A1 Nebraska N.F. Units See desired vegetation direction for each geographic area Thunder Basin N.G. See desired vegetation direction for each geographic area Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. None Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction

Determinations and Rationale Alternative 1 Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide". This determination applies to each species identified above and obviously only to those NFS units where each species occurs.

Alternatives 2-5 Determination is "beneficial impact" because management to enhance riparian and wooded draw regeneration is applied to additional riparian and wooded draw habitat. Under Alterna- tive 1, the desired condition is to have at least 50% of these areas regenerating. Under

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-153 Alternatives 2-5, at least 80% of these areas are to be brought under improved management to help ensure regeneration.

Wetlands The remaining species associated primarily with the shoreline and emergent vegetation in wetlands are as follows: • American bittern • trumpeter swan • black tern • least weasel • fringe-tailed myotis • northern leopard frog The species associated primarily with wetlands rely heavily on shoreline and emergent vegetation for various life functions. The key to maintaining these wetlands communities is managing livestock grazing for development of shoreline and emergent cover around some or most of each natural or constructed wetland. Livestock grazing can eliminate or severely reduce wetlands vegetation resulting in barren mud shorelines around wetlands and ponds and a lack of emergent cover. Table H-3 summarizes the distribution and status of each species in the planning area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Livestock grazing can remove or severely reduce shoreline and emergent cover around wetlands and ponds. For the species listed above, this generally has a negative effect. However, a mosaic of developed shoreline and emergent cover along with some barren banks and shoreline is probably advantageous for some of the species.

Cumulative Effects The threats listed above are also occurring on private lands. Conversion of wetlands on private lands to agricultural and other uses continues.

Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this animal group are included in the proposed LRMPs:

H-154 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(3-5), GO1.5(1), GO1.8 SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17,55), SG-G(2,3), SG-I5, SG-M(1,3) Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(3-5), GO1.5(1), GO1.8 SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17,55,56), SG-G(2,3), SG-I5, SG-M(1,3) Thunder Basin N.G. GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4(3-5), GO1.5(1), GO1.8 SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17,55), SG-G(2,3), SG-I5, SG-M(1,3) Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA3.64 Thunder Basin N.G. MA2.1 Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units See desired vegetation direction for each geographic area Nebraska N.F. Units See desired vegetation direction for each geographic area Thunder Basin N.G. See desired vegetation direction for each geographic area Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. Table 4.2 Appendices Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units None Thunder Basin N.G. None Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Thunder Basin N.G. See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction

The following conservation measure should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Proposed unit-wide direction for natural and constructed wetlands simply calls for a mosaic of shoreline and emergent vegetation conditions across the landscape. This needs to be modified to call for a "balanced" mosaic of wetlands with developed shoreline vegetation and emergents and wetland areas with more open shorelines. This would provide more quantitative direction by directing that the number of wetlands with developed shoreline and emergent vegetation be approximately equal to the number of wetlands with barren shorelines and a lack of an emergent zone. In this manner, wetlands habitat is available for the species listed above that prefer shoreline and emergent cover and for those other wildlife species that prefer wetlands habitat with some barren shorelines.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-155 Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1 and 2 Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." This determination applies to each species identified above and obviously only to those NFS units where each species occurs.

Alternatives 3-5 Determination is "beneficial impact" because each alternative provides direction to manage natural and constructed wetlands for a mosaic of shoreline and emergent vegetation conditions.

Coarse Filter Analyses Plants Eastern Prairie Boggy Wetlands Table H-3 plant species in this group include: marsh bellflower delicate sedge crested shield fern sensitive fern buckbean umbrella flatsedge slender cottongrass Labrador bedstraw marsh fern showy lady’s slipper bog willow meadow horsetail spinulose woodfern Loesel’s twayblade marsh horsetail shining flatsedge Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. This plant group includes Table H-3 plant species found in habitats associated with bogs, calcareous fens, springs, boggy woodlands, and the green ash/basswood deciduous hardwoods found predominately within the tallgrass prairie regions of the planning area. All of the species have known occurrences on the Sheyenne National Grassland and several species occur on the Samuel R. Mckelvie National Forest in Nebraska. Other units may have potential habitat. This group contains the largest number of sensitive plant species for the Northern Great Plains planning area with 16 of the 42 species represented. Most of the currently known populations of these species are found along the Sheyenne River in eastern North Dakota. Many of the species are hydrophytic and wetland obligate species with habitats which are dependent upon the interaction of hydrologic regimes within the riverine and upland landscape. In addition to the boggy seeps found along this drainage, this guild includes the river gallery forests of elm and basswood. The majority of the species on the Sheyenne National Grassland are primarily restricted to a narrow range of habitats, i.e. they are considered species with either a narrow-range or mid-range of versatility. The list includes one shrub, eight forbs, several sedges, and numerous fern species.

H-156 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Within the Northern Great Plains planning area, the habitat components captured by this plant group are uncommon and occupy a very small percentage of the total land base. The large complex of bogs/fens, flowing springs, and boggy woodlands on the Sheyenne National Grassland in eastern North Dakota are a landscape feature resulting from upland drainage patterns into the Sheyenne River. Wetlands which provide habitat on other portions of the planning area may differ in habitat, soils, and hydrologic regime from those described for the Sheyenne National Grassland, however these other habitats share the common feature of containing perennially wet soils within the tallgrass prairie. At one time the wetlands of the tallgrass prairie were more plentiful, but many wetlands have been drained for agriculture purposes. Current management practices which may affect plant community viability include drainage ditches and center-pivot irrigation systems, non-native plant species, lack of fire, and livestock grazing.

Direct and Indirect Effects Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge occur in scattered populations throughout the tallgrass prairie. Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge, Canada thistle, and purple loosestrife reduce the quality of sensitive species habitat but at the same time, efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to sensitive species. Noxious weed control could effect the forbs, ferns, and willow species in this plant group. In addition, many chemicals are restricted for use within riparian areas. Chemical treatment of noxious weeds is not recommended in the habitats supporting this plant group. Competition from non-native invasive plants (exotics) can be a threat. Invasive species such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome can compete with native species for habitat, significantly reducing the diversity of native species. Livestock trampling can be a problem for the sensitive species within this guild. Trampling may be detrimental to delicate plants such as showy lady’s slipper, sensitive fern, marsh bellflower, and others. In addition, excessive and repeated soil compaction from trampling may result in reduced plant vigor. On the Sheyenne National Grassland, most the habitat where this plant group occurs has been excluded from grazing allotments through fencing. In allotments where grazing is occurring, habitat disturbance occurs from trailing and trampling by livestock. These areas are typically very shaded and livestock use these areas for shade in the heat of the summer, if accessible. Livestock grazing can prevent sensitive plants from completing their life cycles and producing seeds or sprores. In addition, excessive and continuous livestock grazing on sensitive plants can lead to impacts on plant regrowth, thereby reducing the vigor of plants within the population. However, there is typically little livestock forage produced in this habitat. Some of the species in this plant group that are palatable to cattle include delicate sedge, the two species of cottongrass, and the two species of flatsedge. Even though these particular species are considered grasslike, livestock graze on them on a limited basis. Grazing of the flatsedge species would be detrimental to the species as they are annuals and would not be allowed to complete their life cycles. Sheep and goats used for leafy spurge control would graze on some the plant species in this group if they had accessibility to their habitats. Burning may directly impact sensitive plant species by causing mortality or indirectly impact these species and communities through effects on the habitat. The riparian zones currently

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-157 supporting this plant group may not have been exposed to as frequent a fire regime as other parts of the tallgrass prairie. Recreational river use may increase in these habitats as users explore shorelines from the river. While these habitats are not conducive to camping due to their wet nature, they are easily disturbed by trampling and root shearing. Increased rates of channelization in drainages can result in a lowered water tables. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of some sensitive plant species may place individual or populations of sensitive plant species at risk. Grasshopper spraying has not been used on the Sheyenne National Grassland for several years. Any return to pesticide spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations for some of the species within this guild such as showy lady’s slipper. Information is lacking about specific pollinators for many sensitive plant species. Ground-disturbing activities associated with road and recreational trail development could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Road management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.

Cumulative Effects Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands and draining of croplands can be expected to occur on private lands. Livestock grazing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private lands. Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, non- native plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and croplands. Chemical treatment of noxious weeds on adjacent uplands poses the threat of groundwater contamination to the surface aquifer that feeds the seepage areas found in this guild. This could put the ferns, forbs and shrubs found in this plant group at risk. Drainage ditches on adjacent private land may lower water table levels below the root zone of some sensitive plant species, putting individuals or populations at risk. In addition, cumulative effects from altering the hydrologic regime of the area from drainage ditches and irrigation could induce relative drought on these areas, possibly preventing the plants from completing their life cycle and/or killing the plants. Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue, resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and possible mortality of sensitive plants and population loss.

H-158 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining federal range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Detrimental grazing activities on private land may increase the importance of the existing populations of sensitive species on federal land. Wilderness designations may reduce the opportunity to prescribe burn specifically for enhancing sensitive plant species habitat.

Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this plant group are included in the proposed LRMPs: Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8 SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2),SG-Q2 Nebraska N.F. Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8 SG-B(3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14), SG-F(1-3,17), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3-6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2),SG-Q2 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64, MA3.66 Nebraska N.F. Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA4-A1 Nebraska N.F. Units GA2-A1 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction See Appendix N (LRMP) for orchid management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Thunder Basin N.G. NA

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-159 The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. The species within this guild should be a priority for protection and management through a conservation strategy. The conservation strategy should address the estimated number of individuals and the distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species throughout their existing ranges within the planning area. In addition, the conservation strategy should address maintaining stable or increasing populations for this species as well as the methodology for assessing population trend. The relationship of thse species to vegetation succession under various disturbance regimes needs to be determined. This analysis could also be incorporated into a conservation strategy. b. Prioritize noxious weed control activities in habitats supporting this plant group. In addition, these habitats should be monitored periodically for new starts of noxious weeds and these areas should also be priority areas for control. Biocontrol of noxious weeds using goats or sheep should be avoided in these areas. c. Manage tallgrass prairie habitats to provide for a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes within the landscape. Especially important may be seral stages which provide a high component of species diversity. Well distributed plant communities of high species diversity will be needed to act as seed sources for other areas within the landscape where diversity may be reduced. Landscapes which do not provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in loss of suitable habitat for sensitive species. d. Water developments, oilers and livestock salt and mineral should be not be placed near or in these habitat types. e. Habitat supporting this plant group should be protected through additional fence exclosures and/or special area designation. For example this may include exclosures for Evanson Allotment, Pfingston-Olson Allotment, West "I" Allotment, East "A" Allotment, and sites in West "A" Allotment which are not within the RNA boundary. In addition existing fence exclosures should remain in place and be maintained. f. Hiking, horseback, ORV, and mountain bike trails in areas adjacent to or within these habitats should be designated, to prevent habitat damage from dispersed use. In addition, signing should encourage users to remain on designated trails. Overnight horse users should use certified weed-free hay in areas adjacent to these habitats. g. These sites are highly dependent upon maintenance of the hydrologic regime in the National Grassland and surrounding landscape. The hydrologic conditions for many of the species in this guild may be especially critical within drought years. Any activities which would change the hydrologic regime should be closely evaluated for potential effects on this plant group. h. Provide direction that lists habitats that support this plant group as a high priority for enhancement through improved management and close coordination with other resource uses and activities.

H-160 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Determinations and Rationale

Alternative 1 SNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend towards federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." This plant group contains the largest number of sensitive plant species as well as representing habitats of extreme rarity and unique- ness. Many of the species within this group are known from very limited populations and these sites have a very low tolerance to disturbance. Noxious weeds and introduced plant species are threats to populations and habitat quality. In addition, control of noxious weeds within this plant group is constrained by the wetland site conditions. Chemical treatment of noxious weeds is not recommended for this plant group. Therefore preventing establishment of noxious weed and introduced species should be a high priority. Recreation and livestock grazing and trampling threaten populations and habitat in this plant group. In addition, these sites are highly dependent upon maintenance of the hydrologic regime of the National Grassland and surrounding landscape. This determination was based upon the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of introduced plant species, livestock grazing and trampling, and recreation use which may result in loss of populations within the planning unit and within the planning area. There should be no concerns for population viability rangewide, however. The effects analysis recognizes that some of the sensitive plant species populations within this guild lie within livestock exclosures and are not accessible to livestock grazing or trampling. For example, all known sites of buckbean and bog willow are currently in areas excluded from grazing by fencing. Some populations of other species in this plant group are also currently protected through fencing or modified grazing strategies on the Sheyenne National Grassland. The analysis for these species assumes that these exclosures will remain in place and will be maintained. Under this alternative, no new Research Natural Areas (RNAs) are proposed which would provide protection for species or habitat found within this plant group. The existing Sheyenne Springs RNA offers some protection for some of the species and its habitat. Protection for a few of the species is also provided by the Nature Conservancy’s Pigeon Point Preserve and the ND State Game and Fish Department Mirror Pool Wildlife Management Area.

Alternative 2 SNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend towards federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." Alternative 2 proposes increases in grazing which may not be compatible with maintenance of high quality occupied or unoccupied habitat or provide sufficient protection for known populations. In addition, with increased use in livestock grazing comes with a higher risk in the spread and establishment of noxious weeds and exotic species. Although this alternative proposes a 15% increase in noxious weed control, many of these wetland sites are not good candidates for chemical weed treatments. Under this alternative, no new Research Natural Areas (RNAs) are proposed to protect these species or the associated habitat. The existing Sheyenne Springs RNA offers some protection for some of the species and its habitat. Protection for a few of the species is also provided by the

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-161 Nature Conservancy’s Pigeon Point Preserve and the ND State Game and Fish Department Mirror Pool Wildlife Management Area. Implementation of the following conservation measure plus those recommended under the Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this plant group would reduce the severity of this determination for Alternative 2: The unique habitats in this plant group should be removed from proposed management area 6.1. Instead, occupied and unoccupied habitat for sensitive species should be evaluated for Research Natural Area (2.2) or botanical Special Interest Area (2.1) designation. Any balance of habitat not protected through these designations should be placed in Management Area 3.64, special plant and wildlife habitat. These designations would recognize the special management needs of these unique and fragile habitats. In addition, Management Area 3.64 should be expanded to include language specifically for endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species, unique plant habitats, and rare plant communities. Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Alternative 3 SNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend towards federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." In addition to the threats discussed under Alternatives 1 and 2, the proposed wilderness under this alternative could quite possibly increase and concentrate dispersed recreation use to the point of putting sensitive plant populations in this group at much greater risk. This alternative also proposes some decreases in grazing which may be compatible with maintenance of high quality occupied or unoccupied habitat. However, it is not known if goals for grassland structure, rest, noxious weed control, and vegetation composition will be applied specifically to these unique plant habitats. Under this alternative, one new Research Natural Area (RNA) is proposed which would provide protection for species or habitat found within this group. The Oak Hills nominated RNA contains populations of some of the sensitive species in this group. In addition, the existing Sheyenne Springs RNA offers some protection for some of the species and its habitat. Protection for a few of the species is also provided by the Nature Conservancy’s Pigeon Point Preserve and the ND State Game and Fish Department Mirror Pool Wildlife Management Area. The following rationale was used to determine the effects of wilderness proposals relative to the sensitive plant species within the proposed wilderness area. These rationale were developed after consulting with wilderness coordinators in Region 1 and 2 as well as FS manual (FSM) direction specifically under 2320 and its subsections. • The proposed wilderness under this alternative would be the only tallgrass prairie wilderness in the nation and would receive a high level of interest from the public. • This wilderness would be the only wilderness on National Forest System land in eastern North Dakota. The Sheyenne National Grassland also represents the largest portion of public land in eastern North Dakota. • The new wilderness would be 60-70 miles from largest urban center in North Dakota, Fargo, and Moorhead, MN. Another major population center, Minneapolis-St. Paul, is

