U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Evaluation of Potential ACECs Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Royal Gorge Field Office
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan
Cover photo of Cucharas Canyon by Kyle Sullivan Evaluation of Potential ACECs Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan
Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Royal Gorge Field Office Ca on City, CO
April 2019 This page intentionally left blank.
Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria Table of Contents Aprl 2019 Draft
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... V 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 ...... 2 2.1. Identifying ACECs ...... 2 2.2. Special Management Attention ...... 2 2.3. Nomination of ACECs ...... 3 2.4. Evaluation of Potential ACECs ...... 3 2.5. Relevance ...... 4 2.6. Importance ...... 4 2.7. Consideration of Potential ACECs ...... 5 2.8. Comments on Proposed ACECs ...... 5 2.9. Designation of ACECs ...... 5 3. RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE EVALUATIONS ...... 6 3.1. Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC ...... 6 3.2. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC ...... 9 3.3. Castle Gardens ACEC ...... 17 3.4. Cucharas Canyon ACEC ...... 19 3.5. Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC (Incorporating Mount Mestas [Maestas] and North Raton Basin ACECs) ...... 21 3.6. Droney Gulch ACEC ...... 23 3.7. Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC ...... 25 3.8. Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC ...... 27 3.9. Grape Creek ACEC ...... 29 3.10. Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC ...... 31 3.11. Reinecker Ridge ...... 33 3.12. Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC ...... 35 3.13. South Pikes Peak ACEC (Incorporating Existing Beaver Creek, Phantom Canyon, and Externally Proposed Phantom ACECs) ...... 37 3.14. Top of the World ACEC (Incorporating Mosquito Pass Expansion and Birdseye Gulch) ...... 39 3.15. Thompson Mountain–Twin–Gribble Mountain ACEC ...... 41 4. LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 43
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan i Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 7 Table 3.2. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 1 Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 9 Table 3.3. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 2 Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 11 Table 3.4. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 3 Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 13 Table 3.5. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 4a Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 15 Table 3.6. Castle Gardens ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 17 Table 3.7. Cucharas Canyon ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 19 Table 3.8. Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 21 Table 3.9. Droney Gulch ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 23 Table 3.10. Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 25 Table 3.11. Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 27 Table 3.12. Grape Creek ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 29 Table 3.13. Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 31 Table 3.14. Reinecker Ridge ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 33 Table 3.15. Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 35 Table 3.16. South Pikes Peak ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 37 Table 3.17. Top of the World ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 39 Table 3.18. Thompson Mountain–Twin–Gribble Mountain ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...... 41 Table 4.1. List of BLM Staff Preparers ...... 43
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1. Map of Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC ...... 8 Figure 3.2. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 1 ...... 10 Figure 3.3. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 2 ...... 12 Figure 3.4. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 3 ...... 14 Figure 3.5. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 4 ...... 16 Figure 3.6. Map of Castle Gardens ACEC ...... 18 Figure 3.7. Map of Cucharas Canyon ACEC ...... 20 Figure 3.8. Map of Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC ...... 22 Figure 3.9. Map of Droney Gulch ACEC ...... 24
ii A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria Table of Contents Aprl 2019 Draft Figure 3.10. Map of Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC ...... 26 Figure 3.11. Map of Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC ...... 28 Figure 3.12. Map of Grape Creek ACEC ...... 30 Figure 3.13. Map of Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC ...... 32 Figure 3.14. Map of Reinecker Ridge ACEC ...... 34 Figure 3.15. Map of Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC ...... 36 Figure 3.16. Map of South Pikes Peak ACEC ...... 38 Figure 3.17. Map of Top of the World ACEC ...... 40 Figure 3.18. Map of Thompson Mountain–Twin–Gribble Mountain ACEC ...... 42
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan iii Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Acronyms & Abbreviations
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
ACEC Area of critical environmental concern BLM Bureau of Land Management CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHAT Crucial habitat assessment tool EIS Environmental impact statement FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act IDT Interdisciplinary team N/A Not applicable PCA Potential conservation area RGFO Royal Gorge Field Office RMP Resource management plan U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code
iv A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria Executive Summary April 2019 Draft
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 (RMP), 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 considered potential ACECs in the development of the alternatives for the Draft Eastern Colorado RMP/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The release of the Draft Eastern Colorado RMP/EIS starts an official public review period, during which comments on potential ACECs are solicited for consideration in the development of the Proposed Eastern Colorado RMP/Final EIS. Potential ACECs are not officially designated until the Record of Decision is signed and the Final Eastern Colorado RMP/EIS is approved. This report describes 15 existing and potential ACECs that were evaluated by the BLM’s Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) for the Eastern Colorado RMP (see section 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
