cover title sheet -...

Laramie District North Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fuels Reduction and Watershed

Protection Project

Biological Evaluation of Plant Species

Laramie District, Medicine Bow - Routt National Forests

Laramie, Wyoming

Prepared by:

/s/ Katharine M. Haynes 09/18/12

KATHARINE M. HAYNES

Botanist

Date

Submitted to:

FRANK ROMERO

District Ranger

Laramie District North WUI

BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012

Contents of 49

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 5 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL ......................................................................................................... 5

Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Analysis Area Location ................................................................................................................................... 6 Proposed Actions and Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 6

Alternative 1: No Action ........................................................................................................................... 6 Final Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................... 6

Treatment Prescriptions ................................................................................................................................... 9 Summary of Design Criteria Relevant to TESP Plants ................................................................................. 11 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................... 14

Background .............................................................................................................................................. 14 Field Reconnaissance .............................................................................................................................. 14

Forest Plan Compliance................................................................................................................................. 15 III. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND PROPOSED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL

HABITAT CONSIDERED AND ANALYZED ........................................................................................... 16 IV. SENSITIVE SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS .................................................................... 18 V. EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR SENSITIVE SPECIES PRESENT IN THE ANALYSIS AREA ............... 20

Slender moonwort/Botrychium lineare ......................................................................................................... 20 Effects of Alternatives on B. lineare ............................................................................................................. 20

Existing Conditions.................................................................................................................................. 20 Direct and Indirect Effects....................................................................................................................... 20 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................................... 21

Determination of Effect and Rationale for B. lineare .................................................................................... 21 Dwarf raspberry/Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis ................................................................................................ 22 Effects of Alternatives on R. arcticus ssp. acaulis ........................................................................................ 22


Determination of Effect and Rationale for R. arcticus ssp. acaulis............................................................... 23 Silver willow/Salix candida .......................................................................................................................... 24 Effects of Alternatives on S. candida ............................................................................................................ 24

Existing Conditions.................................................................................................................................. 24 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................................... 25

Determination of Effect and Rationale for S. candida .................................................................................. 26 Lesser bladderpod/Utricularia minor ........................................................................................................... 26 Effects of Alternatives on U. minor .............................................................................................................. 26

Existing Conditions.................................................................................................................................. 26 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................................... 27

Determination of Effect and Rationale for U. minor ..................................................................................... 28 VI. EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR SENSITIVE WETLAND SPECIES WITH SUITABLE HABITAT IN

THE ANALYSIS AREA ................................................................................................................................ 28 Lesser panicled sedge/Carex diandra ........................................................................................................... 28 Livid sedge/Carex livida ............................................................................................................................... 28 Rocky Mountain monkey flower/Mimulus gemmiparus ............................................................................... 28 Effects of Alternatives on C. diandra, C. livida, and M. gemmiparus .......................................................... 29


Determination of Effect and Rationale for C. diandra, C. livida, and M. gemmiparus ................................. 32 VII. EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR SENSITIVE UPLAND SPECIES WITH SUITABLE HABITAT IN THE

ANALYSIS AREA ......................................................................................................................................... 32 Slender-leaved Buckwheat/Eriogonum exilifolium....................................................................................... 32 Rough stalk fescue/Festuca hallii ................................................................................................................. 32


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012

Contents of 49

Colorado tansyaster/Machaeranthera coloradoensis ................................................................................... 33 Effects of Alternatives on E. exilifolium, F. hallii, and M. coloradoensis .................................................... 33


Determination of Effect and Rationale for E. exilifolium, F. hallii, and M. coloradoensis ........................... 34 Summary of determinations of effect for all Evaluated R2 Sensitive Species .............................................. 35

VIII. SPECIES OF LOCAL CONCERN CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS ........................................ 36 IX. EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR SPECIES OF LOCAL CONCERN .............................................................. 37

Wetland Species of Local Concern ............................................................................................................... 37 Effects on Wetland Species of Local Concern ......................................................................................... 38

Upland Species of Local Concern ................................................................................................................. 38 Larchleaf penstemon/Penstemon laricifolius ssp. exilifolius ........................................................................ 38 Effects of Alternatives on P. laricifolius ssp. exilifolius ............................................................................... 40 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................................... 40

Direct and Indirect Effects....................................................................................................................... 41 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................................... 41

Summary of effects on P. laricifolius ssp. exilifolius .................................................................................... 42 X. RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION MEASURES TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, OR MITIGATE

ADVERSE EFFECTS ................................................................................................................................... 43 Recommended Additional Field Work and Monitoring ................................................................................ 43

XI. RESPONSIBILITY FOR A REVISED BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ................................................. 43 XII. CONTACTS ................................................................................................................................................... 44 XIII. DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 45 IX. LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................................. 46


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012

Contents of 49

List of Figures

Figure 1: Photo and distribution of P. laricifolius ssp. exilifolius (black dots) and other subtaxa of P. laricifolius

across Wyoming and Colorado.. .................................................................................................................................. 40

List of Tables

Table 1: Selected Design Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 11

Table 2: Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relevant to TESP and SoLC plants and explanation of project

compliance with these guidelines. ............................................................................................................................... 15

Table 3: Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species Considered and Evaluated .................................................. 16

Table 4: Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species Considered and Evaluated ....................................................................... 18

Table 5: Summary of the determinations of effect for R2 Sensitive Species .............................................................. 35

Table 6: MBRTB Species of Local Concern Considered ............................................................................................ 36


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012

Project Overview of 49

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this biological evaluation is to analyze and determine the likely effects of the

alternatives on federally listed species (endangered, threatened, and proposed), Forest Service

sensitive species (FSM 2670.31-2670.32) and species of local concern.

This Biological Evaluation (BE) conforms to legal requirements set forth under section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (19 U.S.C. 1536 (c), 50 CFR 402.12 (f) and 402.14). Section

7(a) (1) of the ESA requires federal agencies to use their authorities to further the conservation of

listed species. Section 7(a) (2) requires that federal agencies ensure any action they authorize,

fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally-listed species, or

destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.

Forest Service policy requires that a review of programs and activities, through a biological

evaluation (BE), be conducted to determine their potential effect on threatened and endangered

species, species proposed for listing, and sensitive species (FSM 2670.3). Under the ESA, a

Biological Assessment (BA) must be prepared for federal actions that are “major construction

activities” to evaluate the potential effects of the proposal on listed or proposed species. The

contents of the BA are at the discretion of the federal agency, and will depend on the nature of

the federal action (50 CFR 402.12(f)). A BE may be used to satisfy the ESA requirement to

prepare a Biological Assessment. Preparation of a Biological Evaluation as part of the NEPA

process ensures that TEPS species receive full consideration in the decision-making process.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

Purpose and Need

The purpose of the North WUI project is to reduce the amount and continuity of existing fuels

surrounding WUI areas, Special-use Permit areas, and municipal water supplies within the North

WUI analysis area. Thousands of acres of dead and dying trees associated with the beetle

epidemic have resulted in increased fuel densities, fuel continuity, and fuel loads both inside and

outside of the analysis area boundary. These factors increase the risk of wildfires adjacent to

infrastructure and municipal water supplies as well as in the larger analysis area. To address

these conditions, the project is needed to:

Manage hazardous fuel loadings associated with the beetle epidemic to minimize the

potential for catastrophic wildfires;

Manage hazardous fuels so that wildfires may be more manageable if they occur;

Improve and maintain ingress and egress access to provide safety for firefighters and the

public in the event of a fire; and

Manage hazardous fuel loadings to protect municipal water supplies and water quality.

This project also responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan and helps move

the project area towards desired conditions described in the Plan (see Environmental

Assessment, March 2011 for detailed description).


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Analysis Area Location

The North WUI analysis area is located approximately 30 miles southwest and northwest of

Laramie, Wyoming on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests (MBRNF) in Albany and

Carbon Counties, Wyoming, T.13 – 19 N, R.77 - 79W, 6th Principle Meridian. The analysis area

contains roughly 90,710 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands and 3,131 acres of private

land for a total of 93,841 It also contains 10 WUI areas, 11 summer home groups and special-

use permit areas, and two municipal watersheds. The analysis area is further described under the

Affected Environment section below.

Proposed Actions and Alternatives

Alternative 1: No Action

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations require analysis of a No Action

alternative; they also require that it be used as a baseline for comparing the environmental

consequences of the other alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14(d) and Forest Service Handbook

1909.14.1).

Under the No Action alternative, no fuels reduction or watershed improvement treatments would

occur on National Forest System lands around or adjacent to private lands or municipal water

supplies within the North WUI analysis area. Ladder fuels and tree spacing would remain as is,

perpetuating a potentially hazardous fuel structure in the area. All measures to provide

defensible space to protect private lands would be the sole responsibility of the private property

owners. All measures to protect municipal water supplies would not occur. On-going

management activities (e.g. livestock grazing, road maintenance, etc.) in the area would still

occur.

Final Proposed Action

The Final Proposed Action has been modified from what was presented in the November 22,

2010 Scoping/30-day formal comment period letter and the February 14, 2011 Issues and

Alternatives memo and will hereafter be referred to as the “Final Proposed Action.” The

Modified Proposed Action described in the February 14, 2011 memo included the following

modifications:

1) The fuels reduction treatment units proposed around the Morgan area have been dropped

from the Modified Proposed Action;

2) Units 103 – 108, north of the Rambler Mine, have been dropped from the Modified

Proposed Action;

3) The boundary of the Fox Creek prescribed burn has been reduced by 311 acres; from 690

acres to 379 acres (this represents a 280 acre reduction in the Sheep Mountain IRA); and

4) The 12 acres of mapped and inventoried spruce-fir old growth, currently proposed in the

Snowy Range RNA, have been dropped from the Modified Proposed Action.

In addition to the changes described above, the Final Proposed Action also includes the

following modifications:

5) Approximately 1,185 acres in the Dry Park, Lake Own, Foxborough, Moore‟s Gulch,

and Lake Creek areas were changed from a Sanitation/Salvage treatment prescription


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


to a Sanitation/Salvation with Thinning treatment prescription. Further on-the-ground

review of these areas identified several places where live understory is dense and

would provide ladder fuels if left. Consequently, a straight Sanitation/Salvage

prescription would not be as effective as a Sanitation/Salvage with Thinning

prescription.

6) 227 acres of Adaptive Management treatment located southwest of Rob Roy

Reservoir and immediately west of the Rambler Mine WUI area were added. This

acreage, which is comprised of dead, mature lodgepole pine (105 years +)

interspersed with small pockets of spruce and fir, was part of the now defunct Bird

Creek Timber Sale; the acreage would have been included in the Proposed Action at

the onset of the analysis had there not been contractual issues. The units in question

will meet the Purpose and Need for the project by reducing the amount and continuity

of existing fuels around Rambler Mine and by protecting infrastructure associated

with Rob Roy Reservoir.

7) Treatment descriptions and associated design criteria for Wet Areas and Wet Area

Buffers were incorporated into the Final Proposed Action. Wet Area and Wet Area

Buffer treatments may occur in conjunction with any of the previously identified

treatment types and will be designed to limit impacts to wet areas where fuels

treatments are necessary in order to meet project objectives.

8) 691 acres of prescribed burn treatment (units 41, 42, 43, 44, and part of 46), including

419 acres in the Sheep Mountain IRA, were removed as a result of the Squirrel Creek

Fire. The Squirrel Creek Fire burned through these units completely.

9) Hazard Tree and Rob Roy Reservoir Buffer treatment acreages were corrected in

2011 to account for private land acres that the Forest Service would be responsible for

treating under this proposal.

Under the Final Proposed Action, the Laramie Ranger District would treat approximately 6,413

acres of bark beetle killed trees and adjacent habitats in the North WUI analysis area to reduce

the amount and continuity of existing fuels surrounding WUI areas, Special Use Permit areas,

and municipal watersheds. A combination of prescribed fire and silvicultural prescriptions (see

Table 1) would be applied to manage fuel loads and to protect municipal water supplies and

water quality. Adaptive management units are proposed in areas where flexibility is needed to

manage for changing conditions while meeting project objectives.

Table 1: Modified Proposed Action/Final Proposed Action Summary

Proposed Treatment Modified Proposed Action

(Projected Acres*)


(Projected Acres*)

Adaptive Management 1,080 1,307

Boundary 41 41

Boundary Maintenance 86 86

Hazard Tree** 673 674

Mosaic Fuelbreak 776 776

Rob Roy Reservoir Buffer 77 77


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Prescribed Burn 1,648 957***

Sanitation/Salvage 1,572 387

Sanitation/Salvage w/ Thinning 507 1,691

Spruce-fir Treatment 417 417

Total 6877 6,413*** *Treatment area acreages may vary on the ground by approximately +/- 5 percent to facilitate project

implementation.

**Roughly 400 of these acres were authorized under the Forest-wide Hazard Tree Removal project (August 2008).

***The June 2012 Squirrel Creek Fire burned 691 acres in proposed prescribed burn treatment units, reducing the

proposed prescribed burn acres from 1,648 to 957 and the total proposed treatment acres from7,104 to 6,413.

Inventoried Roadless Areas Approximately 1,218 of the 7,104 acres proposed for treatment in the Final Proposed Action are

located within five IRAs. The Squirrel Creek Fire burned 419 acres in the Sheep Mountain IRA,

reducing the total proposed treatment acres in IRAs to 799 and the total proposed treatment acres

to 6,413. Table 2 provides a breakdown of proposed IRA treatment acres.

Table 2: IRAs, Acres Treated and Proposed Treatments

IRA (Total Acres

Treated)

Original Proposed

Action

(Acres Treated)


(Acres Treated)

Proposed Treatment

Snowy Range (10) 10 10 Spruce-fir

Libby Flats (114) 9 4 Spruce-fir

31 31 Sanitation/Salvage

74 74 Prescribed Burn

Middle Fork (358) 8 8 Boundary

33 33 Boundary Maintenance

30 30 Sanitation/Salvage

287 287 Prescribed Burn

Rock Creek (48) 48 0 Boundary

Illinois Creek (254) 175 175 Sanitation/Salvage

79 79 Salvage/Thin

Sheep Mountain (767) 767 107* Prescribed Burn

TOTAL ACRES 1,551 838* (~45% reduction) *The June 2012 Squirrel Creek Fire burned 419 acres in proposed prescribed burn treatment units in the Sheep

Mountain IRA, reducing the final proposed prescribed burn acres in the Sheep Mountain Roadless Area from 487 to

68 and the total proposed treatment acres in IRAs from 1,218 to 799. Other reductions in acreages on IRAs are a

result of collaboration and response to public comment.