H-162 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation within a 4-5 hour drive from the proposed wilderness area. Currently, horseback riders come from other states to ride in the grasslands. • Nationally, recreation use on public land continues to increase. The Sheyenne National Grassland is just now starting to be "discovered". Wilderness designation would increase the use of the Grassland because it would contain wilderness. • The proposal under this alternative is for a small wilderness area of approximately 4000+ acres. County roads currently access this area from several sides. Currently the primary access point from the county road already has a cattleguard due to the high amount of traffic. Cattle guards only exist on the district where there are areas of high recreation use. • The main focus of wilderness is to preserve natural values in pristine conditions and allow the forces of nature to work. However, small wilderness such as that proposed under this alternative may not be large enough to truly capture natural processes. • Wilderness does not automatically provide protection for imperiled species, especially if those species require periodic habitat manipulation to perpetuate themselves. FSM 2323.31, objectives, states that management of wildlife and fish habitat is to "provide an environment where the forces of natural selection and survival rather than human actions determine which and what numbers of wildlife species will exist." However, another objective is also to "protect wildlife and fish indigenous to the area from human caused conditions that could lead to Federal listing as threatened and endangered", and to "provide protection for known populations and aid recovery in areas of previous habitation, of federally listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats." However, Forest Service manual direction is silent on protection of threatened and endangered plant species and Forest Service Sensitive (non federally listed) plant species. • Management for imperiled plant and animal species becomes much more complicated within wilderness areas. Habitat manipulation for imperiled species will require extensive analysis and documentation. Public and agency opinion may vary considerably in determining which activities should be allowed in wilderness areas. • Under wilderness, noxious weed control using chemicals may not be permitted to the extent it is now. Biological control methods would be preferred. Noxious weed invasion poses a very serious threat to the plant communities of the Sheyenne National Grassland. In addition, wooded or riparian habitats containing noxious weeds may only be effectively treated through the use goats or sheep. • Livestock grazing is an existing use in wilderness areas. While livestock may benefit some of the TES species on the Sheyenne National Grassland, others may be adversely affected. Certain habitats can be fenced for resource protection, FSM 2323.26a. However, new permanent wire fences are not encouraged (FSM 2324.33c) Jack fences or other fences more suitable for the wilderness environment should be used. Populations of the following sensitive plant species in this plant group are found within the proposed wilderness area: Thelypteris palustris Marsh fern 2 populations out of 4 known populations. Dryopteris cristata Crested shield fern 1 population out of 6 known populations. Dryopteris spinulosa Spinulose wood fern 1 population out of 7 known populations.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-163 In summary, the primary concern for the wilderness proposal under Alternative 3 is the small size of the area combined with the unique habitat and high number of sensitive plant species found within the small boundary. Recreational use may not be sufficiently dispersed within this proposed wilderness to provide protection for habitat and species, and the direct and indirect effects of recreation, combined with the cumulative effects of other uses, may cause loss of population viability for several species within this guild for the planning unit and the planning area. Implementation of the following conservation measures plus those recommended under the Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this plant group would reduce the severity of this determination for this alternative: a. Occupied and unoccupied habitat for sensitive plant species in this plant group which are currently proposed for management areas 4.4 (National River System, Recreation Rivers recommended) should be considered for Research Natural Area (2.2) or botanical Special Interest Area (2.1) designation in addition to the proposed management area 4.4 designation.s Any balance of habitat not protected through these designations should be placed in management area 3.64, special plant and wildlife habitat. These designations would recognize the special management needs of these unique and fragile habitats. In addition, Forest Plan narrative within management area 3.64 should be expanded to include language specifically for endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species, unique plant habitats, and rare plant communities. b. Occupied and unoccupied habitat for imperiled plant species in this plant group which are currently proposed for management areas 1.2 (wilderness) should in addition be considered for Research Natural Area (2.2) or botanical Special Interest Area (2.1) designation. Any balance of habitat not protected through these designations should be placed in management area 3.64, special plant and wildlife habitat. These designations within the wilderness boundary would focus additional protection and recognition upon the special management needs of these unique and fragile habitats. In addition, Management Area 3.64 should be expanded to include language specifically for endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species, unique plant habitats, and rare plant communities. Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Alternative 4 SNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend towards federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." Alternative 4 proposes some decrease in grazing which may be compatible with maintenance of high quality occupied or unoccupied habitat. However, it is not known if goals for grassland structure, vegetation composition, rest, and noxious weed control will be applied specifically to these unique plant habitats. Under this alternative, one new Research Natural Area (RNA) is proposed which would provide protection for species or habitat found within this plant group. The Oak Hills nominated RNA contains populations of some sensitive plant species in this guild. In addition,

H-164 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation the existing Sheyenne Springs RNA offers some protection for some of the species and its habitat. Protection for a few of the species is also provided by the Nature Conservancy’s Pigeon Point Preserve and the ND State Game and Fish Department Mirror Pool Wildlife Management Area. Implementation of the following conservation measure, plus those recommended under the Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this plant group, would reduce the severity of this determination for this alternative: Occupied and unoccupied habitat for sensitive plant species in this plant group which are currently proposed for management areas 4.32 (dispersed recreation, high use) and 5.12 (general rangelands, range vegetation emphasis) should instead be placed into Research Natural Area (2.2) or botanical Special Interest Area (2.1) designation. Any balance of habitat not protected through these designations should be placed in management area 3.64, special plant and wildlife habitat. These designations would recognize the special management needs of these unique and fragile habitats. In addition, Forest Plan narrative within management area 3.64 should be expanded to include language specifically for endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species, unique plant habitats, and rare plant communities. Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Alternative 5 SNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend towards federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide. Alternative 5 proposes some decrease in grazing which may be compatible with maintenance of high quality occupied or unoccupied habitat. However, it is not known if goals for grassland structure, vegetation composition, rest, and noxious weed control will be applied specifically to these unique plant habitats. Under this alternative, no new Research Natural Area (RNA) is proposed which would provide additional protection for this plant group and associated habitats. The existing Sheyenne Springs RNA offers some protection for some of the species and its habitat. Protection for a few of the species is also provided by the Nature Conservancy’s Pigeon Point Preserve and the ND State Game and Fish Department Mirror Pool Wildlife Management Area. The rationale used to determine the effects of wilderness proposals under this alternative on sensitive plant species is the same as that described under the Alternative 3 determination section. In summary, the wilderness proposal in Alternative 5 is sufficiently large that recreation should be fairly well dispersed. Roads and highways intersect most the wilderness area and access points are numerous. The effects of concentrated wilderness use upon sensitive plant species and their habitats should be much less than the small wilderness area proposed under Alterna- tive 3. Noxious weed introduction and control may be a problem under wilderness however, at the location of unique habitats and sensitive plant species populations should be priority areas for noxious weed control.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-165 Implementation of the following conservation measure plus those recommended under the Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this guild would reduce the severity of this determination for this alternative: a. Occupied and unoccupied habitat for sensitive plant species in this plant group which are currently proposed for management areas 4.4 (National River System, Recreation Rivers recommended) should be considered for Research Natural Area (2.2) or botanical Special Interest Area (2.1) designation in addition to the proposed management area 4.4 designation.s Any balance of habitat not protected through these designations should be placed in management area 3.64, special plant and wildlife habitat. These designations would recognize the special management needs of these unique and fragile habitats. In addition, Forest Plan narrative within management area 3.64 should be expanded to include language specifically for endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species, unique plant habitats, and rare plant communities. b. Occupied and unoccupied habitat for imperiled plant species in this plant group which are currently proposed for management areas 1.2 (wilderness) should in addition be considered for Research Natural Area (2.2) or botanical Special Interest Area (2.1) designation. Any balance of habitat not protected through these designations should be placed in management area 3.64, special plant and wildlife habitat. These designations within the wilderness boundary would focus additional protection and recognition upon the special management needs of these unique and fragile habitats. In addition, Management Area 3.64 should be expanded to include language specifically for endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species, unique plant habitats, and rare plant communities. Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Consultation and Review Kurt Hansen, Range Management Specialist, USDA-Forest Service, Medora Ranger District

Tallgrass Prairie Wetlands Table H-3 plant species in this group include: • Little grapefern • Adder’s tongue • Small white lady’s slipper Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. This plant group includes the habitats associated with lowland swales, wetland depressions, marshes, and the sedge/willow complexes found predominately within the tallgrass prairie regions of the planning area. All the currently known populations of Table H-3 species associated with this group occur in habitats of the Sheyenne National Grassland of eastern North Dakota. One of the species is also known to occur on the Samuel R. Mckelvie NF in Nebraska. Potential habitat may also exist on the Nebraska NF, Bessey RD.

H-166 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Two of the species, Adders’s tongue and small white lady’s slipper, are categorized as occurring in the mid-range of versatility, i.e. they are associated primarily with one habitat type but may also be found in other habitat types. Little grapefern is considered to be in the narrow-range of versatility as it is associated with only one habitat type. In addition, the prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara), a threatened plant species, also occurs within habitats associated with this plant group. Within the Northern Great Plains planning area, the habitat components captured by this plant group are uncommon and occupy a very small percentage of the total land base. Mesic areas which provide habitat on other portions of the planning area may differ in habitat, soils, and hydrologic regime from those described for the Sheyenne National Grassland, however these other habitats share the common feature of having a perennial moisture regime which may vary annually or seasonally. On the Sheyenne National Grassland, the habitats associated with this plant group developed under the broad landscape processes of the tallgrass prairie however they are also distinguished by their high groundwater tables. In addition, these areas collect runoff which often remains for considerable periods of time (Seiler 1980). For example, the lowland swales found within the Sheyenne tallgrass prairie experience seasonal fluctuations of the water table as well as widely varying annual fluctuations. During high precipitation climate cycles, the swales may be inundated with water for most of the growing season, whereas during more normal years the swales may lose their standing water. In the tallgrass prairie of North Dakota, the lowland swales are those areas dominated by carex (Carex lanuginosa) (Seiler 1980). The lowland marshes are dominated by emergent aquatics such as sedges (Carex spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), spikerushes (Eleocharis spp.), and cattails (Typha latifolia) although they are also comprised of tall graminoid species (Gantt 1980). Gantt (1980) notes that early historical records describe bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis) and red top (Agrostis alba) as the primary marsh species. Communities of bluejoint may have furnished the early settlers with marsh hay. At one time the marshes and swales of the tallgrass prairie were more plentiful, however much of the tallgrass prairie has been converted for agriculture purposes. According to Gantt (1980) the tallgrass prairie as it existed almost 100 years ago is almost totally non-existent today. Studies of vegetation change by Burgess (1964) and others support this. Current management practices which may affect community viability include drainage ditches which alter hydrologic regimes, competition to native flora from non-native plant species, lack of a fire regime, and grazing.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-167 reducing the diversity of native species. Some types of livestock grazing seem to encourage spread of these invasive species while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment and spread. Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations for the small white lady’s slipper. Information is lacking about specific pollinators for many sensitive plant species. Increased rates of channelization in drainages can result in a lowered water tables. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of some sensitive plant species may place individual plants or populations at risk. Burning, livestock grazing, and mowing can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant species, depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive characteristics of the individual plant species. Properly timed grazing, burning and mowing may be beneficial in maintaining the quality of native grassland habitats. Lack of disturbance can cause some sites to convert to shrub habitats dominated by willow species. Burning may directly impact sensitive plant species by causing mortality or indirectly impact these species and communities through effects on the habitat. Mowing and summer burning may prevent a completion of the life cycle for the small white lady’s slipper. Adder’s tongue is too short structurally to be affected by mowing but would affected by summer burning. Little grape fern occurs in willow thickets which are not mowed but would be affected by summer burning. Early spring and late fall burning should have no effect on any of the species and may be beneficial. Livestock grazing can prevent sensitive plants from completing their life cycles and producing seeds or sprores. Excessive and continuous livestock grazing on sensitive plants can lead to impacts on plant regrowth, thereby reducing the vigor of plants within the population. The species within this plant group are not considered palatable to cattle but could be grazed by sheep or goats. Grazing can reduce dead material within plant communities and open up canopy layers of plants, allowing for the germination and establishment of new plants. Livestock trampling can be a problem under some circumstances for the sensitive species within this plant group. Trampling could be detrimental to individual plants because all three species are delicate fleshy plants. In addition, excessive and repeated soil compaction from trampling may result in reduced plant vigor. Repeated mowing may prevent some sensitive plant species from completing their life cycle and may also reduce carbohydrate reserves. Mowing should have no affect after seed set/spore dispersal. Ground-disturbing activities associated with road and trail development could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Road management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of spread of invasive, non- native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.

H-168 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Cumulative Effects Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, non- native plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and croplands. Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands can be expected to occur on private lands. Livestock grazing and mowing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private lands. Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue, resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible mortality of sensitive plants and population loss. Drainage ditches on adjacent private land may lower water table levels below the root zone of some sensitive plant species, putting individuals or populations at risk. Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect pollinators for some sensitive plant species.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Wilderness designations resulting from wilderness proposals would reduce the opportunity to prescribe burn specifically for enhancing sensitive plant species habitat.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-169 Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units Table 4.2 Thunder Basin N.G. NA Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction See Appendix N (LRMP) for orchid management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Manage tallgrass prairie habitats supporting this plant group to provide for a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes within the landscape. Especially important may be seral stages which provide a high component of species diversity. Well distributed plant communities of high species diversity will be needed to act as seed sources for other areas within the landscape where diversity may be reduced. Landscapes which do not provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in loss of suitable habitat for sensitive species. b. The Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Management Guidelines for the Sheyenne National Grasslands apply to some areas supporting this plant group and actually enhance management for these species as well. Where the locations of this group do not overlap with orchid habitat, ground disturbances should be avoided. As noted under the direct effects section, timing, intensity and frequency of mowing, burning and livestock grazing should be timed to prevent mortality of these sensitive species. c. Provide direction that lists habitats that support these species as a high priority for enhancement through improved management and close coordination with other resource uses and activities. Occupied and unoccupied habitat should be priority areas for noxious weed control and the prevention of exotic plant species introduction and spread. d. Manage for well-distributed populations of these species within the planning area to act as seed sources for other areas within the landscape where the species has been reduced. Management activities should not occur in any of the known populations of these species to allow for maintenance of present populations. Landscapes which do not provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in a loss of suitable habitat for these sensitive plant species.

H-170 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1, 3, and 5 SNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." This determination is based upon the limited habitat available to these species within the planning units and planning area. Habitat quality may be affected by grazing intensity, season of use, livestock distribution, and trampling. Exotic species populations may continue to expand negatively affecting sensitive plant populations. Alternatives 3 and 5 would provide for increases in mid to higher seral conditions which should favor some of these species. The acres of rangeland annually rested from livestock grazing under Alternatives 3 and 5 also more closely approximate the conditions under which some of the species evolved as compared to current grazing conditions. In addition, the levels of prescribed fire within alternatives 3 and 5 is a positive move towards restoring the fire regime under which the species evolved. Both alternatives also provide for no net increase (from current levels) of noxious weeds. The existence and spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the maintenance of high quality tallgrass prairie habitat. The habitats associated with this plant group are found only within the tallgrass prairie. It is estimated that tallgrass prairie has been reduced to less than 1% of its original range. Very little private, state, or other federal lands exist within the planning unit which would provide habitats associated with this plant group. In addition, the small fragments of tallgrass prairie on private land may be unoccupied habitat and seed sources may not be present for establishment of the species of this plant group. Under the management activities proposed by these alternatives, and utilizing standard survey and manage procedures for habitat disturbance, known populations should receive adequate protection. Losses may occur within populations due to increases in noxious weeds (leafy spurge) and other exotic plant species. However, populations should remain viable throughout the planning unit, planning area, and rangewide.

