Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Acecs---Royal

Home , Grape Creek (Colorado), Mount Mestas, Mount Ouray, Ouray Peak, Royal Gorge

Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Relevance and Importance Criteria

Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Royal Gorge Field Office Cañon City, CO

February 2017 This page intentionally left blank Preliminary Evaluation of Potential iii ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... ix

Executive Summary ...... xi

_1. Introduction ...... 1

_1.1. Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan ...... 1 _1.2. Authorities ...... 1 _1.3. Area of Consideration ...... 1 _1.4. The ACEC Designation Process ...... 1

_2. Requirements for ACEC Designation ...... 3

_2.1. Identifying ACECs ...... 5 _2.2. Special Management Attention ...... 5 _2.3. Nomination of ACECs ...... 6 _2.4. Evaluation of Potential ACECs ...... 6 _2.5. Relevance ...... 6 _2.6. Importance ...... 7 _2.7. Consideration of Potential ACECs ...... 7 _2.8. Comments on Proposed ACECs ...... 8 _2.9. Designation of ACECs ...... 8

_3. Relevance and Importance Evaluations ...... 9

_3.1. Introduction ...... 11 _3.2. Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC ...... 11 _3.3. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC ...... 13 _3.4. Castle Gardens ACEC ...... 21 _3.5. Cucharas Canyon ACEC ...... 23 _3.6. Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC (Incorporating Mount Mestas [Maestas] and North Raton Basin ACECs) ...... 25 _3.7. Droney Gulch ACEC ...... 27 _3.8. Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC ...... 29 _3.9. Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC ...... 31 _3.10. Grape Creek ACEC ...... 33 _3.11. Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC ...... 35 _3.12. Reinecker Ridge ...... 37 _3.13. Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC ...... 39 _3.14. South Pikes Peak ACEC (Incorporating Existing Beaver Creek, Phantom Canyon, and Externally Proposed Phantom ACECs) ...... 41 _3.15. Top of the World ACEC (Incorporating Mosquito Pass Expansion and Birdseye Gulch) ...... 43 _3.16. Thompson Mountain–Twin–Gribble Mountain ACEC ...... 45

February 2017 Table of Contents iv Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

_4. List of Preparers ...... 47

Table of Contents February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential v ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

List of Figures Figure 3.1. Map of Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC ...... 12 Figure 3.2. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 1 ...... 14 Figure 3.3. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 2 ...... 16 Figure 3.4. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 3 ...... 18 Figure 3.5. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 4 ...... 20 Figure 3.6. Map of Castle Gardens ACEC ...... 22 Figure 3.7. Map of Cucharas Canyon ACEC ...... 24 Figure 3.8. Map of Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC ...... 26 Figure 3.9. Map of Droney Gulch ACEC ...... 28 Figure 3.10. Map of Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC ...... 30 Figure 3.11. Map of Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC ...... 32 Figure 3.12. Map of Grape Creek ACEC ...... 34 Figure 3.13. Map of Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC ...... 36 Figure 3.14. Map of Reinecker Ridge ACEC ...... 38 Figure 3.15. Map of Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC ...... 40 Figure 3.16. Map of South Pikes Peak ACEC ...... 42 Figure 3.17. Map of Top of the World ACEC ...... 44 Figure 3.18. Map of Thompson Mountain–Twin–Gribble Mountain ACEC ...... 46

February 2017 List of Figures This page intentionally left blank Preliminary Evaluation of Potential vii ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

List of Tables Table 3.1. Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 11 Table 3.2. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 1 Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 13 Table 3.3. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 2 Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 15 Table 3.4. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 3 Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 17 Table 3.5. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 4 Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 19 Table 3.6. Castle Gardens ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 21 Table 3.7. Cucharas Canyon ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 23 Table 3.8. Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 25 Table 3.9. Droney Gulch ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 27 Table 3.10. Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 29 Table 3.11. Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 31 Table 3.12. Grape Creek ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 33 Table 3.13. Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 35 Table 3.14. Reinecker Ridge ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 37 Table 3.15. Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 39 Table 3.16. South Pikes Peak ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 41 Table 3.17. Top of the World ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 43 Table 3.18. Thompson Mountain–Twin–Gribble Mountain ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 45 Table 4.1. List of BLM Staff Preparers ...... 49

February 2017 List of Tables This page intentionally left blank Acronyms and Abbreviations ACEC Area of critical environmental concern

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CHAT Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool

ECRMP Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan

EIS Environmental impact statement

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

IDT Interdisciplinary team

MSO Mexican spotted owl

N/A Not applicable

RGFO Royal Gorge Field Office

U.S. United States

U.S.C. United States Code

USFS Unites States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

WSA Wilderness study area

ix This page intentionally left blank Executive Summary In accordance with Federal law (see section 1.2, “Authorities”) and as part of the planning process for the Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan (ECRMP), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Royal Gorge Field Office (RGFO), reviewed several areas throughout the field office to determine whether they warranted further consideration as potential areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs). These areas were nominated by BLM staff, stakeholders, and the general public, and they include both BLM-managed Federal surface estate and Federal or private land overlying Federal mineral estate. Once nominated, potential ACECs were evaluated to see whether they met the necessary relevance and importance criteria for designation, in accordance with Federal law and BLM policy (see section 2.1, “Identifying ACECs”)1. During a process of public review, the BLM will consider potential ACECs in the development of the alternatives for the Draft ECRMP/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Once the Draft ECRMP/EIS is released, there will be an official public review period, during which comments on potential ACECs will be solicited for consideration in the development of the Proposed ECRMP and Final EIS. Potential ACECs will not be officially designated until the Record of Decision is signed and the Final ECRMP/EIS is approved. This report describes 15 existing and potential ACECs that were evaluated by the BLM’s Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) for the ECRMP (see Chapter 3, Relevance and Importance Evaluations): ● Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC (existing) ● Arkansas River Corridor ACEC (nominated) ● Castle Gardens ACEC (nominated) ● Cucharas Canyon ACEC (existing) ● Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC (nominated; incorporating Mount Mestas and North Raton Basin) ● Droney Gulch ACEC (existing) ● Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC (nominated) ● Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC (existing; expanded) ● Grape Creek ACEC (existing) ● Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC (nominated) ● Reinecker Ridge ● Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC (existing) ● South Pikes Peak ACEC (incorporating existing Beaver Creek, Phantom Canyon, and externally nominated Phantom ACECs)

1BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1988. 1613—Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Release 1–1541. September 29, 1988. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

xi ● Top of the World ACEC (existing; expanded; incorporating Mosquito Pass and Birdseye Gulch)

● Thompson Mountain-Twin-Gribble Mountain ACEC

xii Chapter 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 1 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 1.1. Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan

The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Royal Gorge Field Office, is preparing a resource management plan and environmental impact statement to guide management of 668,000 acres of public lands and 7.2 million acres of BLM-managed Federal mineral estate in eastern Colorado. This RMP, which will be called the Eastern Colorado RMP, will reflect the changing needs of the planning area over the next several decades and will replace the current Royal Gorge Resource Area RMP and Northeast Colorado RMP that were developed in 1996 and 1986, respectively, combining both of the original planning areas under one cohesive plan. Developing a revised RMP is a multi-year process involving many resource specialists and managers and requiring a number of specialized studies, including determining whether any areas warrant protection through designation as areas of critical environmental concern, the subject of this report. 1.2. Authorities

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (P.L. 94-579) requires that the BLM give priority to the designation and protection of ACECs, which are defined in FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1702(a), and 43 CFR 1601.0-5(a) as “areas within the public lands where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards.” 1.3. Area of Consideration

The analysis area for this study includes all BLM-administered public lands, including both Federal surface and mineral estate. The BLM does not manage private surface land or private mineral estate as part of an ACEC. 1.4. The ACEC Designation Process

There are several steps in the process of designating ACECs. Each of these steps is described in further detail in Chapter 2, Requirements for ACEC Designation:

● Nomination (either by the public or the BLM) of areas that may meet the relevance and importance criteria.

● Evaluation of the nominated areas to determine if they meet the criteria.

● Consideration of potential ACECs in alternative management scenarios in the Draft and Proposed RMP/EIS, and through public comment.

● Designation of ACECs in the Record of Decision approving the RMP.

Chapter 1 Introduction February 2017 Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan This page intentionally left blank Chapter 2. Requirements for ACEC Designation This page intentionally left blank Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 5 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 2.1. Identifying ACECs

In order to be eligible for designation as an ACEC, an area must be identified, considered, and analyzed for relevance and importance criteria in accordance with FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(3); BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern; and 43 CFR 1610.7-2; as follows: ● Areas having potential for ACEC designation and protection management shall be identified and considered throughout the resource management planning process (see 43 CFR 1610.4–1 through 1610.4–9). ● The inventory data shall be analyzed to determine whether there are areas containing resources, values, systems, processes, or hazards eligible for further consideration for designation as an ACEC. In order to be a potential ACEC, both of the following criteria shall be met: ○ Relevance. There shall be present a significant historic, cultural, or scenic value; a fish or wildlife resource or other natural system or process; or natural hazard. ○ Importance. The above described value, resource, system, process, or hazard shall have substantial significance and values. This generally requires qualities of special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern. A natural hazard can be important if it is a significant threat to human life or property. ● The State Director, upon approval of a draft resource management plan, plan revision, or plan amendment involving ACECs, shall publish a notice in the Federal Register listing each ACEC proposed and specifying the resource use limitations, if any, which would occur if it were formally designated. The notice shall provide a 60-day period for public comment on the proposed ACEC designation. The approval of a resource management plan, plan revision, or plan amendment constitutes formal designation of any ACEC involved. The approved plan shall include the general management practices and uses, including mitigating measures, identified to protect the designated ACEC. 2.2. Special Management Attention