Road/Access Information The Proposed Action could require roughly 8.4 miles of temporary road construction and 5.8

miles of road reconstruction. No road construction would occur in Inventoried Roadless Areas.

Following project completion, all temporary roads would be decommissioned and closed.

Other Activities Other activities associated with the Proposed Action include, but are not limited to, slash

treatments (e.g., pile burning, chipping, etc.), regeneration surveys, personal use permits, noxious

weed control, native grass seeding, and road maintenance. It is expected that the proposal would


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


take 2 to 5 years to accomplish and would be completed through a combination of non-

commercial service contracts, stewardship contracts, commercial timber sale contracts, free use

timber authorities and/or Forest Service crews. It is expected that private landowners would

continue to coordinate with the Forest Service throughout the course of the project to address

access limitations.

In summary, when compared to the Original Proposed Action, the Final Proposed Action would:

Eliminate fuels reduction treatments in the Rock Creek IRA, thereby reducing the

number of IRAs impacted from six to five;

Reduce treatments in IRAs from 1,551 acres to 838 acres; this represents a 45 percent

reduction in treated acres as compared to the original Proposed Action;

Include only 107 acres of fuels reduction treatments in the Sheep Mountain IRA;

Reduce spruce/fir treatments in the Libby Flats IRA by 5 acres;

Change 1,185 acres of Sanitation/Salvation in the Dry Park, Lake Own, Foxborough,

Moores Gulch, and Lake Creek areas to Sanitation/Salvation with Thinning;

Add 227 acres of Adaptive Management Treatments southwest of Rob Roy Reservoir and

immediately west of the Rambler Mine WUI area; and

Incorporate treatment descriptions and associated design criteria for Wet Areas and Wet

Area Buffers.

Treatment Prescriptions

Prescribed Fire: Burn areas comprised mainly of sagebrush and bitterbrush; these areas may also include small

pockets of trees. Intent: Reduce fuel loading, limit fire behavior to surface fuels, and promote and maintain native

early seral species.

Boundary: Treat all dead and dying and some live standing material, as well as down material, immediately

adjacent to private land; treated areas would generally be within 200 to 500 feet of the private land boundary.

Material larger than 9 inches Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) would either be decked or hauled off-site. All

smaller material and slash would be piled or masticated. Treatment effects are expected to vary based on existing

mortality and ladder fuel patterns. This treatment may apply to recreational residences, in which case the boundary

would begin one (1) tree height away from permitted structures and features (e.g., parking lots, fire pits, etc.).

Intent: Create a fuel break between NFS lands and private property or community infrastructure.

Sanitation/Salvage: Remove all dead and dying trees as well as trees that are susceptible to other insects and

diseases. This includes trees currently being attacked by bark beetles and trees susceptible to beetle attack due to

weakening from other agents. Thinning is likely to be used in conjunction with this treatment. Intent: Reduce

fuels, remove potential hazard trees, and/or create openings for future regeneration.

Thinning: Reduce the density and number of smaller diameter trees. The healthiest trees would be left. If a

spacing guideline is used, it may vary depending on the size and number of existing trees (i.e. an average diameter

of 3 inches DBH may result in a 12 ft. x. 12 ft. spacing while an average diameter of 6 inches DBH may result in a

20 ft. x 20 ft. spacing). In some areas, a spacing guideline may not be used; rather, a preference for groups of trees

may be used as a guideline resulting in a discontinuous canopy pattern. Intent: Reduce crown fire potential by

reducing ladder fuels and opening existing crown canopy.

Spruce-fir: This treatment would be applied immediately adjacent to recreational residence cabins in the spruce-fir

vegetation type. This treatment would begin one (1) tree height away from cabins and extend approximately 200 to

400 feet out, depending on the existing conditions around the cabin. Removed material would include standing dead

and dying trees, any size tree that could serve as a ladder fuel, and accumulations of down dead material. Intent:

Reduce crown fire potential by breaking up the continuity of fuels adjacent to private structures.


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Mosaic Fuelbreak: Remove dead and dying trees throughout the mosaic fuelbreak treatment area; retain healthy

understory trees in patch sizes varying from less than ¼ acre up to 1 acre, depending on existing vegetation. Orient

healthy understory patches such that surface and ladder fuels are reduced, as well as crown fire potential. Existing

surface fuels would be piled or removed to minimize the amount of larger diameter (>8” diameter) fuels

accumulation on the ground. Standing green trees that act as a ladder fuel may be removed. Merchantable material

would either be decked or hauled off-site. All smaller material and slash would be piled, chipped, or masticated.

Intent: Manage hazardous fuels so that wildfires may be more manageable.

Adaptive Management: Treatment options as described in “Treatment Descriptions” may be utilized to meet

project objectives and address rapidly changing forest conditions. Adaptive management could be applied to any of

the treatments described above. For example, the initial intent may be to retain 40 percent live overstory; however,

this may not be realistic as mortality increases and drives the need for salvage. Site characteristics such as slope,

soils and potential future vegetation would be used as a guide to identify appropriate treatments. Intent: As

changing fuel conditions occur, adaptive management will allow managers to reduce hazardous fuel levels by

utilizing methods described in “Treatment Descriptions” so that when wildfires occur they will be more manageable.

Hazard Tree: Remove standing dead and dying trees immediately adjacent to roads, developed recreation areas, or

other necessary access points (such as the pipeline). Remove trees that are prone to future failure, such as trees that

are likely to fail due to the removal of trees around them. Hazard trees are generally identified as a tree length plus

10%; for this project, however, the area of concern will be identified based on hazard potential. For example, the

size of the hazard tree treatment area may be different for a trailhead than for a major private land access route.

Intent: Reduce hazards presented by dead and dying trees and facilitate safe access/egress. Create fuel breaks along

access points by reducing fuel loading.

Boundary Maintenance: Maintenance thinning and prescribed burning following initial or previous fuel

reduction treatments. Intent: Retain the characteristics of the original treatment.

Rob Roy Reservoir Buffer: Cut and possibly remove dead or dying trees that have a high probability of falling

toward the reservoir. This treatment would generally be applied approximately 50 feet upslope from the high-water

mark of the reservoir. Trees may be directionally felled away from the reservoir and placed in a stable location;

secured in-place in the uplands; or cut and removed. Intent: Minimize the potential for adverse effects from trees

and debris clogging the spillway and minimize spillway maintenance.

Wet Areas

Wet area treatments may occur together with any of the treatment types described above. Treatments will occur in

wet areas and wet area buffers. Treatments will be designed to limit impacts to wet areas where fuels treatments are

necessary in order to meet project objectives (See Wet Area Design Criteria). Factors such as proximity to private

land or infrastructure, species composition, modeled fire behavior, slope, soil type, erosion potential and

sedimentation potential will be considered in the evaluation process.

Wet areas within 500 feet of private land or other infrastructure are highly likely to be treated in order to meet

project objectives. Beyond 500 feet of private land or other infrastructure, Forest Service resource managers and

natural resource specialists will evaluate wet areas based on the above factors to determine where treatment is

needed to meet project objectives.

Within Identified Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Aquatic Ecosystems: Remove up to 80% of standing

dead and dying trees. Thin live trees to reduce ladder fuels while retaining as much of the green tree component as

possible. For example, remove dead and dying conifers leaving a minimum of 20% of the existing standing

dead/dying trees and thin live conifers to a canopy spacing of 15 feet. Where aspen stands occur, promote aspen

regeneration and maintain existing aspen stands as possible. Intent: Provide for current and future age, size and

structural diversity in both the live and dead standing tree component while meeting project objectives. Focus on

retaining as much green tree component and down woody material as possible to provide current and future habitat

for wildlife, fish and rare plants.


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Within Identified Water Influence Zones (WIZ): Remove up to 90% of standing dead and dying trees. Thin

and remove live trees to reduce ladder fuels. Where aspen stands occur, promote aspen regeneration and maintain

existing aspen stands as possible. For example, remove dead and dying conifer leaving a minimum of 10% of the

existing standing dead/dying trees and thin and remove live conifers to a canopy spacing of 35 feet. Intent: Provide

for current and future age, size and structural diversity in both the live and dead standing tree component while

meeting project objectives. Focus on fuel reduction in both the standing and down woody component while

maintaining a moderate level of current and future habitat for wildlife, fish and rare plants.

Summary of Design Criteria Relevant to TESP Plants

The Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) assigned to this project identified design criteria to reduce

or prevent potential undesirable effects resulting from management activities. Design criteria

include such measures as Best Management Practices (BMPs), Watershed Conservation

Practices (WCPs), Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and other environmental protection

required by laws and regulations. A summary of Design Criteria relevant to botanical and

ecological resources, including TESP plants, is given below.

Table 3: Selected Design Criteria

Resource

Category Design Criteria Source

AMPHIBIANS

#1 Within 300 feet of occupied or unoccupied R2S amphibian breeding habitats:

Retain at least 50% canopy cover. Retain 50% of existing coarse (>3” diameter)

woody debris on the ground for future thermal and protective cover.

Fisheries

Biologist

BOTANY

#1 The sensitive plant location in Unit 20 of the Foxborough sanitation/salvage

proposed treatment area will be protected by a 40 foot limited action buffer. This

will include a 10 foot no tree cutting buffer surrounding the sensitive location and

an additional 30 foot buffer where equipment use and skidding is prohibited.

Treated trees within the 30 foot buffer will be felled directionally away from the

sensitive plant location.

Botanist

#2 A minimum of one and no more than two sensitive plant locations will be excluded

from burning for monitoring purposes in prescribed burning units 44, 45, 46, 114, or

116 through the use of natural or artificial firebreaks.

Botanist

FISHERIES

#1 Instream work resulting from temporary road construction and perennial stream

crossings is prohibited from October 15 to November 10 to minimize impacts to

brook trout and brown trout populations.

Fisheries

Biologist

#2 Felled material or other associated debris with potential to block stream culverts or

bridges will be removed from the high water mark.

Fisheries

Biologist

HYDROLOGY


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Resource


Hydrology / Riparian Areas

#1 Winching of trees across streams is prohibited. Hydrologist

#2 A Forest Service interdisciplinary team will review the proposed access to Units 36

– 39, 87, 89, 94, 95, and 128 and make recommendations to the line officer before

the units are included in implementation contracts.

Hydrologist

#3 Rehabilitate temporary roads, main skid trails, and landings. Reduce compaction

on a minimum of 65% of compacted areas to a depth of 8-12 inches and provide

drainage and at least 65% groundcover. Fully recontour any portions of temporary

roads and main skid trails within 300 feet of perennial streams. Rehabilitation

should occur as soon as feasible after use ends and always before the end of the

operating season.

Hydrologist

#4 Culverts will be removed from temporary roads; the stream channel will be restored

to near natural dimensions and streambank protection measures applied where

necessary to reduce erosion. All road fill placed in the valley bottom will be

removed from the valley bottom and the valley bottom will be restored to pre-

project elevations and contours.

Hydrologist

Hydrology / Riparian Areas – Protection of Water Related Infrastructure

#1 Adhere to agreements in the Memorandum of Agreement between the Forest

Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service for the

Hydrometerological Data Collection Sites shown in the table below:

Site Name Station # Elevation Legal Description NWUI

Unit

Brooklyn

Lake

06H13S 10325 T16N, R79W, Section 14 #134

Libby Lodge 06H03 8750 T16N, R78W, Section 28 #128

Relevant excerpts from the revised 2007 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU FS

#08-MU-11132426-005 / NRCS A-3A75-8-3) are as follows:

Provide a 400-foot or mutually agreed to buffer zone in all directions from

sampling points and sensors at established snow courses and related

hydrometeorological data sites. (p3)

Conduct any management activities occurring within the designated buffer

zone at each site in a manner that will not diminish the value of the site, nor

restrict approved access to the site. (p4)

Notify NRCS regarding land management activities in areas having authorized

snow courses or data sites. FS will solicit comments from NRCS regarding

forest land and resource management plan amendments or revisions, or other

proposed management actions that may affect a SNOTEL site. (p4)

To the extent that such access remains compliant with applicable Federal laws

and regulations, assure that existing NFS roads and trails used by NRCS for

access to snow survey sites remain available to NRCS for operations and

maintenance of sites. (p4)

Hydrologist


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Resource


#2 Protect or replace (to existing conditions) all infrastructure associated with all water

facilities on National Forest System Lands. Promptly remove any cut trees or

debris from the ditches. At a minimum this applies to: Barber Lake ditch (Unit

#128 – Upper Libby Group), Thompson No. 1 ditch (Unit #50 Fox Creek),

Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities water collection and conveyance facilities.

Routine maintenance, including any temporary increases in maintenance needs (e.g.

increased sediment in ditches requiring more frequent cleaning) will remain the

responsibility of the permittee for the water facility.

Hydrologist

OVER-SNOW LOGGING - These requirements are only for those units where the soil wetness makes over-snow

logging necessary to protect the soil. Otherwise the wetness criterion and designated skid trails are all that is

needed during winter to protect the soil.

#1 Harvest when frozen soil is >4 inches deep OR snow or a combination of

compactable snow and frozen soil that is >12 inches in thickness. Snow quality

should be such that it will compact and form a running surface for equipment by

being moist and non-granular.

Designated skid trails are NOT REQUIRED with over-snow logging except for

other resource concerns.

IDT

WET AREAS

#1 Fens: Treatment will not occur in fens.

ID Team

#2 Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Aquatic Ecosystems: When treating within

wetlands, riparian areas, and aquatic ecosystems:

No temporary roads, landings, main skid trails or slash piles are

permitted.

Hand fall and leave in place OR

Treat with mechanized equipment over a combined surface of 12 inches

of frozen ground and snow.

*See Treatment Descriptions, Pages 9-10

ID Team

#3 Water Influence Zone: A buffer with a minimum horizontal width of 100 feet from

the top of each stream bank or edge of wetlands will be applied to perennial and

intermittent streams, lakes, reservoirs, riparian areas, and wetlands. However,

buffers may vary depending on the type of wet area and site conditions, as agreed

upon by project resource specialists.

When treating buffers (WIZ):

Equipment use is permitted.

If winter logging occurs, „Over-Snow‟ logging DC will apply.