1 BLM (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.
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan v Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Executive Summary ● Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC (existing) ● South Pikes Peak ACEC (incorporating existing Beaver Creek, Phantom Canyon, and externally nominated Phantom ACECs) ● Top of the World ACEC (existing; expanded; incorporating Mosquito Pass and Birdseye Gulch) ● Thompson Mountain-Twin-Gribble Mountain ACEC
vi A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft
1. INTRODUCTION
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 is called the Eastern Colorado RMP, reflects the changing needs of the planning area over the next several decades and replaces 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 section 2, Requirements for ACEC Designation: ● Nomination (by either 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.
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 1 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft ● Consideration of potential ACECs in alternative management scenarios in the Draft RMP/EIS and Proposed RMP/EIS, and through public comment. ● Designation of ACECs in the Record of Decision approving the RMP.
2. REQUIREMENTS FOR ACEC DESIGNATION
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: o 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. o 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 RMP, 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 an RMP, 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
2 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 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 ACECs 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 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 Eastern Colorado RMP, 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 Eastern Colorado RMP. The RGFO requested that ACEC nominations to be considered in the Eastern Colorado RMP planning process be submitted by the deadline for scoping comments on the Eastern Colorado RMP: July 31, 2015; however, ACEC nominations submitted before or after this deadline 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
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 3 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft ● 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 Eastern Colorado RMP 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 Manual 1613). Specifically, an area satisfies the definition of relevance if it has one or more of the following features: ● 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). ● A fish and wildlife resource (including but not limited to habitat for endangered, sensitive, or threatened species or habitat essential for maintaining species diversity). ● 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). ● 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
4 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 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 FLPMA. 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 were considered when the draft alternatives for the Eastern Colorado RMP were developed. Each potential ACEC was proposed for designation under at least one of the management alternatives. The need for special management and the resulting effects from applying such management are assessed in the environmental analysis in the Draft Eastern Colorado RMP. The preferred alternative in the Draft RMP identifies which potential ACECs are proposed for designation.
2.8. Comments on Proposed ACECs The BLM requests public input regarding ACEC nominations throughout development of the Eastern Colorado RMP. A notice of any areas proposed for ACEC designation is published in the Federal Register along with the notice of availability requesting public comments on the Draft Eastern Colorado RMP. During the public comment period for the Draft RMP, the public also has the opportunity to comment on any aspect of the IDT’s ACEC analysis. The BLM considers these comments when preparing the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and makes appropriate changes before the Proposed RMP/Final EIS is released. Once the Proposed RMP is released, the public has the opportunity to provide input during a 30-day protest period, after which the Record of Decision for the Eastern Colorado RMP is prepared and the Final RMP/EIS is 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.
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 5 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 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 occurs when the Record of Decision that approves the Eastern Colorado RMP is signed.
3. RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE EVALUATIONS This section 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 section 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 those values exist. The size and management prescriptions for each ACEC may vary by alternative in the Draft Eastern Colorado RMP 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).
3.1. 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 Ca on 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).
6 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Table 3.1. Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria
Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended?
Flora (Mentzelia densa, Penstemon degeneri), fauna (golden eagle, American peregrine 1,2,3 1,2,3 Yes 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.
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 7 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.1. Map of Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC
N Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC D Colorado rn wsA Bureau of Land Management + State E====C:===:::J Miles - State and Municipal Areas 1 :200,000
US Forest Service Planning Private Area No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.