According to BLM Manual 1613, special management attention refers to “management prescriptions developed during preparation of an RMP or amendment expressly to protect the important and relevant values of an area from the potential effects of actions permitted by the RMP, including proposed actions deemed to be in conformance with the terms, conditions, and decisions of the RMP.” These are management measures that would not be necessary and prescribed if the relevant and important values were not present. A management prescription is considered to be special if it is unique to the area involved, and includes terms and conditions specifically designed to protect the values occurring within the area. BLM Manual 1613 provides the following guidance on incorporating management prescriptions for potential ACECs into appropriate alternatives: During the formulation of alternatives, management prescriptions for potential ACEC’s are fully developed. Management prescriptions will generally vary across the plan alternatives. If there is no controversy or [issue] raised regarding the management of a potential ACEC, it may not be necessary to develop a range of management alternatives. In other words, management prescriptions may not vary significantly across alternatives. A potential ACEC (or portion thereof) must be

Chapter 2 Requirements for ACEC Designation February 2017 Identifying ACECs 6 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

shown as recommended for designation in any or all alternatives in the Draft RMP in which special management attention is prescribed to protect the resource or to minimize hazard to human life and safety. Because special management attention must be prescribed in at least one plan alternative, each potential ACEC will appear as a recommended ACEC in at least one plan alternative. Designation is based on whether or not a potential ACEC requires special management attention in the selected plan alternative (i.e., preferred alternative). 2.3. Nomination of ACECs

ACECs can be nominated at any time, but are only designated through the BLM’s land use planning process. For the ECRMP, potential ACECs were nominated by BLM staff, stakeholders, or members of the public. The RGFO IDT reviewed all BLM-managed public lands (surface acres) within the RMP planning area to determine whether any should be considered for designation as ACECs. Nominations from the public were solicited as part of the scoping process for the ECRMP. The RGFO requested that ACEC nominations to be considered in the ECRMP planning process be submitted by the deadline for scoping comments on the ECRMP, July 31, 2015; however, ACEC nominations submitted before or after this deadline that were received by the BLM early enough in the process to be included in this report were also reviewed. Note that areas may be nominated as potential ACECs by the BLM, the BLM’s stakeholders, and the general public at any time, including after the RMP revision has been completed. 2.4. Evaluation of Potential ACECs

In compiling a list of potential ACECs to be analyzed, the RGFO IDT followed the guidance in BLM Manual 1613 and evaluated the following: ● Existing ACECs ● Areas recommended for ACEC consideration (external and internal nominations) ● Areas identified through inventory and monitoring ● Adjacent designations of other Federal and State agencies ACECs may be nominated by BLM staff, other agencies, or members of the public at any time. During the 2015 ECRMP public scoping meetings, the RGFO specifically solicited nominations from the public and other agencies. A fact sheet on special designations was distributed at scoping meetings and made available on the RMP website. Specifically, the fact sheet asked, “What areas do you think should be identified and proposed as an ACEC, and what areas should be re-evaluated to determine if ACEC designation is still necessary to protect the relevant and important values?” All nominations were evaluated to determine whether they met the relevance and importance criteria described in sections 2.5 and 2.6 below. A nomination must meet one or more of the relevance and importance criteria to be considered a potential ACEC. 2.5. Relevance

A potential ACEC is characterized as relevant if it has significant historic, cultural, or scenic values, a fish or wildlife resource or other natural system or process, or a natural hazard (see BLM

Chapter 2 Requirements for ACEC Designation Nomination of ACECs February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 7 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Manual 1613). Specifically, an area satisfies the definition of relevance if it has one or more of the following features:

1. A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value (including but not limited to rare or sensitive archeological resources and religious or cultural resources important to Native Americans).

2. A fish and wildlife resource (including but not limited to habitat for endangered, sensitive, or threatened species or habitat essential for maintaining species diversity).

3. A natural process or system (including but not limited to endangered, sensitive, or threatened plant species; rare, endemic, or relic plants or plant communities that are terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian; or rare geological features).

4. Natural hazards (including but not limited to areas of avalanche, dangerous flooding, landslides, unstable soils, seismic activity, or dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by human action might meet the relevance criteria if it is determined through the resource management planning process to have become part of a natural process. 2.6. Importance

A potential ACEC is characterized as important if the value, resource, system, process, or hazard under consideration has substantial significance and value, which generally requires qualities of special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern. A natural hazard can be important if it is a significant threat to life or property. Specifically, an area satisfies the definition of importance if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. It has significant qualities that give it special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar resource.

2. It has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change.

3. It has been recognized as warranting protection to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out the mandates of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

4. It has qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare.

5. It poses a significant threat to human life and safety or to property. 2.7. Consideration of Potential ACECs

Potential ACECs will be considered when the draft alternatives for the ECRMP are developed. Each potential ACEC will be proposed for designation under at least one of the management alternatives. The need for special management and the resulting effects from applying such management will be assessed in the environmental analysis section of the Draft ECRMP. The preferred alternative in the Draft RMP will identify which potential ACECs are proposed for designation.