Where feasible, avoid temporary roads, landings, main skid trails, or slash piles

in the buffer (WIZ). If they cannot be avoided and are necessary within the WIZ

to meet project objectives, they will be mitigated and/or rehabilitated according

to the following specifications:

o Temporary Roads, Landings, and Skid Trails: Reduce compaction on 65%

of the foot print of the road, landing, or skid trail by breaking up the compacted

soil to a depth of 8 – 12 inches. This shall occur when the soil is friable (dry

enough to crumble (rather than smear) but turn to powder). Provide ground

ID Team


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Resource


cover of 65%. Seed if necessary;

o Temporary Roads and Skid Trails: Recontour after breaking up soil

compaction by pulling any fill material back on to the road surface trying to

replace the topsoil on the surface and making slopes as close as possible to the

natural contour. Do not leave berms/furrows that can channel water. Provide

65% ground cover. Seed recontoured areas.

o Burned Slash Piles: Rehabilitate the soil under the pile by mixing with

unburned soil from the landing and providing 65% ground cover using landing

debris. Seed, as necessary, as determined by the Timber

*See Treatment Descriptions, Pages 9-10

#4 Adjacent to Perennial and Intermittent Streams: Retain a minimum of 5-7

standing dead or dying trees per 100 feet of stream channel along both sides of

perennial and intermittent streams. Retained trees should consist of larger trees

(e.g. Douglas Creek – Units 83, 98, 99, 140-142; Libby Creek – Units 127, 128; Elk

Creek – Units 103-105; Dave Creek Units 94-96; Horse Creek – Units 84, 85, 87-

89, 147; and Keystone Creek – Unit 36).

Fisheries

Biologist

WILDLIFE

#1 Adaptive management units within Lynx Analysis Units (Units 33, 36, 37, 38, 39,

40, 84, 88, 89, 90, 94, 96, 96, 97, 150, and 151) will be evaluated for potential lynx

habitat based on the Horizontal Cover Guidance section of the Southern Rockies

Lynx Amendment Implementation Guide (USFS 2008). Lynx habitat in these units

will be delineated by the Laramie Ranger District Wildlife Biologist with GIS files

of exclusion areas provided to the Laramie Ranger District Timber Management

Assistant prior to contract preparation.

Wildlife

Biologist

Affected Environment

Background

Elevation in the analysis area ranges from 7,500 to 12,000 feet. Area vegetation is primarily

comprised of lodgepole pine and aspen in the lower and mid elevations, with Engelmann

spruce-subalpine fir forests in the upper elevations. Spruce–fir is also present in the

drainages and north slopes in the lower elevations. Understory vegetation is a mix of forbs,

grasses, and shrubs. The analysis area includes multiple riparian wetlands, wet meadows and

fens, and lacustrine fringe wetlands. These wetlands are dominated by a mix of sedge lawns,

forbs, and willow species.

Field Reconnaissance

Since 2006, approximately 5,250 acres of habitat comprising 81% of the treatment area have

been surveyed for TESP plants as well as an additional 6,000 acres of the analysis area. The

surveys were done in 2010 by Level 1 TEAMS botanist Julie Laufmann and the former MBRTB

north zone botanist, Kathy Roche, and in 2011-2012 by the current North zone botanist, Katie

Haynes, targeting treatment areas within the analysis area. Areas where thinning and salvage are


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


to take place were prioritized to flag TESP species for avoidance. The data from past surveys

was located and verified through communication with Julie Laufmann, Kathy Roche and Sara

Alberts (Forester, Laramie Ranger District). Records from Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

(WYNDD) surveys and several Forest Service records from surveys prior to 2006 have been

used to prioritize survey locations and target known species occurences.

All surveys discussed in this document follow the NRIS protocol. In most cases, reconnaissance

efforts consist of a pre-field review and a field survey and surveys were conducted at a time

when the presence of the greatest number (most but not all) of sensitive plant species could be

determined and additional time was spent searching in areas of past species occurrences.

Forest Plan Compliance

The botany portion of the NWUI project including surveying, flagging for avoidance and

participation in project planning and development of design criteria was done in order to comply

with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. The guidelines relevant to TESP and SoLC plants are

listed in Table 4 with explanations of specific compliance measures taken for this project.

Table 4: Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relevant to TESP and SoLC plants and explanation of project

compliance with these guidelines.

Desired Condition Category

Forest Plan Guideline Project Compliance

Biodiversity

6. During project planning, mitigate

impacts to plants of local concern so that

the continued vigor and existence of the

population is not jeopardized.

Surveys were conducted for species of local

concern, prioritizing areas of suitable habitat and

likely occurrence. Impacts were mitigated through

a combination of flagging for avoidance and

altering project areas and sizes – as outlined in the

design criteria.

Threatened,

Endangered,

and Sensitive

Species

13. During project planning, if potential

habitat occurs in the project area survey for

threatened, endangered, proposed, and

candidate species on the Fish and Wildlife

Service‟s species list for the forest.

Provide mitigation of potential adverse

effects for species present.

Project areas were analyzed and no suitable habitat

for any listed (threatened, endangered, proposed,

and candidate) plant species was found. No

populations exist and therefore no adverse impacts

will occur.

14. Activities will be managed to avoid

disturbance to sensitive species and species

of local concern, which would result in a

trend toward Federal listing or loss of

population viability. The protection will

vary depending on the species, potential for

disturbance, topography, location of

important habitat components and other

pertinent factors. Special attention will be

given during breeding, young rearing, and

other times which are critical to survival of

both flora and fauna.

Projects areas were surveyed for the presence of

sensitive and local concern species, prioritizing

areas of suitable habitat and likely occurrence. All

occurrences of sensitive species were flagged for

avoidance and impacts to species of local concern

were mitigated through a combination of flagging

for avoidance and altering project areas and sizes –

as outlined in the design criteria. Many sensitive

and local concern species occur in wetlands and

will therefore be de facto protected by wetland and

riparian protection and mitigation measures also

described in the design criteria.


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012

Biological Evaluation of Plant Species of 49

III. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND PROPOSED SPECIES AND

DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT CONSIDERED AND ANALYZED

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service‟s Wyoming Field Office updated its list of threatened and

endangered species by forest in August, 2010. This list was used to determine that no federally

Threatened, Endangered or Proposed (TES) plant species or designated critical habitat occur in

the analysis area. No consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service has been initiated for

the proposed action.

The following list includes threatened, endangered, and proposed plant species that may have

suitable habitat in the NWUI analysis area of the Medicine Bow - Routt National Forest or are

located downstream of the project and could potentially be affected. A pre-field review was

conducted of available information to assemble occurrence records, describe habitat needs and

ecological requirements, and determine whether field reconnaissance is needed to complete the

analysis. Sources of information included Region 2 Forest Service records and files, the

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, NatureServe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service information,

and the best available science in the form of published peer-reviewed research (Sieg and King

1995, Sipes and Tepedino 1995, Szalanski et al. 2001, Sharma et al. 2003a, Sharma et al. 2003b,

Tepedino et al. 2006, Tepedino et al. 2007).

Candidate species have sufficient information on their biological status and threats to warrant a

proposal to list as Endangered or Threatened, but development of a listing regulation is

precluded by other higher priority listing activities. Species that are candidates for listing under

the ESA are automatically placed on the Region 2 Regional Forester‟s sensitive species list. The

analysis and determination of effects for candidate species are included as part of the biological

evaluation for sensitive species (the next section of this document).

No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the project

area, and for which no suitable habitat is present. Table 5 documents the rationale for excluding a

species. If suitable but unoccupied habitat is present, then additional survey is needed, or

presence can be assumed and potential effects evaluated.

Table 5: Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species Considered and Evaluated

SPECIES COMMON AND

SCIENTIFIC NAME

CONSERVATION

STATUS1

POTENTIAL

TO OCCUR?

RATIONALE

FOR

EXCLUSION2

BRIEF HABITAT AND RANGE

DESCRIPTION

Blowout Penstemon

Penstemon haydenii E No

ELEV,

HAB

Occurs on sparsely vegetated,

active sand dunes and blowouts

from 6680-7440 feet. Known

from Carbon county in central

WY and western Nebraska

(USFWS 2011a) .

Ute’s Ladies Tresses

Spiranthes diluvialis T No ELEV

Occurs on seasonally moist soil

or wet meadows below 7,000

feet in elevation, often in

agricultural or urban settings.

Known from Laramie, Goshen,

Converse, and Niobrara counties

in WY (NatureServe 2010,

USFWS 2011c).


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


SPECIES COMMON AND

SCIENTIFIC NAME

CONSERVATION

STATUS1

POTENTIAL

TO OCCUR?

RATIONALE

FOR

EXCLUSION2


DESCRIPTION

Western Prairie

Fringed Orchid

Platanthera praeclara

T No ELEV,

RANGE

Occurs on unplowed, calcareous

prairies and sedge meadows

often associated with the Platte

River. Known from tall grass

prairie areas in Nebraska and

east, may be affected by water

depletions of the Platte River in

WY and CO (NatureServe 2010,

USFWS 2011d).

1 Status Codes (USFWS 2011b): E=federally listed endangered; T=federally listed threatened; P=federally proposed/candidate for listing

2 Exclusion Rationale Codes: HAB= no habitat present in Analysis Area; ELEV= outside elevational range of species; RANGE= outside

distributional range of species; ODR= outside known distributional range of species

There are no threatened, endangered or proposed species, designated critical habitat, or suitable

in the action area and neither alternative includes depletion to the Platte River watershed.

Therefore no further analysis is needed and a determination of no effect can be made for the

species listed above.


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


IV. SENSITIVE SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS

The following list includes sensitive species, or their habitats that may occur in the NWUI

analysis area of the Medicine Bow - Routt National Forest, or are located adjacent to or

downstream of the project and could potentially be affected. A pre-field review was conducted of

available information on these species to assemble occurrence records, describe habitat needs

and ecological requirements, and determine whether field reconnaissance was needed to

complete the analysis. Sources of information included field surveys from 2010, Region 2 Forest

Service records and files, the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, NatureServe, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service information, and the best available science in the form of published peer-

reviewed research (see bibliography for sources).

The 2009 Region 2 Sensitive Species List consists of 91 species, of which 31 are known or

suspected to occur on the Laramie Ranger District of the Medicine Bow -- Routt National

Forests (Proctor et al. 2010). Based on the pre-field review 15 species have potential to occur

within the analysis area. Three sensitive species Dwarf raspberry (Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis),

silver willow (Salix candida) and lesser bladderpod (Utricularia minor) have been documented

in the project area during field surveys, and suitable habitat exists for additional species.

No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the project

area, and for which no suitable habitat is present. Table 6 documents the rationale for excluding

a species. If suitable but unoccupied habitat is present, then potential effects are evaluated.

Table 6: Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species Considered and Evaluated

SPECIES COMMON AND

SCIENTIFIC NAME

CONSERVATION

STATUS1 (WY)

POTENTIAL

TO OCCUR?

RATIONALE

FOR

EXCLUSION2


DESCRIPTION

Forkleaf moonwort

Botrychium furcatum NR No ODR Endemic to one roadside location in

central CO; 9,100-11,300 ft.

Slender moonwort

Botrychium lineare S1 YES

Occurs on stream sides, upland

grassy habitats and forest edges,

generalist. Suspected to occur across

the Snowy Range and Sierra Madre;

elevational extent unknown.

Lesser panicled sedge

Carex diandra S2 YES

Occurs in riparian areas, pond edges

and fens. Known from wetlands on

the Snowy Range; 6,100-8,600 ft.

Livid sedge

Carex livida S2 YES

Occurs on floating mats in bogs and

fens. Known from wetlands in the

Snowy Range; 9,000-10,000 ft.

Slender-leaved

buckwheat

Eriogonum exilifolium

S2 YES

Occurs in sparse bunchgrass

communities. Known from

grasslands on the Snowy Range;

6,900- 8,800 ft.

Rough stalk fescue

Festuca hallii S2 YES

Occurs on sloped montane meadows

and forest edges. Known from the

Snowy Range; 6,800-11000 ft.

Rabbit Ears gilia

Ipomopsis aggregata ssp.

weberi

NR No ODR

Occurs in openings in conifer

forests, ridges, sagebrush and other

shrub communities. Known from

the Routt National Forest, CO;


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


SPECIES COMMON AND

SCIENTIFIC NAME

CONSERVATION

STATUS1 (WY)

POTENTIAL

TO OCCUR?

RATIONALE

FOR

EXCLUSION2


DESCRIPTION

7,200-8,300 ft.

Colorado tansyaster

Machaeranthera

coloradoensis

S2 YES

Occurs in sparse, gravelly mountain

parks and on dry alpine tundra.

Known from the Snowy Range and

Sierra Madre; 8,400- 12,500.

White adder’s mouth

orchid

Malaxis brachypoda

NR No ODR

Occurs in small, cool drainages on

north facing slopes. Known from the

Routt N.F. in Northern CO; 6,000+

ft.

Rocky Mountain monkey

flower

Mimulus gemmiparus

NR YES

Occurs on granitic seeps, slopes and

alluvium in open sites with

spruce/fir canopies, and aspen

stands. Suspected to occur on the

Snowy Range; 8,500-10,500 ft.

Harrington’s

beardstongue

Penstemon harringtonii

NR No ODR Occurs in open sagebrush, on

moderate slopes, and in calcareous

soils. CO endemic; 6,800-9,200 ft.

Rock cinquefoil

Potentilla rupincola NR No ODR

Occurs on gravelly soils and

exposed granite shelves with

Ponderosa pine. CO endemic; 6,900

-10,500 ft.

Dwarf raspberry

Rubus arcticus ssp.

acaulis

S1 YES

Occurs under moderately dense

canopies of spruce/fir and lodgepole

pine, occasionally on the edges of

riparian areas and other willow

dominated wetlands. Known from

the Snowy Range and suspected on

the Sierra Madre; 7,000-10,000 ft.

Silver willow

Salix candida S2 YES

Occurs in fens and seeps in cool,

boreal forests. Known from the

Snowy Range and suspected on the

Sierra Madre; 6,600-10,600 ft.

Lesser bladderpod

Utricularia minor S2 YES

Fens, shallow mashes and ponds,

standing water or highly saturated

environments. Known from the

Snowy Range and Pole Mtn,

suspected on the Sierra Madre;

6,600 – 8,600 ft.

