Common use of Impacts Clause in Contracts

Impacts.  Mortality;  Community composition alteration;  Post-fire response ground disturbance; and  Increased invasion and competition from invasive species Conservation Actions:  Any wildfire planning, response and post-wildfire actions on federal and non-federal lands in occupied habitat will include input from the conservation team. Factor: Off-Road Vehicles Impacts:  Direct mortality;  Increased dust load; and  Fragmentation of habitat Conservation Actions:  On federal lands, traffic will be limited to designated routes and routes will be considered for closure, limited use or re-routing as appropriate to gain compliance and protect designated conservation areas.  On non-federal lands where OHV use occurs, landowners and managers will re-route OHV use away from designated conservation areas. Comment [MGS90]: We can identify the conservation areas as suppression zones in fire planning and allow the team some input on post fire rehab if there is any, but involving the team in response won’t work. However, with a CA in place our resource advisors should be aware of the need to try and protect habitat…about the best we could do in the fire arena. Comment [T91]: Part of an incident commander role is to figure out how to best respond to the fire given all the available information. Providing an incident commander with areas where there are sensitive resources/ areas would be part of the planning and response. Comment [MGS92]: All of the conservation areas are already limited to designated routes. In addition, VFO is working on comprehensive travel management designations as we speak, so if the CA is completed it would be a factor when making designation decisions, but there’s no guarantee routes would be closed… Comment [T93]: OK. That’s great. We can refer to your planning process and ask that these conservation areas are considered. Timeframe of agreement Roles and responsibilities Funding sources Suggest this be restoration for all lands, not just non-fed. How about a combo of conserved and threshold of % disturbed for non-fed, with a different threshold on fed? For fed, say a 5% threshold; non-fed maybe 20% conserved, then a 10% threshold (my guestimate numbers, no real basis)? Advantage is thresholds allow development to proceed post successful reclamation. This gives BLM flexibility to meet valid existing rights while still protecting the species…bottom line, BLM planning isn’t feasible. I agree with ▇▇▇▇’s suggestion, we both came to 20 percent independently as a threshold on private/non-federal

Impacts.  MortalityDirect mortality from surface disturbance;  Community composition alterationInvasive species invasion, spread and competition;  Post-fire response ground disturbanceIncreased dust emissions;  Restricted pollinator movement from roads; and  Increased invasion and competition from invasive species Habitat loss/fragmentation Conservation Actions:  Any wildfire planningOutside of designated conservation areas new road construction and maintenance will be planned to avoid sites and populations by 300 feet to ensure adequate uninterrupted pollinator movement.  Outside of conservation areas where road construction or maintenance cannot avoid sites or populations the road will be planned to reduce fragmentation, response  If roads result in the mortality or harm of plants, the seed will be collected and postdeposited with the appropriate CPC sponsored institution (Red Butte Garden and Denver Botanic Garden).  If road construction or maintenance will disturb more than 5% of plants in a site or more than one site then the organization responsible for construction will coordinate with the conservation team on the project.  Within one year develop and implement a dust management and suppression plan in all areas with exposed soils (roads, trails, well pads, surface mined areas, etc) that include the timing and type of suppression activity to be used.  Within 1 year the Conservation Team will develop, fund and implement a weed management plan to be approved by USFWS in designated conservation areas which includes repeated annual surveys to detect invasions and treatment of invasive species as soon as detected (also under energy exploration and development and livestock grazing). Factor: Invasive weeds Comment [MGS77]: Not sure maintenance is an issue here. Think we should segregate maintenance and construction…different actions. Comment [T78]: We will delete maintenance Comment [MGS79]: Not sure of the intention here…within conservation areas, occupied habitat, potential habitat? In the end, not sure there’s really any way to implement this for all the affected roads, trails, etc. Need to clarify what you’re after… Comment [T80]: Occupied areas Comment [MGS81]: Same comments as earlier…  Invasion and establishment or non-wildfire actions native plants;  Competition; and  Community alteration Conservation Actions:  Within 1 year the conservation team will develop, fund and implement a weed management plan (approved by consensus) in conservation areas which includes repeated annual targeted surveys to detect invasions and treatment of invasive species as soon as detected. This plan can be incorporated as part of a range-wide monitoring plan.  