We would like to begin by thanking you for your willingness to provide us with expert
review of our proposed methodology for developing recommendations for ACEC and
SRMA designation and management of habitat for rare and imperiled species and
sensitive habitats for watchable wildlife and game species in the Uncompahgre Field
Office.
The following is the set of questions for which we are seeking expert input. Any input
you can give us is helpful. So please feel free to answer all of the questions, or only a
subset of them, depending on your level of interest and expertise, and the time that you
have available. In answering these questions, you will need to refer to maps and
documents that we have posted on the following website:
http://nativeecosystems.org/gis/map-archive/blm-ufo-species
(Please do not distribute this website address to others without first asking us for
permission.)
You will find the following documents on the website:
1. Project Methodology (this document contains a detailed description of our
methodology)
2. Preliminary Species List (this document contains a complete list of all of the
species that we are considering in our analysis, along with the weights that we
have assigned to each species and habitat type for the purpose of setting priorities
between species and habitat types, and a list of species that we would like to
include if we can find sufficient data)
3. Preliminary Map of Sensitive Habitat and Watchable Wildlife in the
Uncompahgre Field Office
4. Preliminary Map of Habitat for Rare and Imperiled Species in the UFO
(Unfortunately, because of data use agreements, we are not able to publicly display the locations of all habitat
for rare and imperiled species in the Field Office. For example, we cannot display precise locations of
occurrences of rare and imperiled species tracked by CNHP on our maps. Many of these occurrences are
within CNHP Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs), and we can display these areas, and provide a list of
species that occur within the PCAs. We have put the PCAs on the maps, and included a list of species within
each PCA on the website. We are still deciding how to consider the remaining occurrences in our analysis
given that we are unable to display them on maps).
5. List of Rare and Imperiled Species within Each Colorado Natural Heritage
Program Potential Conservation Area (see note above)
Your answers to the following questions will help inform the first three steps in our
analysis (described in steps 1-3 on page 2 of the Methodology posted on the website),
which are aimed at identifying and mapping habitat for rare and imperiled species and
sensitive habitat for big game and watchable wildlife on the Uncompahgre Field Office.
Please look at the preliminary species list and two preliminary maps on the website and
give us your feedback on the following questions:
1) Are there rare and imperiled species or sensitive habitats for big game and
watchable wildlife that we are missing and should include in our analysis?
a) If so, are you aware of any existing maps or GIS data that delineate where
the species and/or sensitive habitat is found within the Uncompahgre Field
Office? If so, can you recommend someone whom we can contact to
obtain these maps and/or data?
b) If not can you delineate the location of the species/habitat within the UFO
by drawing on a topographic map?
c) Can you suggest anyone who is knowledgeable about the species/habitat
in question who might have data or be able to help us determine where the
species/habitat is found on the field office?
2) Do the maps accurately depict locations of rare or imperiled species and sensitive
habitat for big game and watchable wildlife species?
a) not, are you aware of any existing maps or GIS data that more accurately
depict the location of the species/habitat in question within the
Uncompahgre Field Office?
b) If so, can you recommend someone whom we can contact to obtain these
maps and/or data?
c) If not, can you delineate how our map of the location of the species/habitat
within the Uncompahgre Field Office should be changed by drawing on
our map or on a more detailed topographic map of the area in question
d) Can you recommend anyone else whom we should contact to make sure
our maps accurately depict locations of rare and imperiled species and
habitat for big game and watchable wildlife species?
3) Are there rare and imperiled species or habitats for big game and watchable
wildlife that we have included that you feel should be removed from our analysis?
a) If so, why? (e.g. the species is not really found within the field office, the
species/habitat type isn’t sensitive to disturbance etc.)
4) We would like to consider adding several species and/or habitat types to our
analysis but do not have GIS data that depicts occurrences of these species or
locations of habitat for these species in the field office (see species and habitat
types listed on the preliminary species list as species and habitat types to add if
data can be obtained).
a) Do you know of any potential source of GIS data on occurrences of these
species or locations of habitat for these species in the field office?
b) Do you know of anyone who is knowledgeable about any of these species
whom we should contact to find out more about where the species might
be found within the field office?