(NatureServe 2010, Proctor et al. 2010, WYNDD 2010, USFS 2011)

1 Status Codes (NatureServe 2011): S1=critically imperiled in the state; S2=imperiled in the state; S3=vulnerable in the state; NR=not

ranked/under review

2 Exclusion Rationale Codes: HAB= no habitat present in Analysis Area; ELEV= outside elevational range of species; RANGE= outside

distributional range of species; ODR= outside known distributional range of species


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


V. EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR SENSITIVE SPECIES PRESENT IN THE

ANALYSIS AREA

Slender moonwort Botrychium lineare

S1 in CO and WY, 12-14 populations in CO, no known population in WY; S1 in MT, WA, OR,

CA, extirpated in ID; 2 populations occur in OR, 3 in MT, and 1 in WA (Wagner and Wagner

1994, Fertig and Heidel 2002, Beatty et al. 2003a, NatureServe 2010, USFS 2011)

No occurrences of this species were found in the analysis area. However, this species is a

generalist and has potential habitat across the MBRTB and is very difficult to find while

surveying.

Effects of Alternatives on B. lineare

Existing Conditions

In Wyoming there are no reported occurrences of slender moonwort and it is not currently

known to occur on the Medicine Bow Nation Forest (MBNF), so no known individuals would be

affected by Final proposed action or the no action alternative. However, this species is extremely

small and difficult to find and suitable habitat similar to that described for occurrences in

Colorado and Montana is relatively abundant in the analysis area. Therefore this species will be

treated as present. This effects analysis also applies to other Botrychium Species of Local

Concern (Section IX) because they are known to share habitat requirements.

Direct and Indirect Effects


Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented. High

mortality of lodgepole pine trees is expected to continue for the duration of the mountain pine

beetle infestation. Tree mortality will contribute to fuel loading and lead to a greater potential for

wildfire The potential for fire in lodgepole pine stands affected by bark beetles is greatest in the

first years of the epidemic due to increases in fine fuels but decreases shortly after the epidemic

phase and increases again decades later as snags fall creating a fuel matrix and regeneration

occupies the canopy (Lynch et al. 2006, Jenkins et al. 2008). However, other research has shown

that the forest types affected by mountain pine beetle are naturally prone to severe, stand-

replacing fire in the absence of insect outbreaks (Romme et al. 2007) and many plant species in

lodgepole pine communities are adapted to periodic fires.


Slender moonwort is known to occur in both areas with and without tree cover, so changes in

cover associated with the proposed action are not likely eliminate habitat for this species.

Individuals may be trampled or removed in operations to remove or re-arrange fuels. Johnson-

Groh et al. (2002) indicate that fire and timber harvests may have an immediate impact on the

aboveground sporophytes of several species of Botrychium. However, the below ground

populations are fairly resilient and rebound following single occurrence perturbations, although

recovery may take several years (Johnson-Groh and Farrar 1996). Use of machinery for felling

trees and creation/decommissioning of roads may result in impacts to soils including increased


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


soil compaction and creating ground disturbances that result in erosion. These soil disturbances

may be detrimental to mycorrhizal fungi relationships needed by slender moonwort (Goss and

DeVarennes 2002).

These management activities may cause local extirpation of this species in the short term, but

may provide habitat in the long term (Beatty et al. 2003a). No disturbance may mean less

available habitat for colonization, while excessive disturbance could extirpate populations

making recolonization less likely due to lack of propagules. The fuel loading would be lower

under this alternative; therefore, the risk of a high severity wildfire would also be lower. All

species of moonworts rely on low levels of disturbance. Disturbances and land management

activities may create and maintain suitable habitat for these species or may negatively impact

existing populations depending on the disturbance timing, intensity and frequency (Gruber 1937,

Zika et al. 1995, Muller 2000, Williston 2001, Beatty et al. 2003a, Popovich 2003) .

Cumulative Effects

There are no reported occurrences of slender moonwort on the MBRTB making a quantitative

analysis of cumulative effects unfeasible for this species. The effects of past timber and fuel

management actions and a fire are reflected in the current vegetation conditions. There are also

ongoing changes to lodgepole pine forests from the mountain pine beetle epidemic.

Past actions in the analysis area include the Holmes and Collins Creek timber sales and the

Squirrel Creek, Illinois Creek and Isabel wildfires. These actions may have had an immediate

adverse impact to individuals but may increase slender moonwort habitat in the long term.

Ongoing timber projects include: the Forest-wide Hazard tree removal project, Carbon Power

and Light transmission line clearing project, Silver Run timber sale, Strain Creek stewardship,

multiple thinning units, and the State Forestry fuel break. Collectively these projects overlap

12% of the North WUI analysis area. These projects will have similar direct and indirect effects

to slender moonwort as the Final proposed action discussed above, but are proposed to treat very

little of the same acreage. Ongoing livestock grazing on AMPs will add additional impacts of

biomass removal and trampling.

The reasonably foreseeable actions include the Bald Mountain prescribed burn, Snowy Range

Scenic byway recreation enhancement projects, Burn Area Emergency Response associated with

the Squirrel Creek fire and timber harvest associated with the Long Term Stewardship Contract.

These projects may have impacts caused by fire, biomass removal, and trampling. These actions

may have had an immediate adverse impact to individuals but may increase slender moonwort

habitat in the long term.

Determination of Effect and Rationale for B. lineare


Because slender moonwort is adapted to periodic natural disturbances such as wildfire, the

biological determination for slender moonwort (Botrychium lineare) under the No Action

alternative is:

No effect



BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


As a result of the potential for direct impacts of trampling, soil disturbance and crushing to

individuals and specialized fungal symbiants, the biological determination for slender moonwort

(Botrychium lineare) under the Final Proposed Action is:

May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the

Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Dwarf raspberry Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis

S1 in WY and CO; 1 verified occurrence on the MBRNF; circumboreal species known from north

central CO and the Bighorn Mtns. in WY(NatureServe 2010, Roche 2011).

There is 1 known occurrence in the analysis area and population is within a proposed

sanitation/salvage treatment area (NRIS 2011).

Effects of Alternatives on R. arcticus ssp. acaulis

Existing Conditions

Dwarf raspberry or nagoon berry (Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis) has only been documented in one

location within the MBRTB NF. This location has approximately 1-2 individual plants and

occurs with the Foxborough sanitation/salvage proposed treatment area (under the Final

Proposed Action). The population in the analysis area is growing on an old skid trail in a dense

spruce-fir forest. The population was revisited and re-flagged for avoidance in 2011. This

species is extremely common in the boreal forest of Canada and can also be found on the

Arapaho-Roosevelt N.F. in Colorado and the Bighorn Mountains of WY (Ladyman 2006,

NatureServe 2010, WYNDD 2010). Populations are thought to be stable in most of its range, but

it may be in decline in WY as a result of climate change and habitat loss (Ladyman 2006). The

species is typically found under moderate to dense canopies of spruce and willow. In WY it has

been found in boggy woods and marshes, mountain meadows and alpine tundra at 7,000 to 9,000

feet (Fertig 1999).



This species is unlikely to be affected by the No Action alternative except in the case of wildfire.

This species has habitat within mixed conifer (including lodgepole pine) forests where increased

mountain pine beetle mortality has led to increased fuel loading. High intensity fire could have

adverse effects to the population of dwarf raspberry by sterilizing soil and destroying plants and

propagules. The effects of lower intensity fire on dwarf raspberry are not well understood, but it

is likely to also have adverse effects by changing forest structure and opening dense canopies

preferred by dwarf raspberry. Fire may also burn moist, organic-rich soils in which this species

grows or alter the moisture regime, creating a drier, less favorable environment (Ladyman 2006).


Since this population occurs within a sanitation/salvage treatment area it likely that the Final

Proposed Action will have an adverse effect on individuals and possibly the entire localized

population. Individuals may be trampled or removed in operations to remove or re-arrange fuels.

Plants may be buried by slash, chips, felled trees or other detritus. Thinning may result in a more


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


open canopy, less favorable for dwarf raspberry growth and reproduction. Heavy machinery

may cause substantial substrate disturbance and plants may be uprooted, buried or crushed. Soils

that provided habitat for dwarf raspberry may be compacted, mixed, or moved. If this population

is not avoided, proposed actions will likely destroy the only known population on the planning

unit.

However, if this population is flagged for avoidance and a no cutting buffer of 10 feet and a no

equipment, no skidding buffer of 30 feet is maintained around the population (as per botany

design criteria) the adverse effects listed above will be minimized. Additionally, trees felled

within the 30 foot buffer will be felled direction away from the species occurrence. At this time

the population was flagged for avoidance in July of 2011. Please see Section VIII: Recommended

conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects for a list of additional field

work needed.

If the known population is adequately avoided it is still possible that undiscovered plants or

populations in the vicinity will still be affected by sanitation/salvage activities.

Cumulative Effects

Past activities and treatments (including timber harvest) on the forest have not affected dwarf

raspberry because the population has been flagged for avoidance and a 40 foot limited action

buffer (no skid trails) was maintained. State Forestry thinning projects in the Foxborough area

may have impacted suitable habitat near the known population (see effects of thinning described

above), but no dwarf raspberry occurrences on this portion of state land are known.

There are no current activities that effect the population of dwarf raspberry.

Foreseeable future projects are not expected to effect the population of dwarf raspberry.

Climate change is one of the leading causes of dwarf raspberry decline in Wyoming (Welp et al.

2000) and must be taken into consideration as contributing to cumulative impacts on this species.

Dwarf raspberry is circumboreal and at the southern edge of its range in Wyoming. If conditions

across the continent become warmer and/or drier the range of this species will likely move north

and it will become extirpated from Wyoming due to lack of suitable habitat. Little can be done

on a forest level to offset the effects of climate change, but giving adequate protection to this

species during actions on the forest will help maintain the population for as long as possible.

Determination of Effect and Rationale for R. arcticus ssp. acaulis


As a result of the adverse effects of wildfire to this species and species habitat due to increased

fuel loading under the No Action alternative, the biological determination for the No Action

alternative is:




As a result of the sanitation/salvage activities in the vicinity of the known population of dwarf

raspberry and the potential effects on undiscovered individuals and suitable habitat, the


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


biological determination under the Final Proposed Action ** if population is flagged and

avoided as per design criteria** is:



Silver willow Salix candida

S2 in WY and CO. Known from 32 extant populations in Region 2 in Colorado, Wyoming, and

South Dakota. 16 occurrences are on NF lands: 5 on the Arapaho-Roosevelt and Pike-San Isabel

national forests in CO, 10 on the Medicine Bow and Shoshone national forests in WY, and 1 on

the Black Hills NF in SD. Not common anywhere in its range (Decker 2006, NatureServe 2010).

Fen species.

One historic occurrence of this species in known from the analysis area in wetland (fen) in the

vicinity of the Centennial prescribed burn units 113-126 (precise location unknown). (Heidel and

Laursen 2003, NRIS 2011, WYNDD 2011).

Effects of Alternatives on S. candida

Existing Conditions

Silver willow (Salix candida) has been documented in three locations on the Laramie Ranger

District: 2 in the Snowy Range and 1 on Pole Mountain. There is one historic and unverified

location within the analysis area. This population occurs in or near the Centennial prescribed

burns units 113-126, but due to the historic nature of the record the exact location is not known.

Because the location is unknown, this species must be treated as present within the treatment

units. Salix candida is found in fens, or peatlands with perennially saturated wetlands with

organic soil layers, and populations are typically small and widely distributed. The primary

threat to this species in Region 2 is hydrologic alteration. Global climate change or consequences

arising from small population sizes could also eliminate S. candida from Region 2 over longer

periods. Less immediate threats include grazing, road construction and maintenance, peat

mining, recreational use, alteration of natural fire regime, and invasive species. Since this

population location is within a prescribed burn unit (and not a timber harvest unit), no design

criteria apply.



Salix candida is unlikely to be affected by the No Action alternative except in the case of

wildfire. The shrubby, tree-less, saturated fens that comprise S. candida habitat are less

susceptible to wildfire, but high intensity fire may be able to burn these areas (Decker 2006).

High intensity fires may ignite organic matter in soils and destroy the above and below ground

biomass of S. candida and other species (Decker 2006, Charman 2002). This would have long-

term detrimental effects on the population, but remains an extremely unlikely scenario. Low

intensity fire is unlikely to enter S. candida wetlands but, if present, may burn through in a

mosaic pattern. Low-intensity fires have been shown to be an important mechanism in


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


maintaining non-forested conditions in peatlands (Charman 2002) and if burned S. candida

would likely re-sprout (Decker 2006).


Since the known population occurs within a prescribed burn treatment areas it is unlikely that the

Final Proposed Action will have an adverse effect on these individuals or the population. As

described above, fire is unlikely to enter S. candida habitat and since prescribed burns are

typically kept at a low intensity, the chance of ignition is even smaller. Prescribed fires in these

wetlands may burn the above-ground biomass individuals but would be unlikely to burn organic

soil matter or destroy below-ground biomass. Individuals would likely re-sprout and the fire

would not threaten the entire occurrence (Decker 2006). Prescribed fire may even have a long-

term beneficial impact by removing small trees and eliminating woody encroachment in peatland

areas (Charman 2002).

However there will be impacts in other Final Proposed Action units to suitable but unoccupied

Salix candida wetland/fen habitats. These impacts may be notable in severity and would occur as

a result of heavy equipment use in the water influence zone and on the edges of wetlands. Please

see Section VI. Effects analysis for sensitive wetland species with suitable habitat in the analysis

area for more information on the effects of the final proposed action to wetland habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Since there will be no impacts to known silver willow populations in the prescribed burning

units, there is no need for a cumulative effects analysis for this aspect of the final proposed

action. The cumulative effects analysis below applies to cumulative effects to suitable but

unoccupied wetland/fen habitats in timber treatment units.

Past activities and treatments on the forest have not affected silver willow or wetland/fen habitat

because prior to the mountain pine beetle epidemic, wetlands were avoided during all forest

activities, including maintaining a 100-300 foot limited action buffer. All past timber

harvest/management activities also practiced avoidance and no treatments, winter or otherwise,

occurred in wetlands, fens, or water influence zones. The Squirrel Creek fire did not burn any

suitable silver willow or fen habitat. The wetland habitat included in the Squirrel Creek fire was

limited to riparian areas along Squirrel Creek, Fox Creek, Laramie Creek, Fence Creek, and

other small intermittent streams.

Ongoing timber projects (post mountain-pine beetle) that may include timber treatments in

wetlands and water influence zones include: the Forest-wide roadside hazard tree removal

project, Carbon Power and Light transmission line clearing project, Silver Run timber sale,

Strain Creek stewardship, multiple thinning units, and the State Forestry fuel break. Collectively

these projects overlap 12% of the North WUI analysis area and made add cumulative impacts to

wetland habitats.