Alternative 2 SNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." This determination was based upon the limited habitat available to these species within the planning units and planning area. Under this alternative, the increases in grazing, combined with other cumulative effects, may result in the loss of known populations for some of the species with the potential to affect population viability within the planning unit. The acres of rangeland annually rested from livestock grazing do not approximate the landscape conditions under which some of the species and habitats evolved. In addition, the levels of prescribed fire do not approximate the fire regime under which some of the species and habitats evolved. Alternative 2 would provide for decreases in mid to higher seral conditions which reduces suitable conditions for some of the species and the habitats upon which they depend. This plant group provides for higher levels of noxious weed control, however it also provides for increased livestock use with the potential for increases in the spread and establishment of noxious weeds and exotic species.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-171 The habitats associated with this plant group are found only within the tallgrass prairie. It is estimated that tallgrass prairie has been reduced to less than 1% of its original range. Very little private, state, or other federal lands exist within the planning unit which would provide habitats contained within this guild. In addition, the small fragments of tallgrass prairie on private land may be unoccupied habitat and seed sources may not be present for establishment of the species in this plant group. With the cumulative effects of the actions proposed by this alternative, management activities may result in a loss of quality of habitat within the planning unit and potential loss of population viability for some of the species in this group. Implementation of the conservation measures identified in the Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this plant group would reduce the severity of this determination. Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of "may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide."

Alternative 4 SNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." The quality of the habitats associated with this plant group should improve under Alternative 4 due to general overall levels of increased species structure and composition. This alternative would provide for increases in mid to higher seral conditions which should favor some of the species in this plant group and the habitats upon which they depend. The acres of capable rangeland annually rested from livestock grazing should also more closely approximate the conditions under which some of the species in this group evolved as compared to current grazing conditions. In addition, the levels of prescribed fire within this alternative is a positive move towards restoring the fire regime under which some of the species evolved. Alternative 4 also provides for a 15% reduction (from current levels) of noxious weeds through numbers of acres receiving active treatment. The spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the maintenance of high quality tallgrass prairie habitat. However, there will still be possible losses of individual plants to various authorized activities.

Tallgrass Prairie Deciduous Hardwoods Table H-3 plant species in this guild includes:

dogberry, foxtail sedge, leathery grapefern, oak fern, broad-leaved goldenrod, lady fern.

Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. This plant group includes the hardwood forests and woodlands found predominately on the tallgrass prairie regions of the planning area. All the currently known populations of Table H-3 species in this plant group occur in habitats of the Sheyenne National Grassland of eastern North Dakota. The communities within this group are characterized by broadleaf deciduous trees.

H-172 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation This plant group includes the green ash-boxelder community although it also contains other broadleaf species such as American elm (Ulmus americana) and cottonwood (Populus deltoides). These communities occur upslope from the river gallery forests and intergrade into savanna then graminoid communities with increasing distance and elevation above the river valleys (Gantt 1980). Green ash and boxelder dominates areas where moisture runoff into ravines, coulees, or draws is sufficient to support woodland vegetation (Seiler 1971). Within the Northern Great Plains planning area, the habitat components associated with this plant group are uncommon and occupy a very small percentage of the total land base. Mesic woodlands and moist areas which provide habitat on other portions of the planning area may differ in habitat, soils, and hydrologic regime from those described for the Sheyenne National Grassland, however these other habitats share the common feature of rich loam soils and mesic conditions which are capable of supporting a wooded habitat dominated by eastern deciduous hardwood trees such as bur oak and aspen. Six plant species, including one shrub, one forb, one sedge and three ferns, are found in these wooded habitats. All six species are categorized as occurring in the mid-range of versatility, i.e. they are associated primarily with one habitat type but may also be found in other habitat types. This plant group does not include river gallery forests (elm-basswood community) such as those found along the Sheyenne River as these habitats are included in the tall grass prairie boggy wetlands plant group. Many of the same herbaceous forbs which occur in the elm- basswood community are found along the margins of the green ash-boxelder community although this later community is characterized by an overall greater abundance of grasses and sedges (Seiler 1971).

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-173 characteristics of the individual plant species. Properly timed grazing, burning and mowing may be beneficial in maintaining the quality of native grassland habitats. Lack of disturbance can cause some sites to convert to shrub habitats dominated by willow species. Burning may directly impact sensitive plant species by causing mortality or indirectly impact these species and communities through effects on the habitat. Livestock grazing can prevent sensitive plants from completing their life cycles and producing seeds or sprores. However, there is typically little livestock forage produced in these habitats, and livestock use these areas mainly for shade. Excessive and continuous livestock grazing on sensitive plants can lead to impacts on plant regrowth, thereby reducing the vigor of plants within the population. Some of the species within this plant group may be palatable to cattle as well as sheep or goats. Grazing can reduce dead material within plant communities and open up canopy layers of plants, allowing for the germination and establishment of new plants. Livestock trampling can be a problem under some circumstances for the sensitive species in this plant group. Trampling could be detrimental to delicate plants such as lady fern, oak fern, and leathery grapefern. In addition, excessive and repeated soil compaction from trampling may result in reduced plant vigor. Ground-disturbing activities associated with road and trail development could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Road management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of spread of invasive, non- native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors. Wilderness designations may limit management practices for maintenance of some species.

Cumulative Effects Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, non- native plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and croplands. Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands can be expected to occur on private lands. Livestock grazing and mowing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private lands. Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue, resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible mortality of sensitive plants and population loss. Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect pollinators for some sensitive plant species. Drainage ditches on adjacent private land may lower water table levels below the root zone of some sensitive plant species, putting individuals or populations at risk.

H-174 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Wilderness designations may reduce the opportunity to prescribe burn specifically for enhancing sensitive plant species habitat.

Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this plant group are included in the proposed LRMPs: Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.4, GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8 SG-B(3,6,7,9,13,14), SG-F(1-3,17), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(5,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2),SG-Q2 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64, MA3.66 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA4-A1 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Appendices Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-175 The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Provide direction that lists habitats that support this plant group as a high priority for enhancement through improved management and close coordination with other resource uses and activities. b. Manage for well-distributed populations of these species within the planning area to act as seed sources for other areas within the landscape where the species has been reduced. Management activities should not occur in any of the known populations of this species to allow for maintenance of present populations. Landscapes which do not provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in a loss of suitable habitat for these sensitive plant species.

Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5 SNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." This determination is based upon the limited habitat available to these species within the planning units, planning area, and rangewide. Limited livestock grazing occurs within this plant group. The primary threat from livestock for the species in this group would come from trampling. The levels of prescribed fire within alternatives 3 and 5 are a positive move towards restoring the fire regime under which the species and their habitats evolved. Alternative 3 and 5 provide for no net increase (from current levels) of noxious weeds while alternative 2 provides for a 15% reduction of noxious weeds. The existence and spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the maintenance of high quality tallgrass prairie habitat. The habitats associated with this plant group are found only within the tallgrass prairie. It is estimated that tallgrass prairie has been reduced to less than 1% of its original range. Very little private, state, or other federal lands exist within the planning unit which would provide habitats contained within this guild. In addition, the small fragments of tallgrass prairie on private land may be unoccupied habitat and seed sources may not be present for establishment of the species of this plant group. Under the management activities proposed by these alternatives, and utilizing standard survey and manage procedures for habitat disturbance, known populations should receive adequate protection. Losses may occur within populations due to increases in noxious weeds (leafy spurge) and other exotic plant species. However, populations should remain viable throughout the planning unit, planning area, and rangewide.

Alternative 4 SNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide. This determination is based upon the limited habitat available to these species within the planning units, planning area, and rangewide. Limited livestock grazing occurs within this plant group, however livestock trampling may affect individual plants. Alternative 4 provides for a 15% reduction (from current levels) of noxious weeds through numbers of acres receiving active treatment. The spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the

H-176 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation maintenance of high quality tallgrass prairie habitat. This should provide a beneficial effect to the species of this plant group. In addition, the levels of prescribed fire within this alternative is a positive move towards restoring the fire regime under which some of the species evolved.

Tallgrass Prairie Choppy Sandhills Table H-3 plant species in this group include: • wahoo spindle-tree • beach heather • sandgrass • frostweed. Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. This plant group includes the various components of the choppy sandhills land type found within the planning area on the Sheyenne National Grassland in eastern North Dakota. This land type consists of mixed grass prairie intermingled with Bur oak savanna woodlands. The oak savanna woodland is very predominant in the sandy soils of the Sandhills Region along the Sheyenne River (Seiler 1971). Sand dunes and sand blowouts are other distinguishing features within this association. Bur oak seral stages such as aspen communities may also be present. The sandhills are a unique geologic area formed by the Sheyenne River delta as it flowed into ancient Lake Agassiz. At one time, glacial Lake Agassiz formed the largest inland fresh water lake in North America. Where major tributaries entered the lake, deltas were built such as the Sheyenne River delta. The geologic origins of the sandhills are unique to the planning area as are the association of habitats found here. Within the Northern Great Plains planning area, the habitat components captured by this group are uncommon and occupy a very small percentage of the total land base. Rolling sandy uplands, including sand dunes, which provide habitat on other portions of the planning area may differ in habitat types, soils, and moisture regime from those described for the Sheyenne National Grassland, however these other habitats share the common feature of having sandy soils. Four imperiled species occur in this group. Frostweed is found within the mixed grass component in the upland rolling topography and the bur oak habitat. Sandgrass and beach heather are found in the sand dunes and sand blowouts of the choppy sandhills. One plant species in particular, the wahoo spindle tree, is found in the bur oak habitat type of this group. In addition, several other Table H-3 species are known to occur in the bur oak habitat type although they may primarily use other habitat types. This would include the lady fern which has been found in seral aspen communities associated with bur oak savanna. Also, dogberry has been found under the hardwood canopy of the bur oak. Much of the choppy sandhills area in North Dakota has been altered extensively since pre- intensive settlement including past utilization as cropland which later returned to native grassland (Burgess 1964, Shunk 1917, Seiler 1973, and Gantt 1980). In the sand dune habitats, the soils have often been stabilized and the sites are affected by grazing and introduced plant species. The bur oak woodlands in this area of North Dakota have been extensively altered and reduced from pre-intensive settlement (Burgess 1964). According to Shunk (1917) bur oak

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-177 formerly represented very extensive communities consisting of trees of large size. With the incoming of settlers and the scarcity of fuel and lumber, the trees were cut and utilized in a very short time. They were replaced by scrubby groves of oak which often reached only minimal size before they were also utilized for settlement purposes.

Direct and Indirect Effects Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge occur in scattered populations throughout the tallgrass prairie. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of sensitive species habitat but at the same time, efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to sensitive species. Livestock grazing management, including changes in the type of animal (sheep/goats), grazing season, and/or intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in some situations for the control of noxious weeds. Competition from non-native invasive plants (exotics) can be a significant threat. Invasive species such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome often form monocultures, significantly reducing the diversity of native species. Some types of livestock grazing seem to encourage spread of these invasive species while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment and spread. Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations for some of the sensitive species. Information is lacking about specific pollinators for many sensitive plant species. Increased rates of channelization in drainages can result in a lowered water tables. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of some sensitive plant species may place individual plants or populations at risk. Burning, livestock grazing, and mowing can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant species, depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive characteristics of the individual plant species. Properly timed grazing, burning, and mowing may be beneficial in maintaining the quality of native grassland habitats. Lack of disturbance can cause some sites to convert to shrub habitats or to become dominated by heavy vegetative cover. Burning may directly impact sensitive plant species by causing mortality or indirectly impact these species and communities through effects on the habitat. Mowing and summer burning may prevent a completion of the life cycle for frostweed. Early spring and late fall burning should have no effect on any of the species and may be beneficial. Livestock grazing and fire suppression can contribute to stabilization and increased vegetative cover on the sandhills, thereby reducing the number and size of blowouts where occupied and potential habitat exist for several species in this group. This would particularly affect sandgrass, an annual species associated with primary succession on blowouts. Livestock grazing can prevent sensitive plants from completing their life cycles and producing seeds. Excessive and continuous livestock grazing on sensitive plants can lead to impacts on plant regrowth, thereby reducing the vigor of plants within the population. The species in this plant group are not considered highly palatable to cattle but could be grazed by sheep or goats. Grazing can reduce dead material within plant communities and open up canopy layers of plants, allowing for the germination and establishment of new plants. Livestock grazing can

H-178 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation create conditions favorable for establishment of new plants of sensitive species such as beach heather and sandgrass that require disturbed areas for germination. Livestock trampling can be a problem under some circumstances for the sensitive species in this plant group. Trampling could be detrimental to individual plants. In addition, excessive and repeated soil compaction from trampling may result in reduced plant vigor. Repeated mowing may prevent some sensitive plant species from completing their life cycle and may also reduce carbohydrate reserves. Mowing should have no affect after seed set. Ground-disturbing activities associated with road and trail development could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Road management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of spread of invasive, non- native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.

Cumulative Effects Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, non- native plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and croplands. Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands can be expected to occur on private lands. Livestock grazing and mowing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private lands. Grazing practices on private land may not be conducive to sustaining populations. Stabilization of blowouts on private land may continue to decrease populations on private land. Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue, resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible mortality of sensitive plants and population loss. Drainage ditches on adjacent private land may lower water table levels below the root zone of some sensitive plant species, putting individuals or populations at risk. Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect pollinators for some sensitive plant species.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-179 Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this plant group are included in the proposed LRMPs: Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8 SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64, MA3.64 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA4-A1 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation and mitigation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction for all units containing this guild: a. Manage tallgrass prairie habitats supporting these species to provide for a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes within the landscape. Especially important may be seral stages which provide a high component of species diversity. Well distributed plant communities of high species diversity will be needed to act as seed sources for other areas within the landscape where these species have been reduced. Landscapes which do not provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in loss of suitable habitat for sensitive species. b. Where possible, maintain active blowouts as habitat for several of these species.

H-180 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Determinations and Rationale: Sheyenne National Grassland Alternative 1 SNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." Lack of disturbance regimes are resulting in stabilization of many sand blowouts and sand dunes resulting in a loss of suitable habitat for some of the species in this plant group. Populations of sandgrass and beach heather may be lost through the lack of sufficient disturbance regimes to maintain sand blowouts and sand dunes in an active condition. Both beach heather and sandgrass are known from very limited populations, so loss of habitat may have resulted in loss of population viability throughout the planning unit and possibly throughout the planning area. Population viability for these species is not of concern rangewide. The other two species in this plant group would have a "no impact" call from the actions associated with this alternative.

Alternative 2 SNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." This determination was based upon the limited habitat available to these species within the planning units, planning area, and rangewide, as well as the limited number of known populations of some of the species in this plant group. Under this alternative, the increases in grazing may maintain blowout areas and sand dunes in the early seral stage plant communities favored by some of the species. Alternative 2 would provide for increases in early seral conditions which increases suitable habitat for some of the sensitive species. However, the levels of prescribed fire do not approximate the fire regime under which some of the species and habitats evolved and may affect suitable habitat for frostweed. This alternative provides for higher levels of noxious weed control, however it also provides for increased livestock use with the potential for increases in the spread and establishment of noxious weeds and exotic species. The habitats associated with this plant group are found only within the tallgrass prairie. It is estimated that tallgrass prairie has been reduced to less than 1% of its original range. Very little private, state, or other federal lands exist within the planning unit which would provide habitats for this plant group. In addition, the small fragments of tallgrass prairie on private land may be unoccupied habitat and seed sources may not be present for establishment of the species of this guild. With the cumulative effects of the actions proposed by this alternative, management activities may result in a loss of individuals however population viability should not be affected in the planning unit, planning area, and rangewide.