Your answers to the following questions will help inform the next steps in our analysis
(steps 5, 6 and 8 of our analysis, described on pages 2-6 of the methodology posted on
the website). In this portion of our analysis, we are assigning each species and habitat
type a weight that reflects the biological and regulatory status of the species and a
subjective assessment of the relative sensitivity of the species and/or habitat type to
impact/disturbance by human activities.
The purpose of this is to help us:
- determine what areas meet the criteria for designation as ACECs, and SRMAs
- set priorities among all of the areas that meet the minimum criteria for ACEC and
SRMA designation
-
focus our efforts to develop detailed management recommendations on the species
and habitats that are in greatest need of special management
- create various maps to help inform our efforts to set priorities
In order to answer the questions below, you will need to refer to pages 2-6 of our
methodology, and the preliminary species list, both of which are posted on the website.
1) Does our description of the weighting system make sense to you (see steps 5 and
6 on pages 2-5 of the methodology posted on the website)? Do you need any
additional information about the weighting system, or have questions about it that
need to be answered before you can give us feedback?
2) Does this general approach seem sound to you?
3) Do you have any concerns about use of this weighting system?
4) Can we make improvements to the weighting system that will address your
concerns?
5) If you have concerns about the weighting system that are so significant that you
don’t think it can be improved to address your concerns, can you suggest an
alternate process through which we can achieve the goals outlined above and
discussed in steps 8 and 9 on pages 6 and 7 of the methodology document posted
on the website?
6) If you feel that we should use this weighting system, then can you please go on to
answer the remaining questions. If you don’t think we should use the weighting
system, then you don’t need to answer the remaining questions.
7) Do you agree with the criteria that we are proposing to use to assign a weight
based on the biological and regulatory status of the species (See step 5 starting on
page 2 of the Methodology document posted on the website)? If not, why, and
how would you suggest that we change the criteria?
8) Do you agree with the factors that we are considering in assigning a weight to
each species and/or habitat type based on a subjective assessment of the relative
sensitivity of the species and/or habitat area to impact/disturbance by human
activities (See 2nd half of step five, starting on page 4 of the methodology
document)? If not, why, and what factors would you suggest we add or remove
from consideration?
9) Do you have any suggestions for ways we could make our assessment of the
relative sensitivity of the species and/or habitat area to impact/disturbance by
human activities less subjective and/or more transparent?
10) Do you agree with the preliminary weights that we have assigned to species in the
spreadsheet (See columns F and G on preliminary species list on website). If not,
why, and how do you suggest that we change the weight? (If you do not see the
weights in these columns it is because we have not yet done the ranking. We will
do so as soon as possible and inform you when they have been added).
11) Do you have information about any of the species on our list that you feel we
should consider in our subjective assessment of the sensitivity of the species
and/or habitat type to disturbance?
12) You will note that we have not yet assigned weights to some species/habitat types
(See columns F and G on preliminary species list on website). Please feel free to
give us any information that might help us assign weights to these species.
Finally, your answers to the following questions will us find good sources in the literature
and knowledgeable experts to help us develop detailed recommendations for management
of habitat for rare and imperiled species and sensitive habitats for watchable wildlife and
game species in the Uncompahgre Field Office (step 9 in our analysis, starting on page 6
of the methodology document posted on the website).
1) Do you have expertise on particular species and/or habitat types on our list (see
preliminary species list posted on the website)? (note: feel free to include species
that are not yet on our list that you think we should add)
2) If so, would you be interested in talking with us at a later date to help us develop
management recommendations for these species?
3) Do you know anyone who has expertise on a particular species or set of species
on our list whom we should contact when we are developing management
recommendations?
4) Are you aware of any papers on any of the species on the list that might be
important to include in our literature review? We are particularly interested in
papers that discuss human activities that might impact these species (e.g. off road
vehicle recreation, oil and gas development, mining), and make recommendations
regarding how to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts of such activities.