Chapter 2 Requirements for ACEC Designation February 2017 Importance 8 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 2.8. Comments on Proposed ACECs

The BLM will request public input regarding ACEC nominations throughout development of the ECRMP, and a notice of any areas proposed for ACEC designation will be published in the Federal Register along with the notice of availability requesting public comments on the Draft ECRMP. This Evaluation of Potential ACECs is available for public review concurrently with the Preliminary Alternatives and Basis for Analysis reports. During the public comment period for the Draft RMP, the public will also have the opportunity to comment on any aspect of the IDT’s ACEC analysis. The BLM will consider these comments when preparing the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and will make appropriate changes before the Proposed RMP/Final EIS is released. Once the Proposed RMP is released, the public will again have the opportunity to provide input during a 30-day protest period, after which the Record of Decision for the ECRMP will be prepared and the Final RMP/EIS approved. 2.9. Designation of ACECs

In order to be designated as an ACEC, an area must require special management attention to prevent irreparable damage to the relevant and important values. The need for special management attention may vary by alternative in the Draft RMP/EIS, depending upon what other types of management schemes or resource allocations are being considered for that alternative. Special management attention refers to management prescriptions designed expressly to protect or manage the relevant and important values of an area that would not be necessary and prescribed if the relevant and important values did not exist. These prescriptions are unique to the area involved, outside of standard or routine practices, usually more detailed than prescriptions contained within the plan for other areas, and establish the area’s management implementation priority. If the BLM’s analysis determines that special management attention is required, the area may be designated as an ACEC. The actual designation will occur when the Record of Decision that approves the ECRMP is signed.

Chapter 2 Requirements for ACEC Designation Comments on Proposed ACECs February 2017 Chapter 3. Relevance and Importance Evaluations This page intentionally left blank Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 11 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 3.1. Introduction

This chapter summarizes the proposed ACECs nominated by the BLM or the public and evaluated by the RGFO IDT, the values assessed, whether the relevance and importance criteria were met, and the justification for those determinations. The maps in this chapter show the ACEC “analysis units” for the identified values, and not necessarily the size of the ACECs. The boundaries of some of the external nominations were modified to accurately represent where the values exist. The size and management prescriptions for each ACEC may vary by alternative in the Draft ECRMP to strike a balance between the goals and objectives of the alternative and the values being protected (see BLM Manual 1613, 1613.2.22.B.1 and B.2).

3.2. Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC

Nomination: Internal, existing

Approximate BLM acreage: 23,700 acres

Description:

The Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC extends along the Arkansas River corridor between Texas Creek and Parkdale, 10 miles west of Cañon City, encompassing both the river and uplands to the canyon rim to the north (Figure 3.1). This includes portions of the McIntyre Hills Wilderness Study Area and the High Mesa Grassland Research Natural Area.

Significant scenic and cultural values are present throughout this area, which provides habitat for nesting raptors and bighorn sheep (Table 3.1). The Arkansas River is a designated Gold Medal fishery through this area. There is also an important sensitive plant community on the High Mesa Grassland, a portion of which is designated as a Research Natural Area and a State Natural Area. In addition to the High Mesa plant community, the area also contains populations of Arkansas canyon stickleaf (Nuttallia densa), and Degener’s beardtongue (Penstemon degeneri).

Table 3.1. Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended? Flora (Mentzelia densa, 1,2,3 1,2,3 Yes Penstemon degeneri), fauna (golden eagle, American peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep), scenic, and cultural. aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations February 2017 Introduction 12 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.1. Map of Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 13 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 3.3. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC

Nomination: External

Approximate BLM acreage: 10,900 (Zone 1); 32,400 (Zone 2); 24,200 (Zone 3); 52,000 (Zone 4; includes non-BLM surface)

Description:

The nominated Arkansas River Corridor ACEC covers four zones that lie north of the Arkansas River and extend from Browns Canyon National Monument east to Cactus Mountain near Cañon City: Zone 1, Sweetwater Gulch, includes the areas of the existing Browns Canyon ACEC outside the National Monument (Figure 3.2). Zone 2, Badger Creek, also includes the nomination for the South Badger ACEC (Figure 3.3). Zone 3, Cotopaxi, covers the area from approximately Howard to Texas Creek (Figure 3.4). Finally, Zone 4, Canyonlands, extends from Texas Creek to Cactus Mountain near the Royal Gorge and includes most of the existing Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC (Figure 3.5).

The BLM reviewed this nomination and found that while many Colorado Natural Heritage Program potential conservation areas are contained in each zone, as well as the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) mapping areas, as crucial habitat, the zones did not fit the importance criteria in that they are not distinct when compared to other similar areas, are not exemplary or unique, and it has not been demonstrated that they are vulnerable to adverse change (Tables 3.2 to 3.5).