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 SNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." This determination is based upon the limited habitat available to these species within the planning units, planning area, and rangewide, as well as the limited number of known populations of some of the species in this plant group. Habitat quality may be affected by grazing

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-181 intensity, season of use, livestock distribution, and trampling. The levels of prescribed fire within alternatives 3 and 5 is a positive move towards restoring the fire regime under which the species evolved. For example, frostweed seems to be positively correlated to a periodic fire regime. Both alternatives also provide for no net increase (from current levels) of noxious weeds. The existence and spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the maintenance of high quality tallgrass prairie habitat. Alternatives 3 and 5 would provide for 10 to 15% early seral conditions which may maintain suitable habitat for some of the sensitive species in this group if these early seral conditions are applied to sand dunes and sand blowouts. The quality of the habitats associated with this guild should also improve under Alternative 4 due to the cumulative effects of the actions associated with this alternative. This alternative should provide for a mosaic of low, mid, and high seral conditions throughout the tallgrass prairie, which overall should favor the species in this group. Some of these species (sandgrass, beach heather) need low to low/mid seral stages around sand dunes for their survival. This alternative would allow for sufficient early seral stage communities (10%) and under a restora- tive emphasis, sand dunes and blowouts could be the focus of some of these early seral communities. The level of prescribed fire within this alternative is a positive move towards restoring the fire regime under which some of the species evolved. For example, frostweed seems to be positively correlated to a periodic fire regime. Alternative 4 also provides for a 15% reduction (from current levels) of noxious weeds through numbers of acres receiving active treatment. The spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the maintenance of high quality tallgrass prairie habitat.

Western Plains Riparian Table H-3 plant species in this group include: • lanceleaf cottonwood • alkali sacaton • blue lips Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. This plant group occurs across wide variety of wetland/riparian habitat types found within the semi-arid mixed grass/shortgrass plains of the planning area. All currently known populations of these species occur on the Little Missouri National Grassland. The habitat types of this association are areas of added moisture within a semi-arid mixed grass/shortgrass landscape. For example, they include the riparian cottonwood communities found along perennial and intermittent streams, sedge/juncus habitats found in conjunction with springs and seeps, saline subirrigated zones, wooded draws, and wet meadows. Within the Northern Great Plains planning area, the habitat components associated with this guild are uncommon and occupy a very small percentage of the total land base. Throughout the planning area, mesic habitat types may differ in vegetation type, soils, and hydrologic regime from those described for the Little Missouri National Grassland. However these other habitats share the common feature of having a seasonally or perennially wet moisture regime within a semi-arid grassland landscape.

H-182 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation These plant group includes both narrow range and mid-range species. Lanceleaf cottonwood, a narrow range species restricted to a single habitat type, is known in the planning area only from riparian zones associated with perennial creeks in western North Dakota. Alkali sacaton and blue lips are considered as having a mid-range of versatility and are found primarily in one habitat type but can be found in other habitat types. Alkali sacaton is found within the narrow subirrigated zone of saline drainageways. Blue lips occurs primarily in niches of low evapotranspiration rates, added moisture conditions, and limited sunlight reflectance in the mixed grass prairie. Riparian areas, wooded draws, north-facing slopes, and escarpments can also provide these conditions. Wetland and riparian areas within the mixed and shortgrass prairies vary from the "green zones" along rivers and drainageways to flowing springs and seeps. Their habitat types comprise a very small percentage of the total land base in the semi-arid plains and contain plant species which are uncommon within the surrounding rolling grasslands and badlands. In addition, these riparian plant communities were some of the most heavily altered by historic settlement. Demands for water from settlers and livestock grazing resulted in many plant communities moving into lowered seral stages and/or reduced native plant species diversity. Soils were frequently compacted and hydrologic regimes altered. Historic evidence has suggested that many riparian areas have become drier with a resultant net loss of riparian plant diversity. Currently many areas of added moisture faced habitat risk from introduced and noxious plant species.

Direct and Indirect Effects Competition from non-native invasive plants can be a significant threat. Invasive species such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome often form monocultures within riparian habitats, significantly reducing the diversity of native species. Some types of livestock grazing seem to encourage spread of these invasive species while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment and spread. Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge and Canadian thistle prefer riparian habitats and areas of added moisture. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of sensitive species habitat but at the same time, efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to sensitive species. In addition, many chemicals are restricted for use within riparian zones. Livestock grazing management, including changes in the type of animal (sheep/goats), grazing season, and/or intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in some situations for the control of noxious weeds. Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations. Information is lacking about specific pollinators for many sensitive plant species. Properly functioning riparian systems and naturally flowing (non-dammed) drainages can create conditions favorable for establishment of new populations of sensitive species. Lanceleaf cottonwood species, in particular, depend upon flooding events, channel meander processes, and exposed mineral soil for establishment. Management activities which cause a loss of equilibrium with riparian systems, resulting in excessive flooding events along drainageways, excessive erosion, sedimentation, and/or channelization may reduce habitat for sensitive plant species. Excessive removal of vegetation on uplands can result in rill, sheet, and gully erosion and excessive soil and water runoff.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-183 Increased rates of channelization can result in a lowered water tables. Lanceleaf cottonwood can be come pedestaled by excessive rates of erosion with riparian channels. Alkali sacaton populations can be adversely affected by a lowering of the table within their subirrigated habitat. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of some sensitive plant species may place individual plants or populations at risk. Burning, livestock grazing, and mowing can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant species, depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive characteristics of the individual plant species. Burning may directly impact sensitive plant species by causing mortality or indirectly impact these species and communities through effects on the habitat. Burning may indirectly affect habitat for blue lips by removing shade and cover, and reducing moisture conditions needed for a population’s survival. Livestock grazing within riparian areas can interfere with reproduction of sensitive plant species such as blue lips and alkali sacaton that reproduce by seed. Excessive livestock grazing in riparian areas can lead to livestock browsing of lanceleaf cottonwood seedlings and saplings, thereby reducing the recruitment of younger trees within the population. Grazing can reduce dead material in plants and open up canopy layers of plants, allowing for the germination and establishment of new plants. Livestock trampling in riparian areas and repeated visits to these areas for water can be a problem under some circumstances for some of the sensitive species within this group. Excessive and repeated soil compaction may result in reduced plant vigor. Individual plants may be directly affected by trampling. Repeated mowing may prevent some sensitive plant species from completing their life cycle and may also reduce carbohydrate reserves. Development of springs and seeps for livestock water can result in loss of sensitive species populations and loss of habitat. Many springs have been developed in the past for livestock and the net loss of these habitat types is very high in many parts of the Grasslands. Ground-disturbing activities associated with oil, gas, mineral, and other types of development could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Roads management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recreation management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.

H-184 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue, resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible mortality of sensitive plants and population loss. Livestock grazing and mowing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private lands. Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect pollinators for some sensitive plant species.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-185 Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (DEIS) for riparian management direction Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Conduct an assessment of springs and seeps to determine net loss of these riparian habitat types since pre-settlement times. Springs are still commonly converted to livestock watering facilities, resulting in habitat loss for riparian obligate sensitive species. Consider restoring modified springs and seeps to original conditions. Considering fencing off springs and seeps to protect riparian species as well as to protect the site’s hydrologic conditions. b. Manage for well-distributed populations of these species with high plant species diversity to act as seed sources for other areas within the landscape where these species have been reduced. Landscapes which do not provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in loss of suitable habitat for these sensitive plant species. c. Provide direction that lists riparian habitats that support this plant group as a high priority for enhancement through improved management and close coordination with other resource uses and activities. d. Consider the use of riparian pastures where these species occur so that livestock grazing can be closely coordinated with the management of these sensitive plant populations.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1 and 2 LMNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." The concern is loss of viability on the LMNG. This determination was based upon the low number of known populations of some of the sensitive plant species in this group. Under this alternative, the increases in grazing, combined with other cumulative effects, may result in the loss of known populations for some of the species. The acres of rangeland annually rested from livestock grazing do not approximate the landscape conditions under which some of the species and habitats evolved. In addition, the levels of prescribed fire do not approximate the fire regime under which some of the species and habitats evolved. Alternative 2 would provide for decreases in mid to higher seral conditions which reduces suitable conditions for some of the species and the habitats upon which they depend. Alternative 2 provides for higher levels of noxious weed control, however it also provides for increased livestock use with the potential for increases in the spread and establishment of noxious weeds and exotic species. Noxious weeds and many exotics prefer riparian habitats and areas of added moisture. In addition, many chemical treatments are reduced for use within riparian zones. This plant group is broad in scope and associated with numerous riparian habitat types. All of the species are known from the Little Missouri

H-186 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation National Grassland where the two units of Theodore Roosevelt National Park may provide similar habitat conditions. However, these areas may be unoccupied habitat and seed sources may not be present for some of these species. Under the current level of known populations, the management activities proposed by this alternative may result in a loss of the known populations from the planning unit. Implementation of the recommendations presented under the Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this plant group would reduce the severity of this determination for Alter- native 2. Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide for Alternative 2.

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 LMNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." These species need habitat conditions which include both early and mid-high seral conditions for establishment and survival. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would provide for increases in mid to higher seral conditions which should favor some of the species. The acres of rangeland annually rested from livestock grazing under these alternatives also more closely approximate the conditions under which some of the species evolved as compared to current grazing conditions. In addition, the levels of prescribed fire within alternatives 3, 4, and 5 is a positive move towards restoring the fire regime under which some of the species evolved. Alternatives 3 and 5 also provide for no net increase (from current levels) of noxious weeds. Alternative 4 provides for a 15% reduction (from current levels) of noxious weeds through numbers of acres receiving active treatment. The spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the maintenance of high quality native grassland riparian habitat. This plant group is broad in scope and is associated with several riparian habitat types. This includes riverine habitats as well as springs and seeps, wet meadows, saline subirrigated zones, and woody draws. These habitat types are widely distributed across private, state, tribal, and other federal grasslands. All of these species are known from the Little Missouri National Grassland where the two units of Theodore Roosevelt National Park may provide similar habitat conditions. However, these riparian habitats comprise a very small part of the total land base within the planning area. In addition, most riparian areas may be unoccupied habitat and seed sources may not be present for establishment of the species in this group. Under the management activities proposed by these alternatives, and utilizing standard survey and management procedures for habitat disturbance, known populations should receive adequate protection. However, livestock management techniques which provide specific protection and habitat improvement goals for riparian areas may also be needed to provide for the viability of riparian-dependent sensitive plant species.

Scoria Hills Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. Plant species in this group include limber pine and golden stickleaf. This plant group includes the scoria hills and scoria knobs which are widely dispersed across the mixed and shortgrass plains in the western portion of the planning area. The plant

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-187 associations included with these habitats are predominately graminoids such as needlegrass and wheatgrass with a diverse forb community which is often very different from the forb mix in the surrounding landscape. Within the Northern Great Plains planning area, the scoria hill habitat varies from common to uncommon within the grasslands. Two plant species, including one conifer and a forb, are found within these scoria sites. Golden stickleaf is categorized as a narrow-range species while limber pine occurs in the mid-range of versatility, i.e. it is associated primarily with one habitat type but may also be found in other habitat types. Golden stickleaf is found on scoria breaks and rocky knobs in the mixed grass plains of western North Dakota. Limber pine is found in scoria hills and dry hilltops above the Little Missouri River in North Dakota. These scoria hills and knobs represent microsites within the rolling grasslands and badlands. Some components of their plant communities may be similar to surrounding communities however the lithic soil horizon often favors droughty species, early seral species, and occasionally a shrub or tree species which may establish roots into rocky soil profile. The mixed grass plains surrounding these microsites evolved under a broad scale disturbance regime of herbivory, fire, and climatic fluctuations. Although Wright and Bailey (1980) describe climate as the dominant factor controlling the vegetation composition of North American grasslands, fire regimes and herbivory patterns have been the two processes most altered since settlement of the prairies. Historically, bison grazing was more prevalent within the mixed grass plains than the tallgrass prairie. The wide-ranging bison herds grazed in a pattern of high intensity and short duration followed by long periods of rest. In addition, periodic fires shaped the vegetation landscape and removed both green and dead plant material. In semi-arid regions, big prairie fires in the past usually occurred during drought years that followed one to three years of above-average precipitation which provided abundant and continuous fuel (Wright and Bailey 1980).

Direct and Indirect Effects Competition from non-native invasive plants can be a threat in reducing the diversity of native species. Some types of livestock grazing seem to encourage spread of these invasive species while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment and spread. Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge and Canadian thistle occur in scattered populations throughout the mixed grass plains. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of habitat but at the same time, efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to sensitive species. Livestock grazing management, including changes in the type of animal (sheep/goats), grazing season, and/or intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in some situations for the control of noxious weeds. Excessive removal of vegetation on uplands can result in rill, sheet, and gully erosion and excessive soil and water runoff. Increased rates of channelization in drainageways can result in a lowered water table. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of these sensitive plant species may place individual plants or populations at risk. Burning and livestock grazing can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant species, depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive characteristics of the individual plant species.

H-188 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Burning may directly impact sensitive plant species by causing mortality or indirectly impact these species and communities through effects on the habitat. Burning may directly affect limber pine by causing tree mortality. Grazing can reduce dead material within plant communities and open up canopy layers of plants, allowing for the germination and establishment of new plants. Neither of the species is considered palatable to livestock. Livestock trampling during wet times of year can be a problem under some circumstances for golden stickleaf. Excessive and repeated soil compaction may result in reduced plant vigor. Individual plants may be directly affected by trampling. Primary threats to the limber pine population are from porcupine foraging which often kills individual trees by stripping the trunks of bark. Limber pine is also susceptible to the blister rust and an outbreak of this disease in this area may seriously impact the pine community. The alternate host for blister rust, Ribes spp., also occurs in this area. Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations. This may be of concern for golden stickleaf where information is lacking about specific pollinators. Ground-disturbing activities associated with oil, gas, mineral, and other types of development could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Road management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recrea- tion management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.

Cumulative Effects Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, non- native plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and croplands. Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands can be expected to occur on private lands. Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue, resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible mortality of sensitive plants and population loss. Livestock grazing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private lands. Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect pollinators for some sensitive plant species.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-189 Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this plant group are included in the proposed LRMPs: Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8 SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A(1,4-6), GA2-C1, GA3-A1, GA3-A5, GA3-C1 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Manage mixed grass and shortgrass habitats that support these plant species to provide for a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes within the landscape. Especially important may be seral stages which provide a high component of species diversity. Well distributed plant communities of high species diversity will be needed to act as seed sources for other areas within the landscape where diversity may be reduced. Landscapes which do not provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in loss of suitable habitat for sensitive species.

H-190 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation b. Manage for well-distributed populations of these species within the planning area to act as seed sources for other areas within the landscape where the species has been reduced. Management activities should not occur in any of the known populations of this species to allow for maintenance of present populations. Landscapes which do not provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in a loss of suitable habitat for these sensitive plant species.

Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 LMNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." Under all alternatives, both of the species are protected within the Limber Pine Research Natural Area established in 1991. In discussing protection for these species, it is recommended that the management plan for this established RNA will be completed within five years of the Forest Plan. Annual monitoring of the limber pine population may be needed until the RNA plan is established to address potential disease and predation problems. The spread of noxious and exotic species is one of the primary threats to the maintenance of this habitat within the mixed grass plains. Alternatives 2 and 4 provide for a 15% decrease in noxious weeds while Alternatives 3 and 5 provide for no net increase (from current levels) of noxious weed. The acres of rangeland annually rested from livestock grazing under Alternatives 3 and 5 also more closely approximate the conditions under which some of the species evolved as compared to current grazing conditions. In addition, the levels of prescribed fire within Alternatives 3 and 5 is a positive move towards restoring the fire regime under which golden stickleaf evolved. This habitat is widely distributed throughout the Little Missouri National Grassland. In addition, scoria habitat found on private, state, and other federal land including Theodore Roosevelt National Park. However, these areas may be unoccupied habitat and seed sources may not be present for establishment of the species. Under the management activities proposed by these alternatives and the protection offered known populations through Research Natural Area status, population viability should be met for these two species.