Other ongoing land-uses also contributing to cumulative impacts to wetland vegetation in the

vicinity of the NWUI analysis area include livestock grazing (FoxPark, Boswell, Holmes,

Cinnabar Park, Elk Creek, and Platte River AMPs), water diversion from numerous permitted

ditches, and recreational activity (primarily motorized, illegal off-road use). The land uses

individually have mild to moderate impacts to wetland condition including grazing, hoof-

punching, hydrologic alteration, and soil rutting and compaction, but combination with each

other contribute significantly to the health and status of wetlands on the Laramie Ranger District.


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Reasonably foreseeable actions that may impact wetland habitat include Snowy Range Scenic

byway recreation enhancement projects and timber harvest associated with the Long Term

Stewardship Contract. The Burned Area Emergency Response for the Squirrel Creek fire is not

expected to impact any suitable silver willow or fen habitat.

Finally, natural processes, specifically epidemic tree diseases and climate change are also

expected to affect wetland health. Widespread tree death may be increasing the amount of

available water in watersheds, decreasing canopy shading and increasing instances of debris

accumulation and sediment flow (Klutsch et al. 2009, Lewis 2009, Walker 2007, Stone 1996).

Climate change may ultimately alter vegetation communities, including tree canopies across the

forest by modifying species ranges or causing local extirpation of climate-sensitive plants

(Kardol et al. 2010). Little can be done on a forest level to mitigate the impacts of widespread

tree disease or climate change, but impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future

actions, in addition impacts expected by the NWUI Final proposed action further threaten

valuable wetland resources.

Determination of Effect and Rationale for S. candida


As a result of the mixed effects of wildfire to this species and the unlikelihood of fire entering

suitable habitat, the biological determination for the No Action alternative is:

No impact


As a result of the potential effects of wet area and water influence zone timber treatments to

suitable wetland habitat, the biological determination under the Final Proposed Action is:



Lesser bladderpod Utricularia minor

S2 in WY and CO. Known from 28 extant populations in Region 2; 8 in WY , 2 extant and 2

historic locations on the Medicine Bow NF, 3 on the Snowy Range and 1 on Pole Mountain.

Considered rare throughout its range (NRIS 2011, NatureServe 2010, Neid 2006). Fen species.

One historic occurrence of this species in known from the analysis area in wetland (fen) habitats in

the vicinity of the Centennial prescribed burn units 113-126 (precise location unknown). (NRIS

2011, WYNDD 2011).

Effects of Alternatives on U. minor

Existing Conditions

Lesser bladderpod (Utricularia minor) has been documented in four locations on the Laramie

Ranger District: 2 extant and 1 historic location on the Snowy Range and 1historic location on

Pole Mountain. There is one historic and unverified location within the analysis area. This

population occurs in or near the Centennial prescribed burns units 113-126, but due to the

historic nature of the record the exact location is not known. Because the location is unknown,


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


this species must be treated as present within the treatment units. Utricularia minor is found in

two distinct types of wetlands in the mountainous areas, fens and fresh water marshes. It is

semi-aquatic and found in standing water that is often several feet deep. The leaves are fully

submerged with only the emergent flowering heads visible above the water line. Populations are

typically very restricted in distribution and abundance. The primary threats to this species in

Region 2 are hydrologic impacts, especially degradation of water quality and hydrologic

alteration, habitat loss, and invasive species. Utricularia minor is sensitive to habitat perturbation

and its primary habitat, fens, are uncommon and sensitive to environmental change (Neid 2006).

Since this population location is within a prescribed burn unit (and not a timber harvest unit), no

design criteria directly apply. Suitable but unoccupied fen habitat will be protected by design

criteria that prohibit treatments in fens, but the water influence zone around fens may be treated

according to treatment descriptions.



Utricularia is unlikely to be affected by the No Action alternative even in the case of wildfire

because it lives in aquatic habitats. These areas have standing water and do not burn.


Since this population occurs within a prescribed burn treatment areas it is unlikely that the Final

Proposed Action will have an adverse effect on known individuals or the population. As

described above, fire will not enter U. minor habitat and since these areas typically are extremely

saturated and may have up to several feet of standing water (Neid 2006).

However, there may be impacts in other Final Proposed Action units to suitable but unoccupied

fen habitats. These impacts may be notable in severity and would occur as a result of heavy

equipment use in the water influence zone and on the edges of fens, marshes and other suitable

wetland habitats. Please see Section VI. Effects analysis for sensitive wetland species with

suitable habitat in the analysis area for more information on the effects of the final proposed

action to wetland habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Since there will be no impacts to known lesser bladderpod populations in the prescribed burning

units, there is no need for a cumulative effects analysis for this aspect of the final proposed

action. The cumulative effects analysis below applies to cumulative effects to suitable but

unoccupied wetland/fen habitats in timber treatment units.

Please see the cumulative effects analysis for silver willow (Salix candida) in the previous

section for analysis of impacts to suitable but unoccupied wetland/fen habitats in timber

treatment units.


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Determination of Effect and Rationale for U. minor


Wildfire is not a threat because this species lives in standing water in extremely saturated and

seasonally flooded environments therefore, the biological determination for the No Action

alternative is:

No impact


As a result of the potential effects of wet area and water influence zone timber treatments to

suitable fen habitat, the biological determination under the Final Proposed Action is:



VI. EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR SENSITIVE WETLAND SPECIES WITH

SUITABLE HABITAT IN THE ANALYSIS AREA

Lesser panicled sedge Carex diandra

S2 in WY, S1 in CO. 2 populations known from the WY portion of the Medicine Bow-Routt N.F,

11 additional populations in Region 2, 2 of which are protected (Gage and Cooper 2006a,

NatureServe 2010). Fen species.

No occurrences of this species were found in the analysis area but suitable wetland habitat does

exist (Heidel and Laursen 2003).

Livid sedge Carex livida

S2 in WY, S1 in CO. Not known to occur on the WY portion of the Medicine Bow-Routt N.F. 1

population known from the Routt N.F. in CO within 6 miles of the Medicine Bow N.F.; 1 other

occurrence in Region 2, several on state lands in CO (Heidel and Laursen 2002, Gage and Cooper

2006b, NatureServe 2010). Fen species.

No occurrences of this species were found in the analysis area but suitable wetland habitat does

exist (Heidel and Laursen 2003).

Rocky Mountain monkey flower Mimulus gemmiparus

NR in WY, S1 in CO. There are no populations of Rocky Mountain monkey flower known to

occur in WY; 8 extant populations, all on the Front Range of CO (Beatty et al. 2003b, NatureServe

2010).

No occurrences of this species were found in the analysis area but suitable riparian habitat does

exist (NRIS 2011)


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Effects of Alternatives on C. diandra, C. livida, and M. gemmiparus

Existing Conditions

The three species listed above, lesser panicled sedge, livid sedge, and Rocky Mountain monkey

flower will all be analyzed together because they all occur in wetland, fen and riparian habitats.

Suitable habitat exists and these species will be treated as present although no occurrences of any

of these species were found in the analysis area. Design criteria dictate that mechanical

treatment will only occur in wetlands when over-the-snow/frozen soil conditions are met and

hand treatments will be used for any warm season operations. During winter operations up to

80% of standing dead material will be removed from wetlands (treed wetlands only) with green

tree spacing of ≤ 15 feet. Additionally, no mechanical treatments will occur in fens at all, during

any season, because soils remain soft and unfrozen year round. In wetland buffers (100 foot

perimeter surrounding marked wetland areas) warm season mechanical treatments will be

allowed and treatments will include removing up to 90% of the standing dead material with a

live canopy spacing of ≤ 35 feet (see Summary of Design Criteria Relevant to TESP Plants in

Section II: Description of the Proposal for more information).



Since wetland habitats occur in forest openings and along riparian areas (where canopies do not

usually consist primarily of lodgepole pine) the No Action Alternative would likely have no

direct or indirect effects. This is with the exception of high intensity wildfire, which may, if hot

enough, burn the organic-rich soils of wetlands. However, this is an unlikely scenario and

diversity in some wetlands has been shown to increase post-fire (Ratchford et al. 2005).


Wetlands, riparian areas and associated vegetation can be easily damaged by heavy machinery.

Direct effects occur in the form of trampling, crushing and substrate disturbance (i.e. uprooting

and burial). The design criteria outline wetland and riparian protection measures that will

adequately protect plant species occurring in wetlands from these types of direct effects, however

indirect effects may still occur as a result of winter operations and mechanical treatments directly

adjacent to marked wetlands.

Indirect effects are expected to occur as a result of the Final proposed action in wetlands in

NWUI units due to 1) tree canopy removal and 2) the mechanical treatment/heavy equipment use

in wetland buffers.

1) Tree canopy removal:

Individual wetlands have water balances that consist of the sum of water inputs and water losses.

These water balances are typically positive, or have greater water gains than losses - hence the

reason these areas are wet. These losses come in the form of evaporation, transpiration,

infiltration, and surface flow (streams, runoff, etc.) (Mitsch and Gosslink 2007a, Roulet 1990)

The trees in forested wetlands retard water losses by shading the area and lowering temperatures

and evaporation rates, but also contribute to water losses through transpiration (Mitsch and

Gosslink 2007b). The removal of tree canopies in wetlands will affect the water balance and the

wetness of each wetland in ways that are unpredictable without involved study of each site. It

can be expected that evaporation rates will increase while transpiration rates decrease, but the


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


degree to which each factor will change and the overall effect on the water balance of each

wetland cannot be predicted. Climate change studies have shown that water losses from

evaporation as a result of increases in temperature can greatly outpace water gains from increases

in precipitation, thus increasing overall aridity (Dai 2011, Kingston et al. 2009, Hobbins et al.

2011). If this principle applies similarly to wetlands where tree canopies have been removed, it

can be expected that increased evaporation rates will not be mitigated by decreased transpiration

rates, and these wetlands will dry. Some wetlands have enough excess water to be unaffected by

an increase in water loss, while others may experience extreme drying and changes in vegetation

composition, soil type and ecosystem functions (Poff et al. 2002). The drying of wetlands will

negatively affect TESP species dependent on wetland habitats by decreasing the number, amount

and extent of populations and suitable habitat in the project area. The appearance of the wetland

may also change slowly over time as a shift in vegetation communities from wetland to upland

species occurs.

In our climatic zone wetlands also often serve as “islands” that contribute a disproportionate

amount of biodiversity and ecosystem services to the greater ecosystem (Bedford and Goodwin

2003, Cooper 1986). If biodiversity or ecosystem services are impaired or inhibited by the

alteration of wetlands it is likely to have cascading environmental affects that impact the

watershed well beyond the perimeter of wetland areas.

Canopy removal (of a sort) in some of these wetlands is happening naturally as part of the tree

die-off from mountain pine beetle and other tree disease epidemics, but hastening this process is

not recommended. Gradual tree die off and the presence of standing dead material provides

some degree of shade to wetland understories while allowing time for a new generation of trees

to develop. Mechanical removal of dead material and thinning of live trees is not expected to aid

or enhance these natural processes.

2) Mechanical treatment/heavy equipment use in wetland buffers:

Design criteria protect the main body of wetlands but fail to put enough emphasis on the

importance of wetland edges, also called buffers or the water influence zone (colloquially “the

wiz”). These drier edges around wetlands can be important sources of surface or ground water

flow, sediment influx, and plant propagules and often perform vital ecosystem services such as

nutrient cycling (Foster 1986). Studies have shown that nutrient cycling rates may be much

higher in wetlands that are only intermittently or seasonally wet than those that are perennially

saturated (such as fens) (Venterink et al. 2002). Wetland edges are often seasonally wet in the

spring and intermittently wet during large precipitation events, so this principle likely applies.

Impacts to the soils, hydrology, vegetation, or ecosystem function of wetland edges may have

indirect effects on the main body of wetlands as well as the surrounding area. Mechanical

treatment in these areas may rut or compact the soil, altering water inputs from wetland edges, or

trample and destroy understory vegetation, lowering the recruitment of plant propagules. Drying

of wetland edges due to damage from mechanical equipment or removal of tree canopy may also

impact nutrient cycling, as described in the previous section.

It should also be considered that mechanical treatments are typically inexact due to the

limitations of mapping technology, navigation, and map interpretation. Sometimes heavy

equipment inadvertently encroaches on or crosses boundaries laid out by the Forest Service.

Allowing heavy equipment up to the edges of marked wetlands, with no buffer on equipment use


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


may result in instances of heavy equipment accidentally entering wetland areas. The direct

effects of this activity on plants, soil, and hydrology are described in detail above. In the case of

fens which have extremely soft and saturated soils, these impacts most likely would be

magnified. Fens are protected by Region 2 policy in the Forest Service Manual Supplement No.

2600-2011-2 (USFS 2011e), so it is not recommended that heavy equipment is used directly

adjacent to fen boundaries.

The other activities associated with the proposed action, such as temporary road construction and

prescribed fire are not expected to have measureable impacts on wetland habitats. Temporary

roads will avoid wetland areas, using hardened stream crossings to ford riparian areas only when

absolutely necessary. Prescribed fires typically do not enter wetlands (soils and vegetation

typically hold a lot of water) but if hot enough will be allowed to burn through wetlands

naturally in a mosaic pattern. As stated previously, diversity in some wetlands has been shown

to increase post-fire (Ratchford et al. 2005).

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative impacts are effects to the environment which result from the incremental impact of

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Impacts

to wetland habitats have or will occur on the Laramie Ranger District as a result of natural

processes and project activities. Past and ongoing projects contributing to cumulative impacts to

wetland vegetation/habitats in the vicinity of the NWUI analysis area include South WUI,

Carbon Power & Light transmission line clearing, and Roadside Hazard Tree removal. Several

of these projects have resulted in the unintended but direct degradation of wetlands through the

use of heavy equipment on wetland soils (deep rutting, vegetation destruction, hydrologic flow

disturbance) and/or covering wetland understories thickly with slash, downed timber and woody

debris (crushing, shading out of vegetation, creating unsuitable condition for new understory

vegetation growth). Other future projects, such as Long Term Stewardship Contract timber

harvest may have similar impacts to wetlands as the NWUI Final proposed action, depending on

the design criteria and specifications in the timber contracts. Ongoing land-uses also

contributing to cumulative impacts to wetland vegetation in the vicinity of the NWUI analysis

area include livestock grazing (FoxPark, Boswell, Holmes, Cinnabar Park, Elk Creek, and Platte

River AMPs), water diversion from numerous permitted ditches, and recreational activity

(primarily motorized, illegal off-road use). The land uses individually have mild to moderate

impacts to wetland condition including grazing, hoof-punching, hydrologic alteration, and soil

rutting and compaction, but combination with each other contribute significantly to the health

and status of wetlands on the Laramie Ranger District.