The underlying overall nomination premise revolves around climate change resiliency and preserving these lands in an intact state allowing natural processes to better continue in the future. No data were provided on why these lands are more important compared to surrounding lands. For instance, why is it more important than the south side of the river that has a greater elevation difference from the canyon bottom to mountain tops? In addition, ACECs are designed to protect areas from direct management actions rather than protecting them from changes in natural processes; therefore, ACEC designation is not the appropriate means of addressing this issue. Management under other scenarios such as lands with wilderness characteristics or backcountry conservation areas may better address climate change resiliency.

Table 3.2. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 1 Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended? Flora and fauna; natural N/Ac N/A No processes aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria c Not applicable

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations February 2017 Arkansas River Corridor ACEC 14 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.2. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 1

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Arkansas River Corridor ACEC February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 15 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Table 3.3. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 2 Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended? Flora and fauna; scenic; N/A N/A No natural processes aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations February 2017 Arkansas River Corridor ACEC 16 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.3. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 2

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Arkansas River Corridor ACEC February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 17 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Table 3.4. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 3 Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended? Flora and fauna N/A N/A No aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations February 2017 Arkansas River Corridor ACEC 18 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.4. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 3

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Arkansas River Corridor ACEC February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 19 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Table 3.5. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 4a Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Relevance Criteriab Importance Criteriac Recommended? Flora and fauna; cultural N/A N/A No resources aMuch of this zone overlaps with the Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC. This table refers to areas outside that ACEC. bRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria cRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations February 2017 Arkansas River Corridor ACEC 20 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.5. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 4

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Arkansas River Corridor ACEC February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 21 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 3.4. Castle Gardens ACEC

Nomination: Internal and external

Approximate BLM acreage: 300 acres

Description:

Castle Gardens is located approximately 2 miles south of Salida (Figure 3.6). This area contains populations of the BLM sensitive plant Eriogonum brandegei (Table 3.6). The geological structure of the area offers a unique visual experience and also creates an area with erosive soils that warrants protection.

Table 3.6. Castle Gardens ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Assessed Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended? Flora Eriogonum brandegei; 1,3 1,2 Yes scenic resources aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations February 2017 Castle Gardens ACEC 22 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.6. Map of Castle Gardens ACEC

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Castle Gardens ACEC February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 23 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 3.5. Cucharas Canyon ACEC

Nomination: Internal and external, existing, expanded

Approximate BLM acreage: 1,400 (existing); 6,100 (expanded)

Description:

This ACEC is located in the Southwestern Tablelands ecoregion, approximately 16 miles northeast of Walsenburg, and offers a unique and spectacular canyon setting extending downstream (to the north) to a point where the canyon opens up, just before flowing into the Huerfano River. This area is a steep-sided, deep canyon surrounded by the relatively flat eastern plains of Colorado. The vegetation is varied and unique, from the coniferous and broad-leaf deciduous trees along the narrow river bottom to the mountain shrubs growing along the steep canyon walls (Figure 3.7). This area is currently an ACEC for both scenic and cultural values (Table 3.7); however, data collected since the previous designation indicate that the cultural significance isn’t as robust as originally thought, at least partially as a result of ongoing looting, so cultural significance has been removed from the relevance and importance criteria.

Table 3.7. Cucharas Canyon ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended? Scenic resources 1 1,2 Yes aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations February 2017 Cucharas Canyon ACEC 24 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.7. Map of Cucharas Canyon ACEC

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Cucharas Canyon ACEC February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 25 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 3.6. Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC (Incorporating Mount Mestas [Maestas] and North Raton Basin ACECs)

Nomination: External

Description:

Three separate overlapping external nominations for ACECs were received that cover areas in Huerfano and Las Animas Counties: the Mount Mestas ACEC would encompass the rock glaciers and scenic values of Mount Mestas itself; the North Raton Basin and the larger Dikes of the Spanish Peaks nomination that overlies it center around natural hazards present in the area. These areas are mainly non-BLM lands. ACECs are a BLM designation and are not applied to private, State or other Federal (USFS) lands.

Mount Mestas lies north of highway 160 approximately 9 miles northwest of La Veta and contains well known rock glacier complexes that have been studied for over 100 years (Figure 3.8). In addition, it is one of the highest mountains in the area and serves as a scenic backdrop to much of the area. While the rock glaciers meet the relevance criterion of being a hazard, they fail to meet the importance criteria, as the hazard is very slow moving and localized and is not a significant treat to life or property (Table 3.8). The area also meets the scenic relevance criteria; however, it does not have special consequence when considering the overall landscape.

The North Raton Basin and the larger Dikes of the Spanish Peaks areas were nominated for their complex geology that can make those areas more seismically active and impact groundwater due to human influence, specifically oil and gas development. Seismic activity and geologic features are part of the relevance criteria for ACEC designation. In this case, the geologic features are not necessarily rare, but can contribute to impacts under certain management. This doesn’t meet relevance criteria, in that for ACEC designation, the natural hazard has to be part of a natural process, not a human-induced hazard, unless it has become part of natural processes; therefore, while warranting consideration, this area does not meet relevance criteria, and other parts of the planning process address these concerns.