Buttes Table H-3 plant species in this group include: • nodding buckwheat • Torrey’s cryptantha • alyssum-leaved phlox • Hooker’s townsendia Table H-3 summarizes species occurrence and status in the planning area. All currently known populations of the forb species in this group occur on the Little Missouri National Grassland. Nodding buckwheat, Torrey’s cryptantha, and Hooker’s townsendia are narrow range specialists and are found only within narrow growing parameters associated with

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-191 butte landforms. Alyssum-leaved phlox is also associated with butte landforms but has limited occurrences in other habitats adjacent to buttes. Butte landforms occur as isolated and scattered topographic features within the surrounding landscape of rolling grasslands and badlands. The buttes often contain elements of rare habitat different from habitat commonly found in the surrounding grasslands. The combination of rare habitats and uncommon topography contribute to the concentrations of rare species, both plant and animal, found in conjunction with the buttes. Buttes often provide a diversity of niche habitat, such as rock cliffs, riparian springs, and rimrock habitat, which is very rare within the grasslands. In addition, many of the buttes are capped by geologic formations which are very different from the geologic strata in the surrounding landscape. Many of the buttes in North Dakota contain representative examples of the Chadron, Brule, and Arikaree Formations which are more commonly found in Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, and South Dakota (Murphy, Hoganson, and Forsman 1993). These geologic formations contribute to edaphic conditions which may be uncommon, contributing to the diversity of plant species and unique plant communities.

Direct and Indirect Effects Competition from non-native invasive plants can be a significant threat. Invasive species such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome often form monocultures, significantly reducing the diversity of native species. Some types of livestock grazing seem to encourage spread of these invasive species while some grazing strategies can reduce rates of encroachment and spread. Noxious weeds such as leafy spurge and Canadian thistle are found in scattered populations throughout the mixed grass and shortgrass plains. Noxious weeds reduce the quality of sensitive species habitat but at the same time, efforts to control spurge and other invasive species with chemicals can pose a direct threat to sensitive species. Livestock grazing management, including changes in the type of animal (sheep/goats), grazing season, and/or intensity of use, can provide positive benefits in some situations for the control of noxious weeds. Grasshopper spraying has the potential to impact insect pollinator populations. Information is lacking about specific pollinators for many sensitive plant species. Excessive removal of vegetation on uplands and buttes can result in rill, sheet, and gully erosion and excessive soil and water runoff. Increased rates of channelization can result in a lowered water table. Any activities that lower water tables below the root zone of some sensitive plant species may place individual plants or populations at risk. Burning may directly impact sensitive plant species by causing mortality or indirectly impact these species and communities through effects on habitat. Livestock grazing and burning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant species, depending on frequency, intensity, and timing of disturbance and on the reproductive characteristics of the individual plant species. Livestock grazing can interfere with reproduction of sensitive plant species that reproduce by seed. Grazing can reduce dead material in plants and open up canopy layers of plants, allowing for the germination and establishment of new plants. Repeated grazing may prevent some

H-192 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation sensitive plant species from completing their life cycle and may also reduce carbohydrate reserves. Livestock trampling can be a problem under some circumstances for some of the sensitive species within this guild. Excessive and repeated soil compaction may result in reduced plant vigor. Individual plants such as Alyssum-leafed phlox, Torrey’s cryptantha, and Hooker’s townsendia grow in shallow soil on the butte top and may be directly affected by trampling. Ground-disturbing activities associated with oil, gas, mineral, and other types of development could result in mortality of sensitive plants or place their populations at risk. Roads management determinations for ORVs and recreational vehicles, and travel management plans can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on habitat fragmentation, road use restrictions, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along travel routes, loss of suitable habitat to travel routes, and other factors. Recrea- tion management planning can have positive or negative effects on sensitive plants or plant populations, depending on types of recreational use, road and trail use patterns and intensities, rate of spread of invasive, non-native plant species along recreational routes, and other factors.

Cumulative Effects Continued loss of suitable habitat through conversion of rangelands to croplands can be expected to occur on private lands. Development activities such as road and building construction on private lands will continue, resulting in some loss of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species and some possible mortality of sensitive plants and population loss. Livestock grazing and mowing practices that are unfavorable for the conservation of sensitive plant species are likely to continue on some private lands. Intermingled land ownership patterns will continue to result in the sharing of invasive, non- native plant species between private and NFS lands. Primarily, seed drift onto NFS rangelands occurs along road corridors and along shared boundaries with domestic hayfields and croplands. Insecticide spraying on adjacent croplands may reduce or threaten insect pollinators for some sensitive plant species.

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Determining range to be suitable for livestock grazing most often results in issuance of a livestock grazing permit for that area or inclusion of the area into a livestock grazing agreement. Decisions to make NFS lands available for oil and gas leasing can result in an application permit to drill (APD) and eventual on-site development and additional roads, traffic and pipelines.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-193 Conservation Measures and Mitigation The following conservation measures or mitigation that could affect this plant group are included in the proposed LRMPs: Unit-wide Direction Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units GO1.1(2,3), GO1.2(1,2), GO1.3(1,2), GO1.5(1), GO1.7(1-5), GO1.8 SG-F(1-3), SG-G(2,3), SG-I(3,4,6,10,11), SG-J(1-7), SG-M(1,3), SG-O(1,2), SG-Q2 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Management Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units MA2.1, MA2.2, MA3.64 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Geographic Area Direction Dakota Prairie Units GA2-A(1,4-6), GA2-C1, GA3-A1, GA3-A5, GA3-C1 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Monitoring and Evaluation Common to all Action Alternatives Dakota Prairie Units Table 4.2 Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Appendices Dakota Prairie Units See Appendix D (LRMP) for drought management direction Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA Direction That Varies by Alternative Dakota Prairie Units None Nebraska N.F. Units NA Thunder Basin N.G. NA

The following conservation measures should be considered for inclusion in the final planning direction: a. Buttes and other uncommon landforms which contain concentrations of rare elements, both flora and fauna, and contain unique plant communities should be evaluated for permanent protection under Research Natural Area (RNA) designation. Buttes which do not meet RNA criteria should be evaluated for designation as Special Interest Areas for botany, wildlife, geology, scenic, and/or a combination of resource values. b. Grazing management practices should be modified around buttes to protect their unique niche habitat and rare species. Buttes should be managed to maintain and enhance their habitats with high priority given to noxious weed control and prevention of the introduction of exotic plant species.

H-194 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation c. Management for buttes and uncommon landforms should emphasize well-distributed populations of these species with high plant species diversity to act as seed sources for other areas within the landscape where these species have been reduced. Landscapes which do not provide a mosaic of seral stages and disturbance regimes may result in loss of suitable habitat for these sensitive species.

Preliminary Determinations and Rationale Alternatives 1 and 2 LMNG Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." The Little Missouri National Grassland contains the only federally owned butte escarpments in the planning area which provide habitat for these species. Also, some of these species are known from extremely limited population within the planning area. Threats from grazing, trampling, and invasive plant species under Alternatives 1 and 2 may lead to a loss of these populations on the Little Missouri National Grassland. All of the species are peripheral species, on the edge of their range, so loss of individuals or populations would not lead to loss of species viability rangewide. Peripheral populations are of value because they are often genetically different from populations which may occur more within the common range of the species. Also, Alternatives 1 and 2 do not provide any special protection status, such as Research Natural Area designation for Bullion Butte which contains the primary habitat for three of the four species in this group. Implementation of the recommendations presented under the Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this plant group would reduce the severity of this determination for Alter- native 2. Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide for Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 LMNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." As noted above, the Little Missouri National Grassland contains the only federally owned butte escarpments in the planning area which provides habitat for the species in this group. Also, some of these species are known from extremely limited population within the planning area. Threats from grazing, trampling, and invasive plant species under Alternative 3 may lead to a loss of individual plants. All of the species are peripheral species, on the edge of their range, so loss of individuals or populations would not lead to loss of species viability rangewide. Peripheral populations are of value because they are often genetically different from populations which may occur more within the common range of the species. Alternative 3 does not provide any special protection status, such as Research Natural Area designation for Bullion Butte which contains the primary habitat for three of the four species. However, Bullion Butte escarpment is proposed for management under backcountry recreation, nonmotorized, which would provide a degree of protection from the introduction of non-native plant species and from vehicular travel over rare plant populations. Alternative 3 does provide

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-195 Special Interest Area (SIA) designation for Roundtop Butte which provides habitat for the only known population of nodding buckwheat within the Dakota Prairie Grassland.

Alternative 4 LMNG (Torrey’s Cryptantha, Alyssum-leaved Phlox, Hooker’s Townsendia) Determination is "likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of species viability rangewide." Bullion Butte, which provides the only occupied habitat for three of the four species in this plant group, would be proposed for wilderness designation. Most of these species are known from extremely limited populations within the planning area. All of the species are ranked as S1 species, meaning they are critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (known from five or fewer occurrences in the state) or because of some factor in its biology making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. The habitat upon which they depend is rare within the planning area and planning unit. Suitable habitat is also rare on adjacent private, state, other federal, or tribal lands. The habitat upon which these species depend is fragile and has a low tolerance to disturbance. Conditions associated with this habitat such as drought, wind, and temperature extremes already place plant populations under high environmental stresses. Some plant populations associated with this habitat exhibit high ranges of plant mortality from year to year. For some of these species, evidence would seem to indicate stable or downward trends however, there is little evidence to support upward trends. In many areas and under many circumstances, wilderness areas are considered as offering a degree of protection to the habitats within the wilderness area. However, the number of rare species and unique habitat found on the Bullion Butte escarpment may not be compatible with increases in public use under wilderness area designation. As the second highest point in North Dakota, Bullion Butte escarpment offers high value scenic vistas from the butte’s flat top. The fragile rimrock habitat on the butte top may become the destination point for recreational users resulting in significant impact to the limited populations and fragile habitat of rare plants found there. Public use may change this currently little-used area to a recreation destination for day hikers and some overnight campers. This may result in increased recreational impacts to rare plant populations as well as rare butte habitat. In addition, the topography of the proposed wilderness area suggests that intensified recreational interest is likely to be focused upon certain areas in particular, including the butte top and rock escarpment. These locations are also the most fragile and contain the rare plant populations and the unique habitats upon which they depend. Grazing and livestock trampling to rare species would also continue from the grazing associated with wilderness area designation. The following rationale was used to determine the effects of wilderness proposals relative to the sensitive plant species within the proposed wilderness area. These rationale were developed after consulting with wilderness coordinators in Region 1 and 2 as well as FS manual (FSM) direction specifically under 2320 and its subsections. • The proposed wilderness contains 8,410 acres, however, due to the topography of the butte, much of the recreational impact could reasonably be expected to be focused in a few key areas such as the butte top and rock escarpment. These areas coincide with the locations of rare plants and unique habitat. • This wilderness would be one of the few mixed-grass wilderness areas in the nation. The wilderness study process of this site alone may result in high visibility and a high increase in recreation visits to the site. Wilderness interest may be generated among

H-196 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation both wilderness fans as well as from those who are curious to view one of the few wilderness sites being proposed within the region. • The main focus of wilderness is to preserve natural values in pristine conditions and allow the forces of nature to work. However, the size of this wilderness may not be large enough to truly capture natural processes. In addition, the processes which may be needed to maintain species viability for rare plants may be in conflict with processes needed to meet broad wilderness goals for habitat management. • Wilderness does not automatically provide protection for imperiled species, especially if those species require periodic habitat manipulation to perpetuate themselves. FSM 2323.31, objectives, states that management of wildlife and fish habitat is to "provide an environment where the forces of natural selection and survival rather than human actions determine which and what numbers of wildlife species will exist." However, another objective of wilderness is also to "protect wildlife and fish indigenous to the area from human caused conditions that could lead to Federal listing as threatened and endangered", and to "provide protection for known populations and aid recovery in areas of previous habitation, of federally listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats." However, Forest Service manual direction is not clear on protection of threatened and endangered plant species and Forest Service Sensitive (non federally- listed) plant species. • Management for imperiled plant and animal species becomes much more complicated within wilderness areas. Habitat manipulation for TES species will require extensive analysis and documentation. Public and agency opinion may vary considerably in determining which activities should be allowed in wilderness areas. • Under wilderness, noxious weed control using chemicals may not be permitted to the extent it is now. Biological control methods would be preferred. Noxious weed invasion poses a very serious threat to the plant communities of the Little Missouri National Grassland. • Livestock grazing is an existing use in wilderness areas. Livestock trampling is currently a threat to known sensitive plant species in the area. Certain habitats can be fenced for resource protection, FSM 2323.26a. However, new permanent wire fences are not encouraged (FSM 2324.33c). Jack fences or other fences more suitable for the wilderness environment should be used. Implementation of the following conservation measure plus those recommended under the Conservation Measures and Mitigation section for this plant group would reduce the severity of this determination for this alternative: • Within Management Area 1.2 (wilderness) proposed under this alternative, additional specific management protection is recommended for the rare plants species and unique habitat associated with the butte escarpment. Occupied and unoccupied habitat for the sensitive plant species in this plant group, as well as unique and fragile habitats, should be placed into Research Natural Area (2.2) or botanical Special Interest Area (2.1) designation. These management area designations would be compatible with Management Area 1.2 and would offer the higher level of protection needed for specific species and habitat. • In addition to (1) above, it is recommended that timely management plans be written for the 2.2 or 2.1 Management Area designations to ensure that specific measures are

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-197 identified and implemented to meet the needs of these species and habitats. Due to the public interest level this sensitive area may receive in the short term after the Forest Plan is signed, it is recommended that an interim plan be written within two years to provide immediate protection for rare elements with the permanent management plan being completed within five years. Use of these conservation measures would result in a determination of "may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide" for this alternative.

Alternative 4 (Nodding Buckwheat) LMNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." In North Dakota this species is ranked as S1, meaning it is critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (known from five or fewer occurrences in the state) or because of some factor in its biology making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. The habitat upon which it depends is rare within the planning area and planning unit. Suitable habitat is also rare on adjacent private, state, other federal, or tribal lands. The habitat upon which this species depends is fragile and has a low tolerance to disturbance. Alternative 4 provides Special Interest Area (SIA) designation for Roundtop Butte which provides habitat for the only known population of nodding buckwheat within the Dakota Prairie Grassland. Forest Plan objectives provide for management plans to be written for Special Interest Areas within five years of plan completion.

Alternative 4 LMNG (nodding buckwheat only) Determination is "may adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." Alternative 4 provides Special Interest Area (SIA) designation for Roundtop Butte which provides habitat for the only known population of nodding buckwheat within the Dakota Prairie Grassland.

H-198 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Alternative 5 LMNG Determination is "may adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide." As noted, the Little Missouri National Grassland contains the only federally owned butte escarpments in the planning area which provides habitat for the species in this plant group. Also, some of these species are known from extremely limited population within the planning area. Many of these buttes may become destination points under an alternative which emphasizes recreational uses, resulting in potential trampling and the introduction of invasive plant species into these areas. In addition, this alternative does not provide any special protections status, such as Research Natural Area or Special Interest Area designation for Bullion Butte which contains the primary habitat for three of the four species. However, Bullion Butte escarpment is proposed for management under backcountry recreation, nonmotorized, which would provide a degree of protection from the introduction of non-native plant species and from vehicular travel over rare plant populations. Neither does this alternative provide Special Interest Area (SIA) designation for Roundtop Butte which provides habitat for the only known population of nodding buckwheat within the Dakota Prairie Grassland.