8 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 3.2. 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 Ca on 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 there are small components within the proposed ACEC that may meet the importance criteria in regards to potential conservation area (PCA) and Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) rankings, on the whole, the proposed ACEC fails to meet the importance criteria due to the minimal acres of PCA present warranting ACEC designation and the similarity of crucial habitat rankings to those throughout the adjacent landscape (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 mountaintops? 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 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 processes 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. N/A Not applicable
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 9 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.2. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 1
"
state + 0 Stale a nd Municipal Areas E====1[.5===--- Mile!. US Forest Service 1:150,000 Private
is made by the Bureaureli abof !ityLand, No Warranty t the accuracy, - d- idual Management as o these data for in IV mpleteness of ·th other data. ~~:oar aggregate use w1
10 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Table 3.3. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 2 Relevance and Importance Criteria
Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended?
Flora and fauna; scenic; natural processes 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. N/A Not applicable
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 11 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.3. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 2
D Arl:ansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 2 Colorado " Bureau of Land Management
State 0 +1.5 3 US Forest Service Mile!.
Private 1:1 50,000
Planning Area No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accu mcy, re liab~ity, or completeness or these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.
12 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 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. N/A Not applicable
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 13 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.4. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 3
N D Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 3 Colorado Bureau of Land Management
Stale 0 +1.5 3 US Forest Service Mites Private 1:150,000
No Warranty is made by the Bureau or Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.
14 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Table 3.5. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 4a Relevance and Importance Criteria
Values Relevance Criteriab Importance Criteriac Recommended?
Flora and fauna; cultural resources N/A N/A No 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. N/A Not applicable
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 15 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.5. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 4
f V /✓ ---===-;.--,,, ------;--- / ,../
~ ., 1' _,,.-~-·J Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 4 N c::J Colorado ~ WSA t ------Bureau of Land M anagement + ! State Miles 1/ .mi - State and Municip al Areas l,...__, - 1:200 ,000 US Forest Service i/ Private I) Planning Area No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, L or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.
16 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 3.3. 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 a significant population of the BLM sensitive plant Eriogonum brandegei (Table 3.6) and the location of the ACEC provides a buffer against direct disturbance. Eriogonum brandegei, Brandegee's buckwheat, is endemic to South Park and the Upper Arkansas Valley, in Fremont and Chaffee Counties in south-central Colorado. A poor competitor, E. brandegei is generally restricted to barrens and steep sites where competition with other species is minimal. E. brandegei was determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be warranted for listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2009. This was due to present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range resulting from recreational activities, outdoor recreation vehicle use, development, and road construction. A final listing decision from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is expected in 2022. The geological structure of the area offers a unique visual experience. The area also has erosive soils that warrant protection.
Table 3.6. Castle Gardens ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria
Values Assessed Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended?
Flora Eriogonum brandegei; scenic resources 1,3 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.
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 17 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.6. Map of Castle Gardens ACEC
Castle Gardens ACEC
N c:J Castle Gardens ACEC Colorado Bureau of Land Management
- State and Municipal Areas 0 +0.5 US Forest Service Miles Private ...... 1 1 1:50.000
Planning Area No Warranty is made by the Bureau of La nd Management as to the accuracy, relia bility, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.
18 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 3.4. 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.
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 19 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.7. Map of Cucharas Canyon ACEC j/
@reen lil orn PUEBL cou~-~----- - HUERFANO-COUNTY
Canyon ACEC
~ /j,_' ~/A.. 8,(Y;:,;,t 0 1v ~ ":, ./ ();;,~k"'I~ ... ,§}I<:; ~/s '":i '
I I
11 II j , / .,. N D Cucharas Canyon ACEC Colorado Bureau of Land Management Stale 0 +25 5 State and Municipal Areas Mites Private 1:250,000
No Warranty is made by the Bureau or Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.
20 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 3.5. 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, and the North Raton Basin and the larger Dikes of the Spanish Peaks nomination that overlie 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 (U.S. Forest Service) 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. Although the rock glaciers meet the relevance criterion of being a hazard, they fail to meet the importance criteria, because the hazard moves slowly, is localized, and is not a significant threat 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 groundwaterdue 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 does not 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. N/A Not applicable
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 21 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.8. Map of Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC
-~ Sanluis
Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC CJ Colorado Bureau of Land Management National Park Serv ice + 10 State Miles
- State and Municipal Areas 1:600,000 US Forest Service
Private No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for in dividual use or aggregate use with other data.