Recent wildfires such as the Squirrel Creek, Isabel, and Illinois fires have altered wetland

condition by removing woody canopies (willows, shrubs, and trees), encouraging herbaceous

growth, and, in some instances, introducing non-native species. The water content of wetlands

inhibits burning in many instances and burned areas of wetlands are typically limited to drier

sites such as wetland edges and wet meadows and woody riparian areas. In the three recent fires

within the NWUI analysis area, fire was low to moderate intensity and limited to these drier

wetland sites. Fire did not burn into fens and other types of suitable wetland habitat for most rare

wetland species (these areas are typically too wet to burn), and vegetation rebounded quickly

with few, if any, long-term negative effects to wetland habitats.


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Finally, natural processes, specifically epidemic tree diseases and climate change are also

affecting wetland health. Widespread tree death may increase the amount of available water in

watersheds, decreasing canopy shading and instances of debris/sediment flow (Klutsch et al.

2009, Lewis 2009, Walker 2007, Stone 1996). Climate change may ultimately alter vegetation

communities, including tree canopies across the forest by modifying species ranges or causing

local extirpation of climate-sensitive plants (Kardol et al. 2010). Little can be done on a forest

level to mitigate the impacts of widespread tree disease or climate change, but impacts from past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, in addition impacts expected by the NWUI

Final proposed action further threaten valuable wetland resources.

Determination of Effect and Rationale for C. diandra, C. livida, and M. gemmiparus


Because wetlands and wetland-dependent plant species typically occur in forest openings or in

biologically and structurally diverse forests and not under lodgepole pine-dominated canopies,

the biological determination under the No Action alternative for all three species with suitable

habitat in wetlands is:

No impact


No plant species were found but the thinning/removal of live and dead wetland tree canopies

and the use of heavy equipment in wetland buffers and up to the edge of marked wetland

boundaries may result in damage to suitable but unoccupied wetland habitat, therefore the

biological determination under the Final Proposed Action for all three species with suitable

habitat in wetlands is:



VII. EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR SENSITIVE UPLAND SPECIES WITH

SUITABLE HABITAT IN THE ANALYSIS AREA

Slender-leaved Buckwheat Eriogonum exilifolium

S2 in CO and WY; regional endemic of south-central WY(Albany and Carbon counties) and

north-central CO (Grant, Jackson and Larimer counties); A total of 7 known occurrences in WY,

2 on the MBNF (Anderson 2006a, NatureServe 2010).

No occurrences of this species were found in the analysis area but suitable habitat does exist.

Rough stalk fescue Festuca hallii

S2 in WY, NR in CO; known from northern Alberta to Ontario, south from North Dakota to CO,

not common anywhere in its range; 10 known occurrences in WY, 1 location on the MBNF

(Cinnabar park) (Anderson 2006b, NatureServe 2010).



BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Colorado tansyaster Machaeranthera coloradoensis

S2 in WY and CO; regional endemic of southeastern WY and central CO; 4 extant populations in

WY; occurs in the Sierra Madre of Carbon County on Sheep Mtn. on the MBNF (Beatty et al.

2004, NatureServe 2010).


Effects of Alternatives on E. exilifolium, F. hallii, and M. coloradoensis

Existing Conditions

The three species listed above, slender-leaved buckwheat, Hall‟s fescue, and Colorado tansyaster

will all be analyzed together because they all occur in upland habitats and no occurrences of any

of these species were found in the analysis area. No known individuals would be affected by the

final proposed action or the no action alternative and suitable habitat is not expected to be

adversely impacted but may have a beneficial impact of low intensity prescribed fire. This

analysis also applies to Species of Local Concern (Section IX) that are found in upland habitats.



Since these species occur in meadows, grasslands, forest edges and other sparse, herbaceous

communities, the No Action alternative would likely not have direct or indirect effects. This is

with the exception of wildfire caused by increased fuel-loading as a result of the mountain pine

beetle epidemic. Wildlife would likely burn both forested and non-forested vegetation

communities. Low to moderate intensity fire would likely have a beneficial effect on these

species by reducing plant biomass and creating a sparser, preferred habitat for colonization, but

may result in the spread of non-native invasive species. High-intensity fire could result in

adverse effects such as soil sterilization and propagule and below-ground biomass (i.e. crowns,

roots and rhizomes) destruction. There is a very small possibility of either adverse or beneficial

effects to these species as a result of fire – most likely there will be no direct or indirect effects

under the No Action alternative.


Since these species can occur on the edges of forested habitat they may be affected by the use of

heavy machinery for thinning, salvage and other fuels reduction/redistribution activities.

Machinery from road construction also has the potential to impact these species through

crushing, substrate disturbance, and the spread of non-native weeds. The habitats of Colorado

tansyaster and slender-leaved buckwheat are particularly vulnerable invasion by non-native

invasive species. Prescribed burns resulting in low-intensity fire could have a beneficial effect

all three species by reducing plant biomass and creating a sparser, preferred habitat for

colonization, but may also result in the spread of non-native invasive species. There is a

possibility of immediate, direct adverse effects to all three species by the use of heavy machinery

and indirect adverse effects from the spread of non-native invasive species to Colorado

tansyaster and Slender-leaved buckwheat. Any long-term beneficial effects from prescribed are

secondary to the adverse effects described above.


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Cumulative Effects

There are no reported occurrences of these upland sensitive species in the analysis area, making

and quantitative analysis of cumulative effects difficult for these species. The effects of past

timber and fuel management actions and several fires are reflected in the current vegetation

conditions. There are also ongoing changes to lodgepole pine forests from the mountain pine

beetle epidemic.

Past actions in the analysis area include the Holmes and Collins Creek timber sales and the

Squirrel Creek, Illinois Creek and Isabel wildfires. The timber sales may have had an immediate

adverse impact to suitable habitat by use of heavy machinery and the related impacts of crushing,

substrate disturbance, and the spread of non-native weeds. The fires had a beneficial impact to

suitable habitat, because fire intensity was predominately low to moderate intensity. Areas

burned with low intensity fire had the beneficial impacts of prescribed burning described above.

Ongoing timber projects include: the Forest-wide Hazard tree removal project, Carbon Power

and Light transmission line clearing project, Silver Run timber sale, Strain Creek stewardship,

multiple thinning units, and the State Forestry fuel break. Collectively these projects overlap

12% of the North WUI analysis area. These projects will have similar direct and indirect effects

to suitable habitat as the Final proposed action discussed above, but are proposed to treat very

little of the same acreage. Ongoing livestock grazing on AMPs will add additional impacts of

biomass removal and trampling.

The reasonably foreseeable actions include the Bald Mountain prescribed burn, Snowy Range

Scenic byway recreation enhancement projects, and timber harvest associated with the Long

Term Stewardship Contract. These projects may have impacts caused by fire, biomass removal,

and trampling. These actions may have had an immediate adverse impact to individuals with the

exception of prescribed fire, which may increase suitable habitat for all three in the long term.

Determination of Effect and Rationale for E. exilifolium, F. hallii, and M. coloradoensis


There are no known occurrences of these species and there wildfire will have likely have

negligible effects on individuals and suitable habitat, therefore the biological determination

under the No Action alternative for all three species is:

No impact


There are no known occurrences of these species but there will be effects to suitable habitat

caused by machinery – vegetation crushing, substrate disturbance and the spread of weeds,

therefore the biological determination under the Final Proposed Action for all three species is:

May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in

the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Summary of determinations of effect for all Evaluated R2 Sensitive Species

Table 7 gives a brief summary of the determination of effects for all R2 sensitive plant species

present or with suitable habitat in the analysis area. For effect determination rationale please see

sections specific to each species above.

Table 7: Summary of the determinations of effect for R2 Sensitive Species

Common and Scientific name Conservation

Status1

Determinations of Effects2

A1t 1: No Action Alt 2: Final

Proposed Action

Slender moonwort

Botrychium lineare S1 NI MAII

Lesser panicled sedge

Carex diandra S2 NI MAII

Livid sedge

Carex livida S2 NI MAII

Dropleaf buckwheat

Eriogonum exilifolium S2 NI MAII

Rough stalk fescue

Festuca hallii S2 NI MAII

Colorado tansyaster

Machaeranthera coloradoensis S2 NI MAII

Rocky Mountain monkey flower

Mimulus gemmiparus NR NI MAII

Dwarf raspberry

Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis S1 MAII MAII

Silver willow

Salix candida S2 NI MAII

Lesser bladderpod

Utricularia minor S2 NI NI

1 Status Codes (NatureServe 2011): S1=critically imperiled in the state; S2=imperiled in the state; S3=vulnerable in the state; NR=not ranked/under review; SH=possibly extirpated in the state.

2Determination of Effect Codes: NI=No impact; BE=Beneficial impact; MAII=May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a

loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing; LFL=Likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, or in a trend toward federal listing.


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


VIII. SPECIES OF LOCAL CONCERN CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS

The following list includes species of local concern that may occur in the NWUI analysis area of

the Medicine Bow National Forest. A pre-field review was conducted of available information

on these species to assemble occurrence records, describe habitat needs and ecological

requirements, and determine whether field reconnaissance was needed to complete the analysis.

Sources of information included field surveys from 2010, Region 2 Forest Service records and

files, the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, NatureServe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

information, and the best available science in the form of published peer-reviewed research (see

bibliography for sources).

The 2009 Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland

Species of Local Concern (SoLC) list consists of 79 species, of which 29 are known or suspected

to occur on the NWUI analysis area on the Laramie Ranger District of the Medicine Bow

National Forest. Based on the pre-field review 29 species have potential to occur within the

analysis area and 9 were documented during field surveys; boreal bog sedge (Carex magellanica

var. irrigua), thread rush (Juncus filiformis), Hall‟s ragwort (Ligularia bigelovii var. hallii),

broad-lipped twayblade (Listera convallarioides), marsh felwort (Lomatagonium rotatum), stiff

clubmoss (Lycopodium rotatum), larchleaf penstemon (Penstemon laricifolius ssp. exilifolius),

white-veined wintergreen (Pyrola picta), and squashberry (Viburnum edule).

No further analysis is given for species that are not known to occur in the project area. Table 8

lists species considered during pre-field review and field reconnaissance and indicates

occurrence in the analysis area.

Table 8: MBRTB Species of Local Concern Considered

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

CONSERVATION

STATUS1 (WY)

PLANT

FOUND?

Adoxa moschatellina muskroot S2

Aralia nudicaulis wild sarsaparilla S2

Asplenium septentrionale forked spleenwort S2

Besseya wyomingensis Wyoming besseya S5

Botrychium lanceolatum Lance-leaf grapefern S1

Botrychium lunaria common moonwort S2

Botrychium minganense Mingan moonwort S1

Botrychium pallidum pale moonwort S1

Botrychium simplex little grapefern S2

Carex magellanica var. irrigua boreal bog sedge S2 √

Draba spectabilis var. oxyloba showy draba SH

Gymnocarpium dryopteris western oakfern S2

Huperzia haleakalae Pacific clubmoss S1

Iliamna rivularis streambank wild hollyhock S3

Jucus filiformis thread rush S2 √

Lesquerella parvula pygmy bladderpod S2

Lewisia rediviva bitter root S3

Ligularia bigelovii var. hallii Hall’s ragwort S1 √

Listera convallarioides broad-lipped twayblade S2 √

Lomatium bicolor var. Wasatch desert parsley S2


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


leptocarpum

Lomatagonium rotatum marsh felwort S2 √

Lycopodium annotinum stiff clubmoss S2 √

Mentzelia rusbyi Rusby's blazingstar S1

Penstemon cyathophorus sagebrush beardtongue S1

Penstemon laricifolius ssp.

exilifolius larchleaf penstemon S3 √

Polystichum lonchitis northern hollyfern S2

Pyrola picta white-veined wintergreen S2 √

Pyrrocoma crocea curlyhead goldenweed S1

Trillium ovatum Pacific trillium S2

Viburnum edule squashberry S1 √

(NatureServe 2010, WYNDD 2010, NRIS 2011, USFS 2011)

1 Status Codes (NatureServe 2011): S1=critically imperiled in the state; S2=imperiled in the state; S3=vulnerable in the

state; NR=not ranked/under review; SH=possibly extirpated in the state.

IX. EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR SPECIES OF LOCAL CONCERN

Wetland Species of Local Concern

Lance-leaf grapefern Botrychium lanceolatum

S1 in WY, NR in CO; wetland and wetland margins, rare; found on streamsides, near springs, wet

meadows, marshes, hummocky areas.

No occurrences of this species were found in the analysis area but presence is assumed.

Little grapefern Botrychium simplex

S2 in WY, S1 in CO; wetland species; found in riparian and wetland areas, with mosses.


Boreal bog sedge Carex magellanica var. irrigua

S2 in WY, NR in CO; wetland species, infrequent; found in sphagnum fens and on floating mats.

2 occurrences of this species were found in the analysis area.

Thread rush Juncus filiformis

S2 in WY and CO; wetland species, infrequent; found in old beaver ponds, streambanks, wet

meadows, gravel soils.

1 occurrence of this species was found in the analysis area.

Hall’s ragwort Ligularia bigelovii var. hallii

S1 in WY, NR in CO; wetland species, infrequent; found on wetland edges in ecotones between

forest and wetland habitats.

4 occurrences of this species were found in the analysis area, within treatment areas.

Marsh felwort Lomatagonium rotatum

S2 in WY, NR in CO; wetland species, infrequent; found in sedge meadows and fens, hummocky

areas.


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


1 occurrence of this species was found in the analysis area.

Effects on Wetland Species of Local Concern

Hall‟s ragwort (Ligularia bigelovii var. hallii) was found within several timber treatment areas.

Standard operating procedures dictate that Species of Local Concern occurring within timber

treatment units will be flagged and avoided during treatment activities. Four populations of

Hall‟s ragwort have been located and flagged for avoidance. If these populations are adequately

avoided no adverse effects are expected to this species.

There are no additional effects to wetland species or habitats predicted under the No Action

Alternative, but there may be effects to both species and wetland habitats under the Final

Proposed Action. Effects to these species will be similar to effects to sensitive species and

habitats. For a more detailed explanation and analysis (which applies to all wetland species),

please refer to Section VI: Effects analysis for sensitive wetland species with suitable habitat in

the analysis area.