Western Wooded Draw This plant group includes the habitat types found within the wooded draws in the western part of the planning area. The wooded draws are predominately green ash/chokecherry/snowberry habitat types. Only one Table H-3 plant species, blue lips, is identified as occurring in wooded draws. This species occurs primarily in niches of low evapotranspiration rates, added moisture conditions, and limited sunlight reflectance in the mixed grass prairie. This species has already been addressed as part of the western plains riparian plant group.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-199 References Aldrich, J.W. 1963. "Geographic Orientation of American Tetraonidae." J. Wildl. Manage. 27:529-545. Ammann, G.A. 1957. The Prairie Grouse of Michigan. Michigan Dept. Conservation, P-R Rep., Projects W-5-R, W-37-R and W-70-R. Archer, S., M.G. Garrett, and J.K. Detling. 1987. "Rates of Vegetation Change Associated with Prairie Dog Grazing in North American Mixed-grass Prairie." Vegetation 72:159-166. Arditti, J. 1992. Fundamentals of Orchid Biology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 691pp. Armbruster, M.J. 1990. Characterization of Habitat Used by Whooping Cranes During Migra- tion. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biol. Rep. 90(4). 16pp. Arnett, R.H. 1997. American Insects: A Handbook of the Insects of America North of Mexico. The Sandhill Crane Press, Inc., Gainesville, Florida. 850pp. Ashton, D.E., and E. M. Dowd. 1991. Fragile Legacy. Endangered, Threatened and Rare Ani- mals of South Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Report No. 91- 104. Jamestown, North Dakota: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/sdrare/sdrare.tmn (Version 08DEC97). Bailey, R. M. and M.O. Allum. 1962. Fishes of South Dakota. Museum of Zoology, Univ. of Michigan. No. 19. Baker, M.F. 1953. Prairie Chickens of Kansas. Univ. of Kansas Museum of Nat. History and State Biol. Survey, Misc. Pub. No. 5. Barnes, A.M. 1993. "A Review of Plague and its Relevance to Prairie Dog Populations and the Black-footed Ferret." In: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Management of Prairie Dog Complexes for the Reintroduction of the Black-footed Ferret. Eds. J.L. Oldemeyer, D.E. Big- gins, B.J. Miller, and R. Crete. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. 13. Pages 28-37. Bartelt, P.E. 1977. "Management of the American goshawk in the Black Hills National Forest." M.A. Thesis, Univ. of South Dakota, Vermillion. Baxter, G.T., and J. R. Simon. 1970. Wyoming Fishes. WY Game and Fish Dept., Cheyenne. 63-64pp. Becker, D.M. 1980. A Survey of Raptors on National Forest Land in Carter County, Montana. Final Progress Report. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Region. 61 pp. Becker, D.M. 1984. "Reproductive Ecology and Habitat Utilization of Richardson’s Merlins in Southeastern Montana." M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. Becker, D.M., and C.H. Sieg. 1987. "Home Range and Habitat Utilization of Breeding Male Merlins, Falco columbarius, in Southeastern Montana." The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 101:398-403. Bergerud, A.T., and M.W. Gratson, eds. 1988. Adaptive Strategies and Population Ecology of Northern Grouse. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Boal, C. W. and R. W. Mannan. 1994. "Northern Goshawk Diets in Ponderosa Pine Forests on the Kaibab Plateau." In: The Northern Goshawk: Ecology and Management, Studies in Avian Biology, No. 16. Eds. W.M. Block, M.S. Morrison, and M.H. Reiser. Cooper Ornitholo- gical Society.

H-200 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Bock, C.E., J.H. Bock, W.R, Kenney, and V.M. Hawthorne. 1984. "Responses of Birds, Rodents, and Vegetation to Livestock Exclosure in a Semidesert Grassland." J. Range Manage. 37:329- 242. Bock, C.E., V.A. Saab, T.D. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1993. Effects of Livestock Grazing Grazing on Neotropical Migratory Landbirds in Western North America. USDA Forest Service GTR RM-229. 296-309. Bowles, M.L. 1983. "The Tallgrass Prairie Orchids, Platanthera leucophaea and Cypripedium candidum: Some Aspects of Their Status, Biology, and Ecology and Implications Towards Management." Nat. Areas J. 3:14-37. Bowles, M.L. and A. Duxbury. 1986. Report on the Status of Platanthera praeclara in Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. Bowser, G. 1993. Genetic Variation Among Three Prairie Dog Colonies (Cynomys ludovicianus) on the Great Plains: A Preliminary Report. Unpublished report to the National Park Service. 15pp. Braun, C.E. 1993. "The Status of Sage Grouse: Are They Endangered, Threatened, or?" Paper presented at Western States Sage/Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Workshop, July 26-28, Ft. Collins, Colorado. Braun, C.E., T. Britt, and R.O. Wallestad. 1977. "Guidelines for Maintenance of Sage Grouse Habitats." Wildl. Soc. Bull., 5(3):99-106. Brooks, B.L. and S.A. Temple. 1990. "Dynamics of a Loggerhead Shrike Population in Minne- sota." Wilson Bull. 102:441-450. Bull, E.L. and J.E. Hohmann. 1994. "Breeding Biology of Northern Goshawks in Northeastern Oregon." In: The Northern Goshawk: Ecology and Management, Studies in Avian Biology, No. 16. Eds. W.M. Block, M.S. Morrison, and M.H. Reiser, eds. Cooper Ornithological Soc. Call, M.W. 1979. Habitat Management Guides for Birds of Prey. USDI BLM. Tech. Note TN- 338. 22 pp. Challey, J.R. and B.L. Heidel. 1993. "Rediscovery of Carex formosa (Cyperaceae) in North Da- kota." Prairie Naturalist : 25(2): June 1993. Chesser, R.K. 1983. "Genetic Variability Within and Among Populations of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog." Evolution 37(2):320-331. Cincotta, R.P. 1985. "Habitat and Dispersal of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs in Badlands National Park." Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins. 52pp. Clark, R.J. 1975. "A Field Study of the Short-eared Owl, Asio flammeus, in North America." The Wildlife Society, Monograph No. 47. 67pp. Clark, T.W. and M.R. Stomberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University of Kansas, Museum of Nat. History. Connelly, J.W., Jr., and C.E. Braun. 1996. "Long-term Changes in Sage Grouse Populations in the Western United States." Paper presented at 7th International Grouse Symposium, August 20-24, 1996, Ft. Collins, Colorado. Coppock, D.L., J.E. Ellis, J.K. Detling, and M.I. Dyer. 1983. "Plant-Herbivore Interactions in a North American Mixed-grass Prairie: Response of Bison to modification of Vegetation by Prairie Dogs." Oecologia 56:10-15.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-201 Coppock, D.L., J.K. Detling, J.E. Ellis, and M.I. Dyer. 1983. "Plant-Herbivore Interactions in a North American Mixed-grass Prairie: Effects of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs on Intraseasonal Aboveground Plant Biomass and Nutrient Dynamics and Plant Species Diversity". Oecologia 56:1-9. Coyner, J. 1989. Status Check on Reported Historic Populations of Spiranthes diluvialis. Report for Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah. 9pp. Coyner, J. 1990. Population Study of Spiranthes diluvialis. Report for Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah. 29pp. Crocker-Bedford, D.C. 1990. "Goshawk Reproduction and Forest Management." Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:262-269. Crocker-Bedford, D.C. and B. Chaney. 1988. "Characteristics of Goshawk Nesting Stands." In: Proceedings of the Southwest Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop. Eds. R.L. Glinske, B.G. Pendelton, M.B. Moss, M.N. LeFranc, Jr., B. A. Milsap, and S.W. Hoffman. National Wildlife Federation Scientific and Technical Series. Cully, J.F., Jr. 1997. "Growth and Life-history Changes in Gunnison’s Prairie Dogs after a Plague Epizootic." J. of Mammalogy 78(1):146-157. Cully, J.F., A.M. Barnes, T.J. Quan, and G. Maupin. 1997. "Dynamics of Plague in a Gunnison’s Prairie Dog Colony Complex from New Mexico." J. of Wildl. Diseases 33(4):706-719. Cuthrell, D.L. and D.A. Rider. 1993. Insects Associated with the Western Prairie Fringed Orchid, Plantanthera praeclara, in the Sheyenne National Grassland. Unpublished Report to North Dakota Parks and Recreation Board, Bismarck. 42 pp. Daly J.G. 1992. "Population Reductions and Genetic Variability in Black-tailed Prairie Dogs." J. Wildl. Manage. 56(2):212-220. Day, K.S. 1994. "Observations on Mountain Plovers (Charadrius montanus) breeding in Utah." Southwest. Nat. 39:298-300. Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, M.P. Nenneman, and B.R. Euliss. 1999. Effects of Mangement Practices on Grassland birds: Bairds Sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Jamestown, ND. 14pp. DeGraaf, Richard M; Virgil E. Scott; R. H. Hamre, Liz Ernst; and Standley H. Anderson. 1991. "Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States - Natural History and Habitat Use." In: USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 688. Delehanty, D. J., and D. W.Svedarsky. 1993. "Black Tern Colonization of a Restored Prairie Wetland in Northwestern Minnesota." Prairie Naturalist 25(3):213-218. Desmond, M.J. 1991. "Ecological Aspects of Burrowing Owl Nesting Strategies." M.S. Thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Desmond, M.J., J.A. Savidge, and T.F. Seibert. 1995. "Spatial Patterns of Burrowing Owl Nests Within Black-tailed Prairie Dog Towns." Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1375-1379. Dinan, J. 1993. Nebraska’s Threatened and Endangered Species: Bald Eagle. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 6pp. Dressler, R. 1981. The Orchids. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 332pp. Ducey, J. E. 1988. Nebraska Birds: Breeding Status and Distribution. Simmons-Boardman Books, Omaha, Nebraska.

H-202 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Eng, R.L., J.E. Toepfer, and J.A. Newell. 1988. "Management of Livestock to Improve and Main- tain Prairie-chicken Habitat on the Sheyenne National Grasslands." In: Prairie-Chickens on the Sheyenne National Grasslands. Ed. A.J. Bjugstad. USDA Forest Service, GTR RM-159. pp. 55-57. England, A.S., MJ. Bechard, and C.S. Houston. 1997. "Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni)." In: The Birds of North America, No. 231. Eds. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Erickson, M.G. 1987. "Nest Site Habitat Selection of the Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota." M.A. Thesis, Univ. of South Dakota, Vermillion. Evans, K.E. 1968. Characteristics and Habitat Requirements of the Greater Prairie Chicken and Sharp-tailed Grouse - A Review of the Literature. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Ex- periment Station, Ft. Collins, Colorado. 32 pp. Fagerstone, K.A. 1981. "A Review of Prairie Dog Diet and Its Variability Among Animals and Colonies." 5th Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Feist, J.J. 1997. "Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) Ecology and Demography in the North Dakota Badlands." M.S. Thesis, Univ. of North Dakota, Grand Forks. Finch, D. M. 1992. Threatened, Endangered and Vulnerable Species of Terrestrial Vertebrates in the Rocky Mountain Region. U.S. Forest Service Tech. Rpt. RM-215. 38 pp. Flessner, T.R. and J. Stubbendieck. 1989. "Propagation of Blowout Penstemon." In: Proceedings of the Eleventh North American Prairie Conference. pp. 237-239. Franklin, I.R. 1980. "Evolutionary Changes in Small Populations." In: Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Eds. M.E. Soule’ and B.A. Wilcox. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, Massachusetts. pp. 135-149 Fritz, M.I. 1997. Survey Report for Two Rare Invertebrate Species: The Tawny Crescent and Regal Fritillary on the Nebraska National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. Report to Nebraska National Forest, Chadron, NE., from Nebraska Natural Heritage Program. Fritz, M.I. 1998. Research on the Effects of Grazing and Mechancical Disturbances on Blowout Penstemon. Final Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 27pp. Fritz, M.I., J.P. Hardy, and S. Rolfsmeier. 1992. Inventory of Rare Plant Species in the Pine Ridge Area of Nebraska. Nebraska Natural Heritage Program, Report to Nebraska National Forest. 123pp. Gilmer, D. S. and R. E. Stewart. 1983. "Ferruginous Hawk Populations and Habitat Use in North Dakota." J. Wild. Manage. 47:146-157. Goosen, J.P., S. Brechtel, K.D. DeSmet, D. Hjertaas, and C. Werschler. 1992. Canadian Baird’s Sparrow Recovery Plan. Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife Committee, RENEW Rpt., Ottawa: Canadian Wildlife Federation. No. 3. 28 pp. Graham, R.T., R.T. Reynolds, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, and D.A. Boyce. 1994. "Sustaining Forest Health for the Northern Goshawk: A Question of Scale." In: The Northern Goshawk: Ecology and Management, Studies in Avian Biology, No. 16. Eds. W. M. Block, M.S. Mor- rison, and M. H. Reiser. Cooper Ornithological Society. Graul, W.D. 1975. "Breeding Behavior of the Mountain Plover." Wilson Bull. 87:6-31. Graul, W.D., and L.E. Webster. 1976. "Breeding Status of the Mountain Plover." Condor 78:265- 267.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-203 Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. 1392 pp. Groves, C.R., and T.W. Clark. 1986. "Determining Minimum Population Size for Recovery of the Black-footed Ferret." Great Basin Nat. Mem. 8:150-159. Hall, S.P., and H. E. Legrand, Jr. 1995. Element Stewardship Abstract for Lanius ludovicianus - Loggerhead Shrike. North Carolina Natural Heritage. Raleigh, NC. Hanski, I. 1997. "Metapopulation Dynamics: From Concepts and Observations to Predictive Models." In: Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution. Eds. I. Hanski and M.E. Gilpin. Academic Press, San Diego. pp 69-91. Hargis, C.D., C. McCarthy, and R. D. Perloff. 1994. "Home Ranges and Habitats of Northern Goshawks in Eastern California." In: The Northern Goshawk: Ecology and Management, Studies in Avian Biology, No. 16. Eds. W. M. Block, M.S. Morrison, and M. H. Reiser. Cooper Ornithological Society. Harris, R.B., T.W. Clark, and M.L. Shaffer. 1989. "Extinction Probabilities for Isolated Black- footed Ferret Populations." In: Conservation Biology and the Black-footed Ferret. U.S. Seal, E.T. Thorne, M.A. Bogan, and S.H. Anderson (eds.). Yale University Press, New Haven. pp. 69-82. Haug, E.A., B.A. Milsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl. The Academy of Natural Sci- ences of Philadelphia. The Birds of North America, No. 61. 20pp. Heath, B.J., R. Straw, S.H. Anderson, and J. Lawson. 1997. Sage Grouse Productivity, Survival, and Seasonal Habitat Use near Farson, Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, P.R. Completion Report. 67pp. Heidel, B. 1990. Inventory of Rare Plant Species in Theodore Roosevelt National Park, Billings and McKenzie Counties, ND. North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, Bismarck, North Dakota. Higgins, K.F., A.D. Kruse, and J.L. Piehl. 1989. Effects of Fire in the Northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Cooperative Extension Service, South Dakota State Univ., EC 761. 48pp. Hunter, M.L. 1988. "Paleoecology and the Coarse-filter Approach to Maintaining Biological Diversity." Conserv. Biol. 4:375-384. Jennings, W.F. 1990. Final Report - Spiranthes diluvialis. Report for The Nature Conservancy under the Colorado Natural History Small Grants Program. The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado. 48pp. Jensen, W.F. 1992. Evaluation of Potential Bighorn Sheep Release sites on the Little Missouri National Grassland. Draft unpublished report, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck. Johnsguard, P.A. 1979. Birds of the Great Plains, Breeding Species and their Distribution. Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. 539 pp. Johnsgard, P.A. and R.E. Wood. 1968. "Distributional Changes and Interaction Between Prairie chickens and Sharp-tailed Grouse in the Midwest." Wilson Bull. 80:173-188. Johnston, B.C. June 1987. Plant Associations of Region Two: Potential Plant Communities of Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas, Fourth Edition. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region publication. R2-ECOL-87-2. Range, Wildlife, Fisheries, and Ecology, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. 429 pp.