22 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 3.6. 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 brandegei) 3 1,2,3 Yes
aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria. bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria.
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 23 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.9. Map of Droney Gulch ACEC
Droney Gulch ACEC
Droney GulchACEC N c:J Colorado Bureau of Land Management
State 0 + 2 - State and Municipal Areas Miles US Forest Service ...... 1 1 1:100,000 Private Planning Area No Warranty is made by the Bureau of La nd Management as to the accuracy, relia bility, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.
24 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 3.7. 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 is not 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. N/A Not applicable
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 25 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.10. Map of Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC
I ------7I I I I I I
i
Eastern Plains Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC
D Eastern Plains- LPC Habitat AC EC Colorado N Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation 0 +12.5 25 ' Military Reservation Miles National Grasslands 1:1.250,000 National Park Service State No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land - State and Municipal Areas Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for indr,idual use or aggregate use with other dala.
26 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 3.8. Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC Nomination: Internal and external, existing, expanded Approximate BLM acreage: 2,700 acres (existing); 3,100 acres (expanded) Description: This ACEC is located 3 miles north of Ca on 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. The BLM is analyzing Fourmile Creek for wild and scenic river suitability. Special status species in this area include Erigonum brandegei, 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; flora (Erigonum brandegei, Mentzelia chrysantha, and 1, 3 1,2,3 Yes 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.
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 27 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.11. Map of Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC
~N Garden Park ACEC Colorado Bureau at Land Management (- Stale 0 2 - Stale and Municipal Areas Miles Private 1:100,000
No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliabi lity, or completeness of these data for Individual use or aggregate use with other data.
28 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 3.9. 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 Ca on City (Figure 3.12). Two wilderness study areas are included in this ACEC (Upper and Lower Grape Creek Wilderness Study Area 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 var. rydbergii, Mentzelia chrysantha, Mentzelia densa) and fauna (bighorn sheep, peregrine falcon); 1,2,3 1,2,3 Yes 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.
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 29 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.12. Map of Grape Creek ACEC
N D Grape Creek ACEC Colorado WSA 1- Bureau of Land Management 0 1.5 Stats M1ltts
- State and Municipal Areas 1:150,000 US Forest Service Private No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.
30 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 3.10. 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 U.S. Forest Service Roadless Areas. The BLM reviewed this area for cultural, flora, fauna, watershed, and riparian values and found that it does not 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; riparian; watershed; N/A N/A No forest ecosystems aRefer to section 2.5 for an explanation of relevance criteria. bRefer to section 2.6 for an explanation of importance criteria. N/A Not applicable
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 31 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.13. Map of Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC
Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC
,) \ \
I f ~I,I ,;, I
CHAFFEE COUNTY SAGUACHE COUNTY
Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC N c:J Colorado Bureau of Land Management
State 0 + 2 - State and Municipal Areas Miles US Forest Service ...... 1 1 1:100,000 Private Planning Area No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for indr,idual use or aggregate use with other dala.
32 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 3.11. 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 occurs 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.
Table 3.14. Reinecker Ridge ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria
Values Relevance Criteriaa Importance Criteriab Recommended?
Fens, flora; fauna; visual resources 1,2 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. N/A Not applicable
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 33 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.14. Map of Reinecker Ridge ACEC
Reinecker Ridge ACEC N c:J Colorado Bureau of Land Management
State 0 +2 4 - State and Municipal Areas Miles US Forest Service ...... 1 1 1:200.000 Private Planning Area No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for indr,idual use or aggregate use with other dala.
34 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 3.12. 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 3.15). It does not include the area inside the monument. This area is known for its unique naturalness, and scenic and visual qualities (Table 3.15). 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, peregrine falcon, 1,2,3 1,2,3 Yes 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.