Upland Species of Local Concern

Common moonwort Botrychium lunaria

S2 in WY, S3 in CO; found in woodlands and meadows, sand dunes, wetlands, uplands, high

elevations; habitat generalist.


Mingan moonwort Botrychium minganense

S1 in WY and CO; found in disturbed areas, roadsides, avalanche chutes.


Pale moonwort Botrychium pallidum

S1 in WY, S2 in CO; found in disturbed areas, burned or cleared areas, exposed hills, old mine

sites.


Broad-lipped twayblade Listera convallarioides

S2 in WY and CO; found on lake and stream edges and shady, moist forest floors.

One occurrence of this species were found in the analysis area within a treatment area.

Stiff clubmoss Lycopodium annotinum

S2 in WY, S4 in CO; found under dense forest canopies, in mesic forested canyons and old

growth forests.

1 occurrence of this species was found in the analysis area but outside treatment areas.

Larchleaf penstemon Penstemon laricifolius ssp. exilifolius

S3 in WY, S2 in CO; regional endemic of southeastern WY and central CO; >40 extant

occurrences in CO and WY, with > 65,000 individuals; known from MBNF, Bighorn N.F. and

Arapahoe-Roosevelt N.F; 25% of known occurrences on N.F. lands (Figure 1) (Heidel and


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Handley 2007, NatureServe 2010); taken off the Region 2 Sensitive Species list by the Regional

Forester to April 2007, added to the MBRTB Species of Local Concern list (USFS 2011).

20% of known occurrences/populations on MBNF lands are found in prescribed burn treatment

areas within the analysis area (NRIS 2011).

White-veined wintergreen Pyrola picta

S2 in WY, S3 in CO; Cool, moist slopes and ravines, lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests.

2 occurrences of this species were found in the analysis area, within treatment areas.

Squashberry Viburnum edule

S1 in WY, S3 in CO; found in moist forests, stream banks, canyons.

2 occurrences of this species were found in the analysis area within a treatment area.

Moonwort species (Botrychium lanceolatum, B. lunaria, B. minganense, B. pallidum, and B.

simplex) are assumed present because individuals are often too small and infrequent to be

detected. The determination of effect for all moonwort species under both alternatives is: may

adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area,

nor cause a trend toward listing as a Region 2 Sensitive Species. For determination of effect

rationale and more detailed analysis of effects please refer to Effects of Alternatives on B. lineare

in Section V: EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR SENSITIVE SPECIES PRESENT IN THE ANALYSIS

AREA.

Stiff clubmoss (Lycopodium annotinum) does not occur within proposed treatment areas and no

known populations will be effected by either alternative. For expected effects of alternatives to

suitable habitat refer to Section VII: Effects analysis for sensitive upland species with suitable

habitat in the analysis area.

White-veined wintergreen (Pyrola picta) has 2 occurrences within proposed treatment areas.

These occurrences comprise one to several species each. At the time of this report there are over

100 occurrences of white-veined wintergreen on the MBNF(NRIS 2011). The potential damage

or loss of these two occurrences (less than 2% of the known population on the MBNF) is

expected to have no effect on population viability or dynamics under either alternative. For

expected effects of alternatives to suitable habitat refer to Section VII: Effects analysis for

sensitive upland species with suitable habitat in the analysis area.

Larchleaf penstemon (Penstemon laricifolius ssp. exilifolius), broad-lipped twayblade (Listera

convallarioides), and squashberry (Viburnum edule) have all been found within treatment areas.

Standard operating procedures dictate that Species of Local Concern occurring within timber

treatment units will be flagged and avoided during treatment activities. One population of broad-

lipped twayblade and two populations of squashberry have been located and flagged for

avoidance. If these populations are adequately avoided no adverse effects are expected to either

species. Larchleaf penstemon occurs within prescribed burned units, therefore cannot be avoided

and may be adversely impacted by the proposed actions. Please refer to the effects analysis

below for details.


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Effects of Alternatives on P. laricifolius ssp. exilifolius

Existing Conditions

Larchleaf penstemon (Penstemon laricifolius ssp. exilifolius) is found in a range of dry, upland

settings across southeastern Wyoming and north-central Colorado (Figure 1). This includes dry,

rocky, gravelly or sandy slopes, ridgetops, and upland flats of intermontane basins, foothills, and

lower montane elevations (Harrington 1954, Nelson 1984). Vegetation is typically sparse

grassland or shrubland, but this species may also be present in open canopied woodlands or at

woodland margins (Heidel and Handley 2007). The most serious potential threat to this species is

exotic species invasion by cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and other noxious weeds, but invasions

are limited at present. Maintaining or restoring sparsely vegetated native habitat is a critical

factor for conservation of this species but occurrences of the taxon are concentrated at the lowest

elevations on the Medicine Bow National Forest where the likelihood of invasive weed

establishment and land uses and exchange pressures tend to be greatest (Heidel and Handley

2007). The direct effects of fire on this species are not well understood but may contribute to the

maintenance of preferred sparsely vegetated habitat. However, fire aids the proliferation of

cheatgrass and other noxious weeds so the possible advantage of fire for habitat maintenance

must be balanced with the known threat of exotic species invasion.

Figure 1: Photo and distribution of P. laricifolius ssp. exilifolius (black dots) and other subtaxa of P.

laricifolius across Wyoming and Colorado. Image shows populations on National Forest lands (green

polygons). Photo USFS, map courtesy of Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (Heidel and Handley 2007).


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012




Under this action there would be no prescribed burns in larchleaf penstemon habitat. Invasion of

these meadows and shrublands by cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and other noxious weeds in the

absence of prescribed fire is possible, but less likely. Excessive fuel buildup in neighboring

lodgepole pine forests as a result of tree mortality from the mountain pine beetle epidemic could

cause wildfire that would spread to these habitats. In this scenario, fire would likely aid the

invasion of meadows and shrublands by noxious species, which in turn could out-compete

larchleaf penstemon. However, under the No Action alternative wildfire is a less likely scenario

and thus with the exception of possible wildfire, this alternative is expected to have no effect on

this species.


Under the Final Proposed Action ~20% of known larchleaf penstemon habitat on the Medicine

Bow N.F. is in areas proposed for prescribed burning. These populations occur primarily in the

Albany and Centennial Complex project areas. These areas have established cheatgrass (Bromus

tectorum) populations as well as populations of noxious weeds dalmation toadflax (Linaria

dalmatica), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa). Fire is

known to spread these exotics, especially cheatgrass, and the invasion of non-native plants is the

primary threat to larchleaf penstemon persistence.

Populations at risk for cheatgrass are Centennial Complex prescribed burn units 114 and 116

which are near roadsides and disjunct from other forest populations. Larchleaf penstemon is

known to be present all of these units.

To better monitor the health of existing larchleaf penstemon populations, control (unburned)

plots will be established in or near mapped prescribed burn units to compare the health and

abundance of burned and unburned populations (See Botany Design Criteria #2)

The direct effect of fire on larchleaf penstemon individuals is not known, but fire implemented in

a weed-free environment may have long-term beneficial effects by contributing to the

maintenance of preferred sparsely vegetated and semi-barren grassland habitat. However, the

threat of non-native invasion from fire is known and possibly greater than the possibility of

beneficial effects of habitat maintenance. Prescribed burns can also be hard to predict or control

and intended fire patterns (including intended avoidance) is not always achieved. The Final

Proposed Action is predicted to be mildly adverse to detrimental to larchleaf penstemon

population size, distribution and viability.

Cumulative Effects

The past or current actions that will affect known larchleaf penstemon populations are the

Squirrel Creek fire and ongoing livestock grazing. The Bald Mountain prescribed burn is not

suitable habitat and has a lower chance of weed invasion. There are larchleaf penstemon

populations on Pole Mountain and future hazard tree or travel management activities (as of yet

unplanned), including prescribed burns, road re-routes, trail building, or road decommissioning

could affect those populations in much of the same way as the NWUI prescribed burns; by

introducing weeds.


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


The Squirrel Creek fire burned through a large extent of larchleaf penstemon habitat on the

eastern facing slope above Fox Creek and the western facing slope of Sheep Mountain (including

some areas previously planned for prescribed burning). The fire was predominately low intensity

throughout this habitat which typically as a beneficial effect on larchleaf penstemon, but this

area, especially in the lower elevations, was not weed-free. Cheatgrass infestation was prevalent

along roadsides and old burn units in these areas and populations are expected to increase post-

fire. Increased infestation of cheatgrass across this area will have a negative effect on larchleaf

penstemon populations because individuals will be outcompeted by cheatgrass. A greater

abundance of cheatgrass may also alter fire regimes and make wildfire more common in these

areas – thus compounding the threats to larchleaf penstemon persistence by further encouraging

cheatgrass spread.

The Burned Area Emergency Response for the Squirrel Creek fire includes provisions to treat

cheatgrass and other weeds with herbicide spraying. Since there are few roads in these areas,

herbicide is applied using hand-held backpack sprayers and ATV boom sprayers. The herbicide

used for cheatgrass control is broadcast sprayed, but it is an emergence suppressant that targets

this particular species and only negatively effects native plants when applied at too high of a

concentration. The broadcast spraying of herbicide to control cheatgrass is expected to have a

beneficial effect on larchleaf penstemon populations by suppression cheatgrass emergence at

rates of 70 – 90% while having little effect on most native species. The herbicide used to control

thistle and toadflax is damaging to most plant species and is typically spot sprayed on existing

populations using a backpack sprayer. With this method herbicide delivery and treated area can

be somewhat controlled, but adjacent spray will likely kill or damage some fraction of larchleaf

penstemon populations or individuals. Although over-spraying may impact some larchleaf

penstemon individuals, the control of weeds, especially cheatgrass, is expected to have a long-

term beneficial effect on the persistence of larchleaf penstemon in these areas.

Ongoing grazing activities within the NWUI prescribed burn units and other occupied larchleaf

penstemon habitat may also have a negative effect on this species. Although small and likely not

attractive as forage, larchleaf penstemon may experience some trampling, grazing, or damage

from erosion caused by livestock.

Summary of effects on P. laricifolius ssp. exilifolius


The chance of noxious weed invasion is low in the absence of prescribed burning, therefore

there is not expected to be adverse impacts to larch leaf penstemon under the No Action

alternative.


Prescribed burns have the potential to increase/spread cheatgrass and other noxious weed

populations and may adversely impact larchleaf penstemon populations and/or suitable but

unoccupied habitat. Cumulative effects to this species as a result of the Squirrel Creek fire are

also significant. Therefore the Final Proposed Action is predicted to be mildly adverse to

detrimental to larchleaf penstemon population size, distribution and viability.


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


X. RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION MEASURES TO AVOID,

MINIMIZE, OR MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Recommended Additional Field Work and Monitoring

The Final Proposed Action design criteria outline conservation methods that minimize adverse

effects plants through flagging for avoidance (in all treatment areas except prescribed burn), but

survey of all project areas is not yet complete. Survey is needed for all areas prior to

implementation on each unit and surveys as of August 2012 are 81% complete. Additional

discoveries of threatened, endangered, sensitive or local concern species will be flagged and

avoided as per design criteria. If proposed action is altered to include warm season treatment in

previously excluded areas (such as wetlands) the effects analysis will need to be revisited and

sensitive wetland species will also be flagged and avoided.

Flag population of dwarf raspberry for avoidance prior to onset of activities in the

Foxborough sanitation/salvage treatment area (completed 07/2011).

Flag treed fens for avoidance by timber activities (known sites completed 8/2012, plus

ongoing survey for new sites).

Complete the survey of adaptive management units west of Rob Roy Reservoir and

Keystone adaptive management units, flagging TESP species for avoidance (mostly

completed as of 8/2012).

Assess prescribed burn areas in Albany and the Centennial Complex for larchleaf

penstemon and cheatgrass prior to burning (completed 8/2012).

Monitor select larchleaf penstemon populations 1 and 2 years after treatments to

determine effects on burned, unburned and herbicide treated populations (to be completed

in 2013 and 2014).

XI. RESPONSIBILITY FOR A REVISED BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

This Biological Evaluation was prepared based on presently available information. If the action

is modified in a manner that causes effects not considered, or if new information becomes

available that reveals that the action may impact endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive

species that in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, a new or revised Biological

Evaluation will be required.


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012

Contacts of 49

XII. CONTACTS

Katharine Haynes

Botanist

Medicine Bow – Routt National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grassland

2468 Jackson St.

Laramie, WY 82070

Office: 307-745-2419

[email protected]

Julie Laufmann, Ph.D.

Natural Resource Planner, Ecologist, Botanist

Enterprise Technical Service

U.S. Forest Service

1409 Westfield Drive

Fort Collins, CO 80526

office: 970-226-2040

[email protected]

Kathy Roche

Environmental Coordinator

Paulina Ranger District

Ochoco National Forest

3160 N.E. 3rd Street

Prineville, OR 97754

office: 541-416-6436

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012

Definitions of 49

XIII. DEFINITIONS

Action area: All areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the

immediate area involved in the action [50 CFR 402.02].

Biological assessment: Information prepared by or under the direction of the federal agency concerning

listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat that may be present in the

action area, and the evaluation of potential effect of the action on such species and habitat [50 CFR

402.02].

Biological evaluation: A documented Forest Service review of all Forest Service planned, funded,

executed, or permitted programs and activities in sufficient detail to determine how the action may

affect endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive species [FSM 2670.5(3) and 2672.42].

Biological opinion: The document that states the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as to

whether or not the federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species of

result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat [50 CFR 402.02].

Environmental baseline: Past and present impacts of all federal, state, or private actions and other human

activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed federal projects in the action area

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

actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process [50 CFR 402.02].

Viable Population: A population which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive

individuals to ensure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area [36 CFR 219.19,

1982 regulations].

Effect (Impact), Physical, Biological: The change, positive or negative, in the physical or biological

conditions which directly or indirectly results from an activity, project, or program [FSM 1900-91-3,

1905 (28)].


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012

Literature Cited of 49

IX. LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, D.G. (2006a). Eriogonum exilifolium Reveal (dropleaf buckwheat): a technical conservation assessment. [Online].

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/eriogonumexilifolium.pdf. [March 15, 2011].

Anderson, D.G. (2006b). Festuca hallii (Vasey) Piper (Hall‟s fescue): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/festucahallii.pdf.