Table 3.8. Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended? Rock glacier hazard 4 N/A No aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC (Incorporating Mount Mestas [Maestas] and North Raton February 2017 Basin ACECs) 26 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.8. Map of Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC (Incorporating Mount Mestas [Maestas] and North Raton Basin ACECs) February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 27 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 3.7. Droney Gulch ACEC

Nomination: Internal, existing

Approximate BLM acreage: 700 acres

Description:

This ACEC lies in a badlands soil area dissecting a broad bench between the Arkansas River and the Sawatch Range, 6 miles northwest of Salida (Figure 3.9). The area is the location of the best population in the world of Eriogonum brandegei, a BLM sensitive species and presently a proposed federally listed species (Table 3.9). The 40 acres east of Highway 285 that are currently in the ACEC are not included in this nomination due to the absence of potential habitat for the species.

Table 3.9. Droney Gulch ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended? Flora ( Eriogonum 2,3 1,2,3 Yes brandegei) aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations February 2017 Droney Gulch ACEC 28 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.9. Map of Droney Gulch ACEC

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Droney Gulch ACEC February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 29 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 3.8. Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC

Nomination: Internal

Description:

This potential ACEC covers lesser prairie chicken habitat located in the southeastern portion of Colorado (Figure 3.10). This region contains habitat for the BLM sensitive species, lesser prairie chicken (Table 3.10). BLM manages little surface estate, but has a significant amount of subsurface mineral rights; however, due to the lack of BLM management discretion regarding the surface estate and the low probability of future acquisitions, this area will not be carried forward for further analysis.

Table 3.10. Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended? Fauna N/A N/A No aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken February 2017 Habitat ACEC 30 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.10. Map of Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 31 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 3.9. Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC

Nomination: Internal and external, existing, expanded

Approximate BLM acreage: 2,700 (existing); 3,100 (expanded)

Description:

This ACEC is located 3 miles north of Cañon City and has outstanding paleontological resources, naturalness, and is of international historic significance (Table 3.11). It is a National Natural Landmark, and the Gold Belt National Scenic and Historic Byway bisects it (Figure 3.11). It has significant flora as well as riparian values. Fourmile Creek is being analyzed for wild and scenic river suitability. Special status species in this area include Erigonum brandegeei, Mentzelia chrysantha, and Asclepias uncialis.

Table 3.11. Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended? Paleontological resources; 1,2,3 1,2,3 Yes flora (Erigonum brandegeei, Mentzelia chrysantha, and Asclepias uncialis); cultural resources; riparian resources aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations February 2017 Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC 32 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.11. Map of Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 33 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 3.10. Grape Creek ACEC

Nomination: Internal, existing, expanded

Approximate BLM acreage: 16,600 acres

Description:

This area includes BLM-managed lands from 2 miles south of DeWeese Reservoir down through Temple Canyon Park to the Arkansas River at Cañon City (Figure 3.12). Two wilderness study areas are included in this ACEC (Upper and Lower Grape Creek WSA units, 21,420 acres). This corridor has significant naturalness character (Table 3.12), with unique high desert riparian resources, scenic and visual qualities, along with significant flora (Aquilegia chrysantha var. rydbergii, Mentzelia chrysantha, Mentzelia densa) and fauna values (bighorn sheep and peregrine falcon nesting area).

Table 3.12. Grape Creek ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria

Valuesa Relevance Criteriab Importance Criteriac Recommended? Flora (Aquilegia chrysantha 1,2,3 1,2,3 Yes var. rydbergii, Mentzelia chrysantha, Mentzelia densa) and fauna (bighorn sheep, peregrine falcon); scenic resources; rare riparian resources in public ownership aThe BLM has determined that the Grape Creek Railroad is one of many such historic railroads in Colorado and is not too far from a replica (the Florence and Cripple Creek Railroad in Phantom Canyon). It is neither more than locally significant nor unique. The cultural resources of this ACEC do not meet the relevance and importance criteria. bRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria cRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations February 2017 Grape Creek ACEC 34 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.12. Map of Grape Creek ACEC

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Grape Creek ACEC February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 35 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 3.11. Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC

Nomination: External

Description:

This area is located south of U.S. 50 and the South Arkansas River between Maysville, CO, and Poncha, CO (Figure 3.13). U.S. 285 straddles the eastern boundary. The southern boundary is largely defined by the Pike San Isabel National Forest, including USFS Roadless Areas.

The BLM reviewed this area for cultural, flora, fauna, watershed, and riparian values and found that it doesn’t meet either the relevance or importance criteria (Table 3.13).