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 35 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.15. Map of Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC , 1-' r-----Ruby Mountain/ ' '\ \ Railroa31Gulch I I AGEC I I / I ( ,...,,, I I,,.,, (; I I I (( \. .J ( ,.~~ / (,-'
,/ ,_ J ( I / ,/ ( PARK COUNTY --,=~MOO:[, COUNTY - l I t ,_ '--, '-,
Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC N c:J Colorado Bureau of Land Management
State 0 + 2 - State and Municipal Areas Miles US Forest Service ...... 1 1 1:100,000 Private Planning Area No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for indr,idual use or aggregate use with other dala.
36 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 3.13. 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 3.16). The bluffs in the area have been identified as having significant value for 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 3.16), 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 3.16). 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 there are small components within the proposed ACEC that may meet the importance criteria in regards to PCA and CHAT rankings, on the whole, the proposed ACEC fails to meet the importance criteria due to the minimal acres of PCA present warranting ACEC designation and the similarity of crucial habitat rankings to those throughout the adjacent landscape. 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, Mentzelia chrysantha) and fauna (Mexican spotted owl, 1,2,3 1,2,3 Yes 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.
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 37 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.16. Map of South Pikes Peak ACEC
EL PASO COUNTY I PUEBLO COUNTY
I South Pikes Peak ACEC N D Colorado ~ WSA Bureau of Land Management + Military Rese rv ation E====C:===:::JMiles State 1:200,000
- State and Municipal Areas Planning US Forest Service Area No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Priv ate Management as to the accuracy, reli ability, or completeness of these data for individu al use or aggregate use with other data .
38 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 3.14. 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 3.17). 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 3.17). 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) and fauna (boreal toad, Canada lynx, bighorn sheep); scenic 1,2,3 1,2,3 Yes 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.
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 39 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.17. Map of Top of the World ACEC
Top of the World ACEC
' Top of the World ACEC N c::J Colorado Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation 0 + 2 State Miles US Forest Service ...... 1 1 1:100,000 Private Planning Area No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or ccmpleteness of these data for indr,idual use or aggregate use with other dala.
40 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 3.15. Thompson Mountain–Twin–Gribble Mountain ACEC Nomination: External Approximate BLM acreage: 18,600 acres Description: This nominated ACEC is 5 miles northwest of Ca on City and extends from Twin Mountain 7 miles north to Thompson Mountain (Figure 3.18). The public nominated this area, 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 3.18). 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, 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 Relevance Importance Values Recommended? Criteriaa Criteriab 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. N/A Not applicable
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 41 Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft Figure 3.18. Map of Thompson Mountain–Twin–Gribble Mountain ACEC
I' c:J Thompson Mountain- Twin- Gribble Mountain ACEC Colorado '7 WSA Bureau of Land Management 0 +1.5 3 State MIies
- Stale and Municipal Areas 1:1 50,000 Private Planning Area No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.
42 A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan Evaluation of Potential ACECs: Relevance and Importance Criteria April 2019 Draft 4. LIST OF PREPARERS 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
Geology/minerals, solid minerals (locatable, salable, solid Stephanie Carter Geologist leasables), abandoned mine lands, hazardous materials, and public safety Geology/minerals, paleontological resources, coal, fluid Melissa Smeins Geologist minerals (geothermal), solid leasables, abandoned mine lands, hazardous materials, and public safety Water resources, soil resources, farmlands prime and John Smeins Hydrologist and Project Lead 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 Terrestrial wildlife (includes migratory birds), special Matt Rustand Wildlife Biologist status species (federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and BLM sensitive species) Terrestrial wildlife (includes migratory birds), special Lara Duran Wildlife Biologist (former) 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 Visual resources, lands proposed for protection of Kalem Lenard Recreation Manager wilderness characteristics, travel and transportation management Linda Skinner Recreation Manager Recreation Ken Reed Forester (former) Forestry Jeremiah Moore Forester Forestry Fluid minerals (oil and gas, coal bed methane, and Aaron Richter Natural Resources Specialist geothermal) Land tenure, rights-of-way and land use authorizations, Rich Rotte Realty Specialist (former) and withdrawals and classifications Land tenure, rights-of-way and land use authorizations, Greg Valladares Realty Specialist and withdrawals and classifications ACECs, national scenic byways, wild and scenic rivers, John Nahomenuk River Manager wilderness areas