H-204 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Johnson, D.H., L.D. Igl, J.A. Dechant, M.L. Sondreal, C.M. Goldade, and B.R. Euliss. 1998. Effects of Management Practices on Grassland birds: Loggerhead Shrike. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 11 pp. Johnson, D.H., L.D. Igl, J.A. Dechant, M.L. Sondreal, C.M. Goldade, and B.R. Euliss. 1998. Effects of Management Practices on Grassland birds: Mountain Plover. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 11 pp. Johnson, D.H., L.D. Igl, J.A. Dechant, M.L. Sondreal, C.M. Goldade, and B.R. Euliss. 1999. Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds: Baird’s Sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 11 pp. Johnson, M.D., and J. Knue. 1989. Feathers from the Prairie. North Dakota Game and Fish Dept., Bismarck. 292pp. Jones, R. E. 1963. "Identification and Analysis of Lesser and Greater Prairie-chicken Habitat." J. Wildl. Manage. 27: 757-778. Jones, J.K., D.M. Armstrong, R.S. Hoffmann and C. Jones. 1983. Mammals of the Northern Great Plains. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 379pp. Kantrud, H.A., and R.L. Kologski. 1982. Effects of Soils and Grazing on Breeding Birds of Uncultivated Upland Grasslands of the Northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice, Wildl. Res. Rep. 15, Washington, D.C. 33pp. Kelsch, S. W. 1993. Survey of the Fishes of the Little Missouri River from Marmarth to Medora, North Dakota, 1993. Dept. of Biology, Univ. of North Dakota, 24 pp. Kennedy., P.L 1988. "Habitat Characteristics of Cooper’s Hawks and Northern Goshawks Nesting in New Mexico." In: Proceedings of the Southwest Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop. Eds. R.L. Glinske, B.G. Pendelton, M.G. Moss, M.N. LeFrac, Jr., B.A. Milsap, and S.W. Hoffman. National Wildlife Federation Scientific and Technical Series, No. 11. Kirsch, L.M., A. T. Klett, and H. W. Miller. 1973. "Land Use and Prairie Grouse Population Relaitonships in North Dakota." J. Wildl. Manage. 37:449-453. Knopf, F.L. 1993. "Avian Assemblages on Altered Grasslands." In: Studies in Avian Biology. National Biological Survey, Ft. Collins, Colorado. Knopf, F.L. 1996. "Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus)." In: The Birds of North America, No. 211. Eds. A. Poole and F. Gill. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Penn- sylvania; The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 16pp. Knopf, F.L., and B.J. Miller. 1994. "Charadrius montanus − Montane, Grassland, or Bare-ground Plover?" Auk 111:504-506. Knopf, F.L., and J.R. Rupert. 1995. "Habits and Habitats of Mountain Plovers in California." Condor 97:743-751. Knopf, F.L., and J.R. Rupert. 1996. "Reproduction and Movements of Mountain Plovers Breeding in Colorado." Wilson Bull. 108:28-35. Knowles, C.J. 1985. "Observations on Prairie Dog Dispersal in Montana." Prairie Nat. 17(1):33- 39. Knowles, C.J. 1986. "Some Relationships of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs to Livestock Grazing." Great Basin Nat. 46:198-203. Knowles, C.J. and P.R. Knowles. 1984. "Additional Records of Mountain Plovers Using Prairie Dog Towns in Montana." Prairie Nat. 16:183-186.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-205 Knowles, C.J., C.J. Stoner, and S.P. Gieb. 1982. "Selective Use of Black-tailed Prairie Dog Towns by Mountain Plovers." Condor 84:71-74. Knue, J. 1991. Big Game in North Dakota: A Short History. North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck. Konrad, P.M., and D.S. Gilmer. 1984. "Observations on the Nesting Ecology of Burrowing Owls in Central North Dakota." Prairie Nat. 16(3):129-130. Lande R. 1995. "Mutation and Conservation." Conservation Biology 9(4):782-791. Larson, G.E. 1993. Aquatic and Wetland Vascular Plants of the Northern Great Plains. Gen. Tech. Report RM-238. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 681 pp. Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina Biological Survey, Pub. No. 1980-12. 867pp. Lellinger, D. 1985. A Field Guide to the Ferns and Fern-allies of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C. 389 pp. Lenz, D. 1993. 1991-1992 Inventory of Rare Plant Species in the Little Missouri National Grass- lands. North Dakota Natural Heritage Program, North Dakota Parks and Recreation Depart- ment, Bismarck, North Dakota. Lewis, J.C. 1995. Whooping Crane. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. The Birds of North America. No. 153. 28pp. Lilieholm, R. J., J. N. Long, and S. Patla. 1994. "Assessment of Goshawk Nest Area Habitat Using Stand Density Index." In: The Northern Goshawk: Ecology and Management. Studies in Avian Biology, No. 16. Eds. W.M. Block, M.S. Morrison, and M.H. Reiser. Cooper Ornithological Society. Lomolino, M.V., J.C. Creighton, G.D. Schnell, and D.L. Certain. 1995. "Ecology and Conserva- tion of the Endangered American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus)." Conservation Biology 9(3):605-614. MacCraken, J.G., D. W. Uresk, and R.M. Hansen. 1985. "Burrowing Owl Foods in Conata Ba- sin, South Dakota." Great Basin Nat. 45(2):287-290. MacCraken, J.G., D.W. Uresk, and R.M. Hansen. 1985. "Vegetation and Soils of Burrowing Owl Nest Sites in Conata Basin, South Dakota." The Condor. 87:152-154. Manske, L.L. 1980. "Habitat, Phenology and Growth of Selected Sandhills Range Plants." Ph.D. Dissertation, North Dakota State University. Fargo. Manske, L.L., and W.T. Barker. 1988. Habitat Useage by Prairie Grouse on the Sheyenne National Grasslands. USDA Forest Service, GTR RM-159. 8-20. Martell, M.S., P.T. Redig, and J. Nibe. 1993. Demography of the Burrowing Owl in Badlands National Park. Final Report to National Park Service, Contract No. CA-1268-1-9004 9108116. 47pp. Messmer, T.A. 1990. "Influence of Grazing Treatments on Nongame Birds and Vegetation Str- ucture in South Central North Dakota." PhD Dissertation, North Dakota State University, Fargo. 147 pp.

H-206 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Minnesota Natural Heritage Program. 1995. Status of Platanthera praeclara in Minnesota with Results of 1994 Surveys and Monitoring. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered Species, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. Mitchell, C. D. 1995. Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator). In: The Birds of North America, No. 105. Eds. A. Poole and F. Gill. Philidelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D. C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. Moffat, M., and N. McPhillips. 1993. Management for Butterlies in the Northern Great Plains: A Literature Review and Guidebook for Land Managers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pierre, South Dakota. 19pp. Morrison, M.L., B.G. Marcot, and R. W. Mannan. 1992. Wildlife-habitat Relationships, Concepts and Applications. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 364 pp. Mullen, L D., and A. Kratz. 1995. Biological Evaluation, Sensitive Plants and Wildlife That for the Most PART are Not Impacted by Domestic Livestock Grazing. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Murphy, E.C., J.W. Hoganson, and N.F. Forsman. 1993. The Chadron, Brule, and Arikaree Formations in North Dakota: The Buttes of Southwestern North Dakota. Report of Investi- gation No. 96, North Dakota Geological Survey. 144 pp. Murphy, R.K., K.Wood, C.D. Grondahl, J.G. Sidle, and R.E. Martin. 1998. Status of Burrowing Owls in North Dakota. Unpublished manuscript. Nelson, P.W. 1964. "Sheyenne River Valley Forests, North Dakota." M.S. Thesis, North Dakota State University, Fargo. 148 pp. Oakleaf, B., B. Lance, S. Ritter and A. Ceroceski. 1992. Wyoming Bird and Mammal Atlas. Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. 170 pp. Ode, D. 1987. The Status of Dakota Wild Buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri A. Nels.) in South Da- kota. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Report No. 87-8, South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Dept.. 48pp. Olendorff, R.R., A.D. Miller, and R.N. Lehman. 1981. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines. Raptor Research Foundation, St. Paul, Minnesota. 11pp. Olson, S.L. 1984. "Density and Distribution, Nest Site Selection, and Activity of the Mountain Plover on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge." M.S. Thesis, University of Mon- tana, Missoula. 62pp. Olson, S.L., and D. Edge. 1985. "Nest site Selection by Mountain Plovers in Northcentral Mont- ana." J. of Range Manage. 38:280-282. Olson-Edge, S.L., and D. Edge. 1987. "Density and Distribution of the Mountain Plover on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge." Prairie Nat. 19:233-238. Parrish, T.L. 1988. "Mountain Plover Habitat Selection in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming." M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie. Peters, R.S., D.M. Waller, B. Noon, S.T.A. Pickett, D. Murphy, J. Cracraft, R. Kiester, W. Kuhl- mann, O. Houck, and W.J. Snape III. 1997. "Standard Scientific Procedures for Implementing Ecosystem Management on Public Lands." In: The Ecological Basis of Conservation: Hetero- geneity, Ecosystems, and Biodiversity. Eds. S.T.A. Pickett, R.S. Ostfeld, M. Shachak, and G.E. Likens. Institute of Ecosystems Study. Chapman and Hall, New York City. pp. 320-336 Peterson, C. R. 1974. A Preliminary Report on the Amphibians and Reptiles of the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. Urbana-Champaign: Univ. of Illinois.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-207 Pezzolesi, L.S.W. 1994. "The Western Burrowing Owl: Increasing Prairie Dog Abundance, Foraging Theory, and Nest Site Fidelity." M.S. Thesis, Texas Tech University. 65pp. Pflieger, W.L. 1978. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Dept. of Conservation. pp. 138-139. Prose, B. L. 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Greater Prairie-chicken. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biol. Rep. 82(10.102). Reynolds, R.T. 1983. Management of Western Coniferous Forest Habitat for Nesting Accipiter Hawks. USDA, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, GTR RM-102. Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Good- win, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in Southwestern United States. USDA, Forest Service, GTR RM-217. Rice, L.A., and A.V. Carter. 1984. Evaluation of South Dakota Grassland Management Practices as They Affect Prairie Chicken Populations. South Dakota Dept. Game, Fish and Parks PR Completion Report No. 84-11.25pp. Richardson, C.T., and C.K. Miller. 1997. "Recommendations for Protecting Raptors from Hu- man Disturbance: A Review." Wildlife Society Bull. 25(3):634-638. Robel, R.J., C.A. Desjardins, and K.E. Kemp. 1998. "Nutrient and Energetic Characteristics of Grasshoppers of Different Life Stages." The Prairie Nat. 30(1):37-48. Royer, R.A. 1988. Butterflies of North Dakota: An Atlas and Guide. Minot State Univ., Minot, ND. Sci. Monograph No. 1. 192 pp. Royer, R.A. 1995. A Comprehensive Annotated List of the Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) Occurring in the Sheyenne National Grassland: Richland and Ransom Counties, North Da- kota. USDI, National Biological Service, Northern Prairie Wildl. Res. Center, Jamestown, ND. 19 pp. Royer, R.A. 1995. A Comprehensive Annotated List of the Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) Occuring in Little Missouri National Grassland: Billings, Golden Valley, McKenzie and Slope Counties, North Dakota. USDI, National Biological Service, Northern Prairie Wildl. Res. Center, Jamestown, ND. 19 pp. Royer, R.A., and G.M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation Status of the Dakota skipper (Hesperia dactae) in North and South Dakota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 44 pp. + appendices. Royer, R.A., and G.M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation Status of the Regal Fritillary (Speyeria idalia) in North and South Dakota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 111 pp. Sayre, R.W. 1996. "Ecology of Bighorn Sheep in Relation to Habitat and Oil Development in the Little Missouri Badlands." Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of North Dakota, Grand Forks. Schassberger, L.A. 1988. Status Review of Astragalus barrii. USDA Forest Service, R1. Custer National Forest, Montana. Unpublished, Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 21 pages, appendices. Schassberger, L.A. 1990. Report on the Conservation Status of Astragalus barrii, a Candidate Threatened Species. Unpublished Report for the Montana Natural Heritage Program. 86 pages, appendices, maps. Schroeder, M.A., and L.A. Robb. 1993. "Greater Prairie Chicken." In: The Birds of North America, No. 36. Eds. A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washinton D.C: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

H-208 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Semlitsch, R.D., and G.B. Moran. 1984. "Ecology of the Redbelly Snake (Storeria occipitomacu- lata) Using Mesic Habitats in South Carolina." American Midland Nat. 111(1):33-40. Shackford, J.S. 1991. "Breeding Ecology of the Mountain Plover in Oklahoma." Bulletin of the Oklahoma Ornithological Society, 24:9-13 Shaffer, M.L. 1981. "Minimum Viable Population Sizes for Species Conservation." Bioscience 31:131-135. Sheviak, C.J. 1984. "Spiranthes diluvialis, A New Species from the Western United States." Brit- tonia 36(1):8-14. Sieg, C.H. 1991. "Geographic Affinity of Bird Species Associated with Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodlands and Adjacent Grasslands in Southwestern South Dakota." Prairie Nat. 23: 25-33. Sieg, C.H. and D.M. Becker. 1990. "Nest-site Habitat Selected by Merlins in Southeastern Mon- tana.: The Condor 92:688-694. Sieg, C.H. and R.M. King. 1995. "Influence of Environmental Factors and Preliminary Demographic Analyses of a Threatended Orchid, Platanthera praeclara." Am. Midl. Nat. 134(2):307-323. Seiler, G. 1971. "Vascular Flora of Richland, Ransom, and Sargent Counties." M.S. Thesis. North Dakota State Univ, Fargo. Shunk, R.A. 1917. "Plant Associations of Shenford and Owego Townships, Ransom County, N.D." M.S. Thesis. Univ. of North Dakota, Grand Forks. 23 pp. Sipes, S.E., V.J. Tepedino, and W.R. Bowlin. 1993. "The Pollination and Reproductive Ecology of Spiranthes diluvialis Sheviak (Orchidaceae)." In: Proceedings of the Southwest Rare and Endangered Plant Conference. Eds. R. Sivinski and K. Lightfoot. Miscellaneous Publication No. 2. New Mexico Forestry and Conservation Division. Sante Fe, New Mexico. pp. 320-333. Smith, B., and C. Bradley. 1990. Status Report on Smooth Goosefoot (Chenopodium subglabrum [S. Wats.] A. Nels.), A Threatened Species in Canada. Submitted to: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Smith, T.S., J.T. Flinders and D.S. Winn. 1991. "A Habitat Evaluation Procedure for Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep in the Intermountain West." The Great Basin Nat. 51(3):205-223. Snow, C. 1974. Habitat Management Series for Unique or Endangered Species. USDI, BLM. Tech. Note TN-255. 23 pp. Sodhi, N.S., L.W. Oliphant, P.C. James and I.G. Warkentin. 1993. Merlin. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. The Birds of North America, No. 44. 20pp. Soule’, M.E. 1980. "Thresholds for Survival: Maintaining Fitness and Evolutionary Potential." In: Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. Eds. M.E. Soule’ and B.A. Wilcox. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. pp. 151-170 South Dakota Ornithologist’s Union. 1991. The Birds of South Dakota. 2d Ed. Aberdeen, South Dakota. 411 pp. Stevens, O.A. 1963. Handbook of North Dakota Plants. North Dakota Institute for Regional Studies. 324 pp. Stone, R.D. 1993. Final Report-Ute Ladies’ Tresses. Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake City, Utah. 27pp. Stubbendieck, J., J.T. Nichols and C.H. Butterfield. 1989. Nebraska Range and Pasture Forbs and Shrubs. Nebraska Cooperative Extension E.C. 89-118. 153pp.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-209 Svedarsky, W.D. 1988. "Reproductive Ecology of Female Greater Prairie-chickens in Minne- sota." In: Adaptive Strategies and Population Ecology of Northern Grouse, Vol. 1. Eds. A. T. Bergerud and M. W. Gratson. Univ. Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. pp. 193-239. Svedarsky, W.D., and G.L. Van Amburg. 1999. Integrated Management of the Greater Prairie Chicken and Livestock on the Sheyenne National Grassland. Report to the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and U.S. Forest Service. Sveum, C.M., W. D. Edge, and J.A. Crawford. 1998. "Nesting Habitat Selection by Sage Grouse in South-central Washington." J. Range Manage. 51:265-269. Sweanor, P.Y., M. Gudorf, F.J. Singer, R. Andrascik, W.F. Jensen, C.W. McCarthy, M. Miller, D. Reed, and R. Schiller. 1994. Bighorn Sheep Habitat Assessment of the Greater Theodore Roosevelt National Park Area. National Park Service and National Biological Survey Cooperative Report. Swengel, A.B. 1996. "Effects of Fire and Hay Management on Abundance of Prairie Butterflies." Biol. Conservation 76:73-85. The Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas. 1392pp. Tietjen, H.P. 1976. "Zinc Phosphide-Its Development as a Control Agent for Black-tailed Prairie Dogs." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildl. No. 195. 14pp. Trimble, S.A. 1974. Habitat Management Series for Unique or Endangered Species. USDI, BLM. Tech. Note TN-271. 41 pp. Tubbs A.A. 1980. Riparian Bird Communities of the Great Plains. USDA Forest Service Gen- eral Tech. Rpt. INT-86. Tyler, J.D. 1968. "Distribution and Vertebrate Associates of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog in Oklahoma." Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Oklahoma, Norman. Uresk, D.W., and J.C. Sharps. 1986. "Denning Habitat and Diet of the Swift Fox in Western South Dakota." Great Basin Nat. 46(2):249-253. USDA, Forest Service . 1981. Wildlife and Fish Habitat Relationships; Bird Narratives. pp. B351. Range and Wildlife Management. Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, Co. USDA Forest Service. 1991. North Dakota Sensitive Plant Field Guide, for the Custer National Forest, Little Missouri National Grassland, and the Sheyenne National Grassland. unpublished. maps, photos. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Species in Riparian Areas Gra- zed by Domestic Livestock. Assessment of the Effects of Livestock Grazing on the Sensitive Species and Their Habitats Within the Rocky Mountain Region. Rocky Mountain Region, Forest Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Northern State Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 76 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 73pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan (Rocky Mountain/Southwest Population). Prepared in cooperation with the American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado.