Table 3.13. Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended? Flora and fauna; cultural; N/A N/A No riparian; watershed; forest ecosystems aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations February 2017 Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC 36 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.13. Map of Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 37 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 3.12. Reinecker Ridge

Nomination: Internal and External

Approximate BLM acreage: 12,900 acres

Description:

This ACEC includes the area within or directly adjacent to Elkhorn Road, Colorado Highway 9, and U.S. Highway 285 (Figure 3.14). The proposed area is largely a high elevation prairie. Reinecker Ridge serves as important big game winter range in this region.

Reinecker Ridge possesses values and resources uncommon to BLM lands (Table 3.14); however, they are common regionally. The BLM reviewed this area for paleontological, flora, fauna, and recreation values and found that while it does meet relevance criteria, it is not more than locally significant.

Much of the proposed ACEC is under State ownership and management. Most of the elk severe winter range, as mapped by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, within the proposed ACEC boundary is located in the Mark Jones State Wildlife Area, so most of the seasonal use by elk will occur on State-managed lands. The severe winter range within the proposed area is neither exemplary nor unique, nor is it distinct from other areas mapped as severe winter range in the region. Mountain plover nesting habitat does occur on the BLM and State-managed lands within the proposed ACEC; however, it is neither exemplary nor unique, nor is it distinct when compared to the remaining nesting habitat on private and public lands in South Park.

Historically, Gunnison's prairie dog thrived throughout much of South Park; however, the species has been nearly extirpated from the region due to lethal control. Currently, there are no existing colonies present within the proposed ACEC boundary. The available prairie dog habitat within the proposal is neither exemplary nor unique, nor is it distinct when compared to the remaining private and public lands in South Park.

Although cultural resources in the area are significant, tribes are concerned that an ACEC designation would call unwanted attention to cultural sites. Existing laws and regulations, along with certain other designations, provide much better protection than ACEC status would.

Table 3.14. Reinecker Ridge ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended? Fens, flora; fauna; cultural 1,2 N/A No resources; visual resources aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations February 2017 Reinecker Ridge 38 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.14. Map of Reinecker Ridge ACEC

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Reinecker Ridge February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 39 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 3.13. Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC

Nomination: Internal, existing, modified

Approximate BLM acreage: 1,800 acres

Description:

This ACEC consists of areas north and south of Browns Canyon National Monument that are part of the existing Browns Canyon ACEC (Figure 3.16). It does not include the area inside the monument. This area is known for its unique naturalness, scenic, and visual qualities (Table 3.16). The bluffs in the area have significant value to raptors and bighorn sheep. This area includes BLM-administered land considered very important to the integrity and management of this canyon environment. The Arkansas River is a designated Gold Medal fishery in this section.

Table 3.15. Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended? Fauna (bighorn sheep, 1,2,3 1,2,3 Yes peregrine falcon, golden eagle) and scenic resources aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations February 2017 Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC 40 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.15. Map of Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 41 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 3.14. South Pikes Peak ACEC (Incorporating Existing Beaver Creek, Phantom Canyon, and Externally Proposed Phantom ACECs)

Nomination: Internal and external

Approximate BLM acreage: 40,400 acres

Description:

This ACEC includes a wilderness study area that has significant naturalness character, along with scenic and visual qualities (Table 3.17). The bluffs in the area have been identified as having significant value to Mexican spotted owl, raptors, and bighorn sheep. This area has BLM, private, and State land considered very important to the integrity and management of this canyon land environment (Figure 3.17), and it includes an expansion of the existing Beaver Creek ACEC, connecting to the existing Phantom Canyon ACEC and north and east to include Red Creek, an area with a long history of Mexican spotted owl occupancy.

Much of the externally proposed Phantom ACEC was incorporated into the South Pikes Peak ACEC (see Figure 3.17). Values for this portion of the ACEC include threatened and endangered species, such as Mexican spotted owl. The most southwestern portion of the externally proposed Phantom ACEC was not included in the Pikes Peak ACEC. This is because the BLM reviewed this nomination and found that while many Colorado Natural Heritage Program potential conservation areas are contained in each zone, as well as the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies CHAT mapping areas, as crucial habitat, the zones did not fit the importance criteria in that they are not distinct when compared to other similar areas, are not exemplary or unique, and it has not been demonstrated that they are vulnerable to adverse change.

This ACEC also consists of the corridor along Phantom Canyon Road, and it has outstanding historic values and significant scenic, visual, archaeological, and riparian values. This area has been designated nationally as a portion of the Gold Belt National Back Country Byway and is presently a Special Recreation Management Area.