[March 15, 2011].

Beatty, B.L., W.F. Jennings & R.C. Rawlinson (2003a). Botrychium ascendens W.H. Wagner (trianglelobe moonwort), B.

crenulatum W.H. Wagner (scalloped moonwort), and B. lineare W.H. Wagner (narrowleaf grapefern): a technical

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/botrychiums.pdf.

Bedford, B.L. & K.S. Godwin (2003) Fens of the United States: Distribution, characteristics, and scientific connection versus

legal isolation. Wetlands, 23, 608-629.

Beatty, B.L., W.F. Jennings & R.C. Rawlinson (2003b). Mimulus gemmiparus W.A. Weber (Rocky Mountain monkeyflower): a

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mimulusgemmiparus.pd. [March 15, 2011].

Beatty, B.L., W.F. Jennings & R.C. Rawlinson (2004). Machaeranthera coloradoensis (Gray) Osterhout (Colorado tansyaster): a

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/machaerantheracoloradoensis.pdf [March 15, 2011].

Charman, D. 2002. Peatlands and Environmental Change. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Cooper, D.J. (1986) Community structure and classfication of Rocky Mountain wetland ecosystems. An ecological

characterization of Rocky Mountain montane and subalpine wetlands. (ed J. T. Windell), pp. 66-147. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Report 86(11).

Dai, A.G. (2011) Characteristics and trends in various forms of the Palmer Drought Severity Index during 1900-2008. Journal of

Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 116.

Decker, K. (2006). Salix candida Flueggé ex Wild. (sageleaf willow): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/salixcandida.pdf.

[March 15, 2011].

Fertig, W. (1999). Ecological Assessment and Monitoring Program for Northern Blackberry (Rubus acaulis) in Bighorn National

Forest, Wyoming. Report prepared for the Bighorn National Forest. On file at the Bighorn National Forest and

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database.

Fertig, W. & B. Heidel (2002). Wyoming plant species of special concern [Online]. Unpublished report prepared by the

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. Available: http://wuadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd/.

Foster, S.Q. (1986) Wetland Values. An ecological characterization of Rocky Mountain montane and subalpine wetlands. (ed J.

T. Windell). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 86(11).

Gage, E. & D.J. Cooper (2006a). Carex diandra Schrank (lesser panicled sedge): a technical conservation assessment. [Online].

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/carexdiandra.pdf. [March 15, 2011].

Gage, E. & D.J. Cooper (2006b). Carex livida (Wahlenberg) Willdenow (livid sedge): a technical conservation assessment.

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/carexlivida.pdf. [March 15, 2011].

Goss, M.J. & A. DeVarennes (2002) Soil disturbance reduces the efficacy of mycorrhizal associations for early soybean growth

and N2 fixation. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 34, 1167-1173.

Gruber, C.L. (1937) An unusual Botrychium station. American Fern Journal, 27, 28-30.

Harrington, H.D. (1954) Manual of the Plants of Colorado. Sage Books, Chicago, IL.

Heidel, B. & J. Handley (2007). Penstemon laricifolius Hook. & Arn. ssp. exilifolius (A. Nels.) D.D. Keck (larchleaf

beardtongue): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/penstemonlaricifoliussspexilifolius.pdf. [March 15, 2011].

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/eriogonumexilifolium.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/festucahallii.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/botrychiums.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mimulusgemmiparus.pd

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/machaerantheracoloradoensis.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/salixcandida.pdf

http://wuadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd/

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/carexdiandra.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/carexlivida.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/penstemonlaricifoliussspexilifolius.pdf


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Heidel, B. & S. Laursen (2002). Evaluation of Carex livida / livid sedge for Inclusion on the Region 2 Regional Forester's 2003

Sensitive Species List. Unpublished report on file at Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest and Thunder Basin National

Grassland Supervisor's Office.

Heidel, B. & S. Laursen (2003) Botanical and Ecological Inventory of Peatland Sites on the Medicine Bow National Forest.

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. University of Wyoming. On file at the Medicine Bow -- Routt National Forest,

Laramie, WY.

Hobbins, M.T., J.A. Ramirez, T.C. Brown & L. Claessens (2001) The complementary relationship in estimation of regional

evapotranspiration: The Complementary Relationship Areal Evapotranspiration and Advection-Aridity models. Water

Resources Research, 37, 1367-1387.

Jenkins, M.J., E. Herbertson, W. Page & C.A. Jorgensen (2008) Bark beetles, fuels, fires and implications for forest management

in the Intermountain West. Forest Ecology and Management, 92, 80-92.

Johnson-Groh, C. & D.R. Farrar (1996) The effects of fire on prairie moonworts (Botrychium subgenus Botrychium). American

Journal of Botany, 83.

Johnson-Groh, C., C. Riedel, L. Schoessler & K. Skogen (2002) Below ground distribution and abundance of Botrychium

gametophyes and juvenile sporophytes. American Fern Journal, 92, 80-92.

Kardol, P., D.E. Todd, P.J. Hanson & P.J. Mulholland (2010) Long-term successional forest dynamics: species and community

responses to climatic variability. Journal of Vegetation Science, 21, 627-642.

Kingston, D.G., M.C. Todd, R.G. Taylor, J.R. Thompson & N.W. Arnell (2009) Uncertainty in the estimation of potential

evapotranspiration under climate change. Geophysical Research Letters, 36.

Klutsch, J.G., J.F. Negron, S.L. Costello, C.C. Rhoades, D.R. West, J. Popp & R. Caissie (2009) Stand characteristics and

downed woody debris accumulations associated with a mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins)

outbreak in Colorado. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, 641-649.

Ladyman, J.A.R. (2006). Rubus arcticus L. ssp. acaulis (Michaux) Focke (dwarf raspberry): a technical conservation assessment.


http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rubusarcticussspacaulis.pdf Laramie, WY. [March 15, 2011].

Lewis, D. (2009) Stand and landscape-level simulations of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) and salvage logging

effects on live tree and deadwood habitats in south-central British Columbia, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management,

258, S24-S35.

Lynch, H.J., R.A. Renkin, R.L. Crabtree & P.R. Moorcroft (2006) The Influence of a Previous Mountain Pine Beetle

(Dendroctonus ponderosae) Activity on the 1988 Yellowstone Fires. . Ecosystems, 9, 1318-1327.

Mergen, D.E. (2006). Cypripedium parviflorum Salisb. (lesser yellow lady‟s slipper): a technical conservation assessment.


http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/cypripediumparviflorum.pdf. [March 15, 2011].

Mitsch, W.J. & J.G. Gosselink (2007a) Chapter 5: Wetland Hydrology. Wetlands, pp. 600. John Wiley, New York, NY.

Mitsch, W.J. & J.G. Gosselink (2007b) Chapter 14: Freshwater Swamps. Wetlands, pp. 600. John Wiley, New York, NY.

Muller, S. (2000) Assessing occurrence and habitat of Ophioglossum vulgatum L. and other Ophioglossaceae in European

forests: significance for nature conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 9, 673-681.

Neid, S.L. (2006, May 15). Utricularia minor L. (lesser bladderwort): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/utriculariaminor.pdf

NatureServe (2010). NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1 NatureServe,

Arlington, Virginia. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. [March 14, 2011].

Nelson, B.E. (1984) Vascular Plants of the Medicine Bow Range. Second edition. Jelm Mountain Press, Jelm, WY.

NRIS (2011). National Resource Information Services online dataset for locations of tracked plant species. USDA Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Region. [March 2011].

Poff, N.L., M.M. Brinson & J.W. Day (2002) Aquatic ecosystems and global climate change : potential impacts on inland

freshwater and coastal wetland ecosystems in the United States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington,

Virginia.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rubusarcticussspacaulis.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/cypripediumparviflorum.pdf

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


Popovich, S. (2003). Discussions of a possible habitat filter with for Botrychium lineare (Steve Popovich and Peter Root,

Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland) Unpublished document on file at the Parks

Ranger District, Medicine Bow Routt National Forest. Walden, CO.

Proctor, J.G., K.M. Driver & K.S. Roche (2010) Prefield Review for Threatened & Endangered, Sensitive and Local Concern

Plant Species. Microsoft Word (ed TESP_PrefieldList_2010). On file at U.S. Forest Service, Medicine Bow -- Routt

National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland, Laramie, WY.

Ratchford, J.S., S.E. Wittman, E.S. Jules, A.M. Ellison, N.J. Gotelli & N.J. Sanders (2005) The effects of fire, local environment

and time on ant assemblages in fens and forests. Diversity and Distributions, 11, 487-497.

Roche, K.S. (2011) Personal communication. Location and status of Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis populations on the Medicine

Bow National Forest. K. M. Driver. On file at the Medicine Bow -- Routt National Forest. Laramie, WY.

Roulet, N.T. (1990) Hydrology of a headwater basin wetland - groundwater discharge and wetland maintenance. Hydrological

Processes, 4, 387-400.

Romme, W.H., J. Clement, J. Hicke, D. Kulakowski, L.H. MacDonald, T.L. Schoennagel & T.T. Veblen (2007) Recent Forest

Insect Outbreaks and Fire Risk in Colorado Forests: A Brief Synthesis of Relevant Research. Colorado Forest

Restoration Institute Publication, 24 pp.

Sharma, J., L.W. Zettler & J.W. van Sambeek (2003a) A survey of mycobionts of federally threatened Platanthera praeclara

(Orchidaceae). Symbiosis, 34, 145-155.

Sharma, J., L.W. Zettler, J.W. van Sambeek, M.R. Ellersieck & C.J. Starbuck (2003b) Symbiotic seed germination and

mycorrhizae of federally threatened Platanthera praeclara (Orchidaceae). American Midland Naturalist, 149, 104-120.

Sieg, C.H. & R.M. King (1995) Influence of environmental-factors and preliminary demographic-analyses of a threatened orchid,

Platanthera-praeclara. American Midland Naturalist, 134, 307-323.

Sipes, S.D. & V.J. Tepedino (1995) Reproductive-biology of the rare orchid, Spiranthes diluvialis - breeding system, pollination,

and implications for conservation. Conservation Biology, 9, 929-938.

Stone, W.E. & M.L. Wolfe (1996) Response of understory vegetation to variable tree mortality following a mountain pine beetle

epidemic in lodgepole pine stands in northern Utah. Vegetatio, 122, 1-12.

Swallow, A. (2011) Personal communication. Populations of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) near North WUI prescribed burns

and potential for post-fire invasion. K. M. Driver. On file at the Medicine Bow -- Routt National Forest. Laramie, WY.

Szalanski, A.L., G. Steinauer, R. Bischof & J. Petersen (2001) Origin and conservation genetics of the threatened Ute ladies'-

tresses, Spiranthes diluvialis (Orchidaceae). American Journal of Botany, 88, 177-180.

Tepedino, V.J., W.R. Bowlin & T.L. Griswold (2006) Pollination biology of the endangered Blowout penstemon (Penstemon

haydenii S. Wats.: Scrophulariaceae) in Nebraska. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, 133, 548-559.

Tepedino, V.J., T.R. Toler, B.A. Bradley, J.L. Hawk & T.L. Griswold (2007) Pollination biology of a disjunct population of the

endangered sandhills endemic Penstemon haydenii S. Wats. (Scrophulariaceae) in Wyoming, USA. Plant Ecology,

193, 59-69.

USFS (2003) Medicine Bow National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for the the Revised Land and Resource

Management Plan. (ed U. S. D. o. Agriculture). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Region, Medicine Bow National Forest, Laramie, WY.

USFS (2011). Land & Resource Management, Species Conservation Assessments. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region,

United States Department of Agriculture, Golden, Colorado. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/r2/projects/scp.

[March 14, 2011].

USFWS (2011a). Blowout Penstemon, Penstemon haydenii Species Profile. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2EX. [March 15, 2011].

USFWS (2011b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Program: Species Search [web application]. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. Available: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/. [March 14, 2011].

USFWS (2011c). Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Species Profile. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=Q2WA [March 15, 2011].

USFWS (2011d). Western prairie fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) Species Profile. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=Q2YD [March 15,

2011].

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/r2/projects/scp

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2EX

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=Q2WA

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=Q2YD


BE of Plant Species

Version 08/17/2012


USFS (2011e) Forest Service Manual Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) Denver, CO. FSM - Wildlife, Fish, and sensitive plant

habitat management, Chapter 2630 - Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitat. 2631.3 - Fens. Supplement No.: 2600-

2011-2. (ed U. F. S. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Region). Denver, CO.

Venterink, H.O., T.E. Davidsson, K. Kiehl & L. Leonardson (2002) Impact of drying and re-wetting on N, P and K dynamics in a

wetland soil. Plant And Soil, 243, 119-130.

Wagner, W.H. & F.S. Wagner (1994) Another widely disjunct, rare and local North American moonwort (Ophioglossaceae:

Botrychium subgenus Botrychium). American Fern Journal, 84, 5-10.

Walker, R.F., R.M. Fecko, W.B. Frederick, D.W. Johnson & W.W. Miller (2007) Forest health impacts of bark beetles, dwarf

mistletoe, and blister rust in a Lake Tahoe Basin mixed conifer stand. Western North American Naturalist, 67, 562-571.

Welp, L., W. Fertig, G.P. Jones, G.P. Beauvais & S.M. Ogle (2000) Fine Filter Analysis of the Bighorn, Medicine Bow, and

Shoshone National Forests in Wyoming. On file at Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming,

Laramie, WY.

Williston, P. (2001) The Ophioglossaceae of Alberta. pp. 61. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

WYNDD (2010). Wyoming Natural Diversity Database species assessments reports: state of Wyoming and Rocky Mountain

Region 2. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie. Available:

http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd/info.asp?p=3493. [March 14, 2011].

WYNDD (2011). Wyoming Natural Diversity Database geospatial database of historic and extant occurrences of tracked plant

species. Provided to the US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database,

University of Wyoming, Laramie. Available: http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/data-dissemination/occurrences/index.html

and kept on file at the Medicine Bow - Routt National Forest Supervisor's Office.

Zika, P.F., R. Brainerd & B. Newhouse (1995) Grapeferns and moonworts (Botrychium, Ophioglossaceae) in the Columbia

Basin. A report submitted to the Eastside Ecosystem Management Project. pp. 126. U.S. Forest Service Walla Walla,

Washington. Available: http://icbemp.gov/science/scirpt.html.

http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd/info.asp?p=3493

http://icbemp.gov/science/scirpt.html

cover title sheet -...

Documents