H-210 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) Re- covery Plan. Newton Corner, MA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, Colorado. 40pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Draft Addendum to the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain/Southwest American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plans. Portland, OR. 20 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Status Report on Handsome Sedge (Carex formosa), A Candidate Endangered Species. Bismarck, ND. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Whooping Crane Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 92pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Ute Ladies’ Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, Colorado. 46pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Platanthera praeclara (Western Prairie Fringed Orchid) Re- covery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 101pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Consultation Hand- book: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Washington, DC. Uresk, D.W., J.G. MacCracken, and A.J. Bjugstad. 1981. "Prairie Dog Density and Cattle Graz- ing Relationships." In: Fifth Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop. Eds. R.M. Timm and R.J. Johnson. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. pp. 199-201. Wakkinen, W.L., K.P. Reese, and J.W. Connelly. 1992. "Sage Grouse Nest Locations in Relation- ship to Leks." J. Wildl. Manage. 56(2):381-383. Wallestad, R. 1975. Life History and Habitat Requirements of Sage Grouse in Central Montana. Montana Dept. Fish and Game. 66pp. Wallis, C.A., and C.R. Wershler. 1981. "Status and Breeding of Mountain Plover." Wilson Bulletin 88:358-359. Webb, D.R. 1993. "Sage Grouse Nest Site Characteristics and Microclimate on Grazed Lands in Wyoming." Paper presented at the Western States Sage/Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Workshop, July 26-28, 1993. Ft. Collins, Colorado. Werdon, 1993. Status Report on Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis gelida) - A Candidate Endangered Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. Bismarck, ND. 58 pp. Winter, M. 1994. Habitat Selection of Baird’s Sparrows in the Northern Mixed-grass Prairie. Diplomarbeit, der Fakultat fur Biologie der Universitat Tubingen. 102 pp plus appendices. Wright, H.A., and A.W. Bailey. 1980. Fire Ecology and Prescribed Burning in the Great Plains - A Research Review. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-77, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. 61 pp. Yosef, R. 1996. "Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)." In: The Birds of North America, No. 231. Eds. A. Poole and F. Gill. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and the American Ornithologists’ Union. Washington, D.C. Yosef, R. and T.C. Grubb, Jr. 1992. "Territory Size Influences Nutritional Condition in Nonbreeding Loggerhead Shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus): A Ptilochronology Approach." Conservation Biology. 6(3): 447-449.

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-211 Younk, J. V. and M. J. Bechard. 1994. "Breeding Ecology of the Northern Goshawk in High- elevation Aspen Forests of Northern Nevada." In: The Northern Goshawk: Ecology and Management. Studies in Avian Biology, No. 16. Eds. W.M. Block, M.S. Morrison, and M.H. Reiser, eds. Cooper Ornithological Society.

H-212 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation INDEX

CONSERVATION MEASURES AND MITIGATION CODES DAKOTA PRAIRIE GRASSLAND Management Direction Code LRMP Chapter and Section Unitwide Direction (Goals & Objectives) GO1.1(1-3) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.2(1,2) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.3(1,2) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.4(1-5) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.5(1) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.7(1-5) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.8 Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.9 Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.10 Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems Unitwide Direction (Standards & Guidelines) SG-B(3,4,6,7,9,11-14) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources - Water SG-D(3,6,12) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources - Geology & Minerals SG-F(1-17,19-21,26-28,30-46,49-56) Chapter 1 - Standards and Gudielines - Biological Resources - Fish, Wildlife, & Rare Plants SG-G(1-3) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes - Fire SG-I(3-7,9-12) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes - Livestock Grazing SG-J(1-7) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes - Noxious & Undesirable Plant Species SG-M(1,3) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration - LandOwnership SG-O(1,2) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration - Plant Collecting SG-P(3,8) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration - Special Uses SG-Q(1,2,12-14) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration - Infrastructure

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-213 Management Direction Code LRMP Chapter and Section Geographic Area Direction GA1-A1 Chapter 2 - Grand/Cedar Geographic Area - Vegetation GA1-E1 Chapter 2 - Grand/Cedar Geographic Area - Wildlife GA2-A(1,2,4-6) Chapter 2 - Badlands Geographic Area - Vegetation GA2-B(1,2) Chapter 2 - Badlands Geographic Area - Fire GA2-C1 Chapter 2 - Badlands Geographic Area - Rest GA2-D2 Chapter 2 - Badlands Geographic Area - Infrastructure GA2-E1 Chapter 2 - Badlands Geographic Area - Wildlife GA3-A(1,2,5) Chapter 2 - Rolling Prairie Geographic Area - Vegetation GA3-B1 Chapter 2 - Rolling Prairie Geographic Area - Fire GA3-C1 Chapter 2 - Rolling Prairie Geographic Area - Rest GA3-D1 Chapter 2 - Rolling Prairie Geographic Area - Infrastructure GA3-E1 Chapter 2 - Rolling Prairie Geographic Area - Wildlife GA4-A(1,2) Chapter 2 - Sheyenne Geographic Area - Vegetation GA4-B1 Chapter 2 - Sheyenne Geographic Area - Fire GA4-C1 Chapter 2 - Sheyenne Geographic Area - Rest GA4-E1 Chapter 2 - Sheyenne Geographic Area - Wildlife Management Area Direction MA1.31 (10) Chapter 3 - Backcountry Recreation Non-motorized - Silvicul- ture MA2.1 Chapter 3 - Special Interest Areas MA2.2 Chapter 3 - Research Natural Areas MA3.51 Chapter 3 - Bighorn Sheep MA3.64 Chapter 3 - Special Plant and Wildlife Habitat MA3.66 Chapter 3 - Ecosystem Restoration (Tallgrass Prairie) MA5.12 Chapter 3 - General Forest and Rangelands: Range Vegetation Emphasis Monitoring and Evaluation Table 4.2 Chapter 4 - Management Plan Monitoring Questions Appendices self-explanatory

CONSERVATION MEASURES AND MITIGATION CODES THUNDER BASIN NATIONAL GRASSLAND Management Direction Code LRMP Chapter and Section Unitwide Direction (Goals & Objectives) GO1.1(1-3) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.2(1,2) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.3(1,2) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.4(1-5) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems

H-214 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Management Direction Code LRMP Chapter and Section GO1.5(1) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.7(1-5) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.8 Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.9 Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.10 Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems Unitwide Direction (Standards & Guidelines) SG-B(3,6,7,9,13,14) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources - Water SG-C(1-3,6) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources - Soils SG-D(3,6,12) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources - Geology & Minerals SG-F(1-17,19,31-42,47-55) Chapter 1 - Standards and Gudielines - Biological Resources - Fish, Wildlife, & Rare Plants SG-G(2,3) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes - Fire SG-I(3-6,10,11) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes - Livestock Grazing SG-J(1-7) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes - Noxious & Undesirable Plant Species SG-M(1,3) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration - LandOwnership SG-P(3,8) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration - Special Uses SG-Q(2) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration - Infrastructure Geographic Area Direction GA1-A1 Chapter 2 - Broken Hills Geographic Area - Vegetation GA1-B1 Chapter 2 - Broken Hills Geographic Area - Fire GA1-E1 Chapter 2 - Broken Hills Geographic Area - Wildlife GA2-A1 Chapter 2 - Cellars Rosecrans Geographic Area - Vegetation GA2-B1 Chapter 2 - Cellars Rosecrans Geographic Area - Fire GA2-E1 Chapter 2 - Cellars Rosecrans Geographic Area - Wildlife GA3-A1 Chapter 2 - Fairview Clareton Geographic Area - Vegetation GA3-B1 Chapter 2 - Fairview Clareton Geographic Area - Fire GA3-D1 Chapter 2 - Fairview Clareton Geographic Area - Wildlife GA4-A1 Chapter 2 - Highlight Bill Geographic Area - Vegetation GA4-B1 Chapter 2 - Highlight Bill Geographic Area - Fire GA4-D1 Chapter 2 - Highlight Bill Geographic Area - Wildlife GA5-A1 Chapter 2 - Spring Creek Geographic Area - Vegetation GA5-B1 Chapter 2 - Spring Creek Geographic Area - Fire

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-215 Management Direction Code LRMP Chapter and Section GA5-E1 Chapter 2 - Spring Creek Geographic Area - Wildlife GA6-A1 Chapter 2 - Upton Osage Geographic Area - Vegetation GA6-B1 Chapter 2 - Upton Osage Geographic Area - Fire GA6-E1 Chapter 2 - Upton Osage Geographic Area - Wildlife Management Area Direction MA1.31 (10) Chapter 3 - Backcountry Recreation Non-motorized - Silvicul- ture MA2.1 Chapter 3 - Special Interest Areas MA3.63 Chapter 3 - Black-Footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat MA5.12 Chapter 3 - General Forest and Rangelands: Range Vegetation Emphasis Monitoring and Evaluation Table 4.2 Chapter 4 - Management Plan Monitoring Questions Appendices self-explanatory

CONSERVATION MEASURES AND MITIGATION CODES NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS Management Direction Code LRMP Chapter and Section Unitwide Direction (Goals & Objectives) GO1.1(1-3) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.2(1,2) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.3(1,2) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.4(1-5) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.5(1) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.7(1-5) Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.8 Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.9 Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems GO1.10 Chapter 1 - Goals and Ojectives - Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems Unitwide Direction (Standards & Guidelines) SG-B(3,4,6,7,9,11-14) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources - Water SG-C(1-3,6) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources - Soils SG-D(3,6,12) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Physical Resources - Geology & Minerals

H-216 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation Management Direction Code LRMP Chapter and Section SG-F(1-17,19-21,26-28,30-46,49-56) Chapter 1 - Standards and Gudielines - Biological Resources - Fish, Wildlife, & Rare Plants SG-G(1-3) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes - Fire SG-I(3-7,9-12) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes - Livestock Grazing SG-J(1-7) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Disturbance Processes - Noxious & Undesirable Plant Species SG-M(1,3) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration - LandOwnership SG-O(1,2) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration - Plant Collecting SG-P(3,8) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration - Special Uses SG-Q(1,2,12-14) Chapter 1 - Standards and Guidelines - Administration - Infrastructure Geographic Area Direction GA1-A1 Chapter 2 - Bessey Geographic Area - Vegetation GA1-B1 Chapter 2 - Bessey Geographic Area - Fire GA1-C1 Chapter 2 - Bessey Geographic Area - Rest GA1-E1 Chapter 2 - Bessey Geographic Area - Wildlife GA2-A1 Chapter 2 - McKelvie Geographic Area - Vegetation GA2-B1 Chapter 2 - McKelvie Geographic Area - Fire GA2-C1 Chapter 2 - McKelvie Geographic Area - Rest GA2-E1 Chapter 2 - McKelvie Geographic Area - Wildlife GA3-A1 Chapter 2 - Fall River Northeast Geographic Area - Vegetation GA3-D2 Chapter 2 - Fall River Northeast Geographic Area - Infrastruc- ture GA4-A1 Chapter 2 - Fall River Southeast Geographic Area - Vegetation GA4-D2 Chapter 2 - Fall River Southeast Geographic Area - Infrastruc- ture GA4-E1 Chapter 2 - Fall River Southeast Geographic Area - Wildlife GA5-A(1,2) Chapter 2 - Fall River West Geographic Area - Vegetation GA5-E1 Chapter 2 - Fall River West Geographic Area - Wildlife GA6-A1 Chapter 2 - Wall North Geographic Area - Vegetation GA6-D2 Chapter 2 - Wall North Geographic Area - Infrastructure GA7-A1 Chapter 2 - Wall Southeast Geographic Area - Vegetation GA8-A1 Chapter 2 - Wall Southwest Geographic Area - Vegetation GA8-D2 Chapter 2 - Wall Southwest Geographic Area - Infrastructure GA8-E1 Chapter 2 - Wall Southwest Geographic Area - Wildlife GA9-A1 Chapter 2 - Fort Pierre Geographic Area - Vegetation GA9-C1 Chapter 2 - Fort Pierre Geographic Area - Rest GA9-E1 Chapter 2 - Fort Pierre Geographic Area - Wildlife GA10-A1 Chapter 2 - Oglala Geographic Area - Vegetation GA10-B1 Chaper 2 - Oglala Geographic Area - Fire GA10-E1 Chapter 2 - Oglala Geographic Area - Wildlife

Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation H-217 Management Direction Code LRMP Chapter and Section GA11-A1 Chapter 2 - Pine Ridge Geographic Area - Grassland Vegeta- tion GA11-B Chapter 2 - Pine Ridge Geographic Area - Forest Vegetation GA11-C1 Chapter 2 - Pine Ridge Geographic Area - Fire Management Area Direction MA1.31 (10) Chapter 3 - Backcountry Recreation Non-motorized - Silvicul- ture MA2.1 Chapter 3 - Special Interest Areas MA2.2 Chapter 3 - Research Natural Areas MA3.51 Chapter 3 - Bighorn Sheep MA3.63 Chapter 3 - Black-Footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat MA3.64 Chapter 3 - Special Plant and Wildlife Habitat MA5.12 Chapter 3 - General Forest and Rangelands: Range Vegetation Emphasis Monitoring and Evaluation Table 4.2 Chapter 4 - Management Plan Monitoring Questions Appendices self-explanatory

H-218 Appendix H: Biological Assessment and Evaluation