Table 3.16. South Pikes Peak ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended? Flora (Penstemon degeneri, 1,2,3 1,2,3 Yes Mentzelia chrysantha) and fauna (Mexican spotted owl, peregrine falcon, golden eagle, bighorn sheep); scenic resources; cultural resources aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations South Pikes Peak ACEC (Incorporating Existing Beaver Creek, Phantom Canyon, and Externally February 2017 Proposed Phantom ACECs) 42 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.16. Map of South Pikes Peak ACEC Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations South Pikes Peak ACEC (Incorporating Existing Beaver Creek, Phantom Canyon, and Externally Proposed Phantom ACECs) February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 43 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 3.15. Top of the World ACEC (Incorporating Mosquito Pass Expansion and Birdseye Gulch)

Nomination: Internal and external, existing, expanded

Approximate BLM acreage: 8,700 acres

Description:

This ACEC is 6 miles east of Leadville and would include all areas already present within the existing Mosquito Pass ACEC while expanding northwest to lower elevations (Figure 3.18). The purpose of the expansion is to include spruce forests that are important Canada lynx habitat, wetland ecosystems that provide habitat for the boreal toad, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat, and areas that contain a historic mining landscape (Table 3.18). This ACEC includes the location of Eutrema pendlandii, a federally threatened plant species that only occurs in the region. It contains the highest unpaved continuous road in the U.S. (Mosquito Pass), providing for spectacular scenery. It has four very scenic mountains over 13,000 feet in elevation with significant visual and scenic values.

Table 3.17. Top of the World ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended? Flora (Eutrema pendlandii) 1,2,3 1,2,3 Yes and fauna (boreal toad, Canada lynx, bighorn sheep); scenic resources; cultural resources aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Top of the World ACEC (Incorporating Mosquito February 2017 Pass Expansion and Birdseye Gulch) 44 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.17. Map of Top of the World ACEC Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations Top of the World ACEC (Incorporating Mosquito Pass Expansion and Birdseye Gulch) February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 45 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office 3.16. Thompson Mountain–Twin–Gribble Mountain ACEC

Nomination: External

Approximate BLM acreage: 18,600 acres

Description:

This nominated ACEC is 5 miles northwest of Cañon City and extends from Twin Mountain 7 miles north to Thompson Mountain (Figure 3.19). This area was nominated by the public, and little information was given on how the relevance and importance criteria apply. The lands making up and surrounding Thompson, Gribble and Twin Mountains serve as an important corridor for the area’s wildlife (Table 3.19). This area supports habitat for black bear, elk, mule deer, pronghorn, mountain lion, Albert squirrel, Brazil free tailed bat, and Gunnison’s prairie dog. This habitat occurs throughout the area and does not reflect a significant occurrence of these values and is of no more than local significance.

Table 3.18. Thompson Mountain–Twin–Gribble Mountain ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria

Values Assessed Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Carried Forward for Further Analysis? Fauna 2 N/A No aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations February 2017 Thompson Mountain–Twin–Gribble Mountain ACEC 46 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Figure 3.18. Map of Thompson Mountain–Twin–Gribble Mountain ACEC

Chapter 3 Relevance and Importance Evaluations February 2017 Chapter 4. List of Preparers This page intentionally left blank Preliminary Evaluation of Potential 49 ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office

Table 4.1 below lists the BLM staff members who contributed to the preparation of this document.

Table 4.1. List of BLM Staff Preparers

Name Title Area(s) of Expertise Stephanie Carter Geologist Geology/minerals, solid minerals (locatable, salable, solid leasables), abandoned mine lands, hazardous materials, and public safety Melissa Smeins Geologist Geology/minerals, paleontological resources, coal, fluid minerals (geothermal), solid leasables, abandoned mine lands, hazardous materials, and public safety John Smeins Hydrologist and Project Lead Water resources, soil resources, farmlands prime and unique (agricultural use) John Lamman Rangeland Management Specialist Invasive species, vegetation, livestock grazing Jeff Williams Rangeland Management Specialist Vegetation, livestock grazing Chris Cloninger Rangeland Management Specialist Vegetation, livestock grazing Matt Rustand Wildlife Biologist Terrestrial wildlife (includes migratory birds), special status species (federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and BLM sensitive species) Lara Duran Wildlife Biologist (former) Terrestrial wildlife (includes migratory birds), special status species (federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and BLM sensitive species) Dave Gilbert Fisheries Biologist Aquatic wildlife, wetlands and riparian resources Glenda Torres Natural Resources Specialist Wildland fire ecology and management Monica Weimer Archeologist Cultural resources, Native American concerns Kalem Lenard Recreation Manager Visual resources, lands proposed for protection of wilderness characteristics, travel and transportation management Linda Skinner Recreation Manager Recreation Ken Reed Forester (former) Forestry Jeremiah Moore Forester Forestry Aaron Richter Natural Resources Specialist Fluid minerals (oil and gas, coal bed methane, and geothermal) Rich Rotte Realty Specialist (former) Land tenure, rights-of-way and land use authorizations, and withdrawals and classifications Greg Valladares Realty Specialist Land tenure, rights-of-way and land use authorizations, and withdrawals and classifications John Nahomenuk River Manager ACECs, national scenic byways, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness areas, and WSAs Marie Lawrence Technical Writer-Editor Writing, editing, and associated tasks Molly Purnell GIS Specialist GIS data management, map-making, and related tasks

Chapter 4 List of Preparers February 2017