The weed management plan will identify treatment options for each known invasive species in the habitat of the species, with the goal of selecting the most appropriate option Comment [MGS82]: Same comments as earlier… that controls weeds and minimizes adverse effects to ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ or White River beardtongues and their native plant community. on surveys and monitoring and other information and create an annual schedule of work conservation team will review and update the weed management plan annually based  The conservation team will develop and implement a monitoring protocol in the weed management plan to determine the effectiveness of their actions.  The targeting priority areas.  The weed management plan will develop and adopt best management practices for preventing the spread of invasive and/or exotic plants within the designated conservation areas on federal and non-federal lands lands.  The conservation team will provide an annual report as part of the range-wide monitoring report to the USFWS on the activities and accomplishments in occupied habitat will include input from the conservation teamcontrolling invasive weeds. Factor: Off-Road Vehicles Small population size Impacts:  Direct mortalityStochastic events;  Increased dust loadInbreeding depression;  Lower sexual reproduction; and  Fragmentation Loss of habitat genetic diversity Conservation Actions:  On federal lands, traffic Develop and implement a rangewide monitoring plan (approved by consensus of the conservation team) to determine trends in plant populations across the range of the species’. The plan should include continued monitoring at the current sites established by Red Butte Gardens. developed and implemented with approval from USFWS A seed collection plan will be limited to designated routes  Collect seed over multiple years in all areas where the species’ are present in accordance with USFWS and routes will be considered CPC guidelines for closure, limited use or re-routing as appropriate to gain compliance placement in storage at Red Butte Garden and protect designated conservation areasthe National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation. .  On nonContinue demographic monitoring of the species.  Also see land conservation measures in Energy Exploration and Development section. Factor: Climate change Comment [MGS83]: Team will develop and implement, or review and comment? There are a number of places where the team is delegated a decision role which will definitely put us in FACA jail. Comment [T84]: OK if we do not have a conservation team making decisions then we will have to make sure each party has agreed to be responsible for their role and responsibilities in this agreement. The conservation team can be a collaborative entity to help consolidate efforts such as surveying. Or according to BLM handbook, “If participants in your collaborative group are solely Federal, Tribal, State, or local government employees operating in their official capacities, the group is exempt from the administrative requirements of FACA.” ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇▇/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/ Communications_Directorate/general_publications/ faca.Par.59707.File.dat/ADR-FACA_Brochure.pdf So if the conservatoin team was made up of only state, local and federal govt then we would not be in violation of FACA. Also, outside entities like Enefit could provide information such as their mining plan or the results of their survey, etc without being on the team. Comment [MGS85]: Ditto above comment… Comment [MGS86]: Would think reports in general should be provided to all the signatories, not just FWS… Comment [T87]: OK Comment [JLB88]: There are really two monitoring plans here—one would be the smaller scale more detailed demographic work Red Butte is doing, the other would be a larger effort where we are looking for range-federal lands where OHV use occurs, landowners and managers will re-route OHV use away from designated conservation areaswide trends. Comment [T89]: Correct Comment [MGS90]: We can identify the conservation areas as suppression zones in fire planning Who will develop and allow the team some input on post fire rehab if there is any, but involving the team in response won’t work. However, with a CA in place our resource advisors should be aware of the need to try and protect habitat…about the best we could do in the fire arena. implement? Comment [T91]: Part of an incident commander role is We need to figure that out how to best respond to the fire given all the available informationwhen assuming roles and responsibilities. Providing an incident commander with areas where there are sensitive resources/ areas would be part Maybe each entity can pitch in some $ for this effort.  Mortality caused by drought;  Stress, lack of the planning reproduction and response. Comment [MGS92]: All of the conservation areas are already limited to designated routes. In addition, VFO is working on comprehensive travel management designations as we speak, so if the CA is completed it would be a factor when making designation decisions, but there’s no guarantee routes would be closed… Comment [T93]: OK. That’s great. We can refer to your planning process recruitment and ask that these conservation areas are considered. Timeframe of agreement Roles mortality caused by shifting rainfall patterns; and responsibilities Funding sources Suggest this be restoration for all lands, not just non-fed. How about a combo of conserved and threshold of % disturbed for non-fed, with a different threshold on fed? For fed, say a 5% threshold; non-fed maybe 20% conserved, then a 10% threshold (my guestimate numbers, no real basis)? Advantage is thresholds allow development to proceed post successful reclamation. This gives BLM flexibility to meet valid existing rights while still protecting the species…bottom line, BLM planning isn’t feasible. I agree with ▇▇▇▇’s suggestion, we both came to 20 percent independently as a threshold on private/non-federal Habitat degradation

Impacts.  Mortality;  Community composition alteration;  Post-fire response ground disturbance; and  Increased invasion and competition from invasive species Conservation Actions:  Any wildfire planning, response and post-wildfire actions on federal and non-federal lands in occupied habitat will include input from the conservation team. Factor: Off-Road Vehicles Impacts:  Direct mortality;  Increased dust load; and  Fragmentation of habitat Conservation Actions:  On federal lands, traffic will be limited to designated routes and routes will be considered for closure, limited use or re-routing as appropriate to gain compliance and protect designated conservation areas.  On non-federal lands where OHV use occurs, landowners and managers will re-route OHV use away from designated conservation areas. Comment [MGS90MGS94]: We can identify the conservation areas as suppression zones in fire planning and allow the team some input on post fire rehab if there is any, but involving the team in response won’t work. However, with a CA in place our resource advisors should be aware of the need to try and protect habitat…about the best we could do in the fire arena. Comment [T91T95]: Part of an incident commander role is to figure out how to best respond to the fire given all the available information. Providing an incident commander with areas where there are sensitive resources/ areas would be part of the planning and response. Comment [MGS92MGS96]: All of the conservation areas are already limited to designated routes. In addition, VFO is working on comprehensive travel management designations as we speak, so if the CA is completed it would be a factor when making designation decisions, but there’s no guarantee routes would be closed… Comment [T93T97]: OK. That’s great. We can refer to your planning process and ask that these conservation areas are considered. Timeframe NOx affects the ability of bees to forage, Girling et al 2013 ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/srep/2013/131003/srep02779/pdf/srep02779.pdf Also some pollution shown to kill bees such as hydrocarbons Somewhere in here we need to include what we are doing for plants that don’t fall within the conservation areas (see comment MGS7). We can use the conservation measures from the last conservation agreement Roles and responsibilities Funding sources put them in an appendix. Seems to me some of these actions apply to all threats vs. just the energy threat. Maybe we need a “common to all” conservation action section, or perhaps separate conservation actions into discrete conservation area designations, management prescriptions on fed, on non-fed, etc.? Agree but on federal lands we want them to be treated as a sensitive species by BLM on BLM lands. On non- federal lands we are only asking for surveys and record losses. It is already in this document. The conservation agreement has a higher likelihood of success if we dispense with the conservation team entirely and instead have an annual meeting that includes all signatories (plus “invitees”—this is where UHP, Red Butte, etc. would fit in). At this annual meeting, we would review all annual reports submitted by the signatories, provide updates from work done in that year, plan for the upcoming year, and evaluate the effectiveness of the conservation agreement. But we need a decision making body, structure or entity. I think this is just semantics because a team comprised of only govt (to avoid FACA) with invitees to provide information ▇▇▇▇ meets only once a year will do the same thing as youa re suggesting Need to define this concept much better. I’m not necessarily opposed, but have seen similar teams in the past that weren’t effective. Also, membership is very broad…what’s the concept? Do CBD, SUWA, Living Rivers qualify (remember, this isn’t going to just be about penstemon…other agendas come into play)? Think we should define members (or member groups), along with a team lead. Also want to stay out of FACA jail, so have to be careful about what their role is. Finally, need to ensure there’s a mechanism for how to move forward if a consensus can’t be reached. Considering the diverse nature of the group, that’s a strong possibility. Perhaps we should dispense with the conservation team concept and just have annual meetings with signatories and any invitees, e.g., Red Butte Gardens, SWCA, etc… Believe this definitely needs to be a stand-alone section up front…conservation areas apply to management of the species in total, not just the energy threat. Also believe we need some additional levels of conservation areas with discrete prescriptions, e.g., “x” management prescriptions in “core” areas, “y” for “suitable” areas, etc... Suggest this be restoration for all lands, not just non-fed. How about a combo of conserved and threshold of % disturbed for non-fed, with a different threshold on fed? For fed, say a 5% threshold; non-fed maybe 20% conserved, then a 10% threshold (my guestimate numbers, no real basis)? Advantage is thresholds allow development to proceed post successful reclamation. This gives BLM flexibility to meet valid existing rights while still protecting the species…bottom line, BLM planning isn’t feasible. I agree with ▇▇▇▇’s suggestion, we both came to 20 percent independently as a threshold on private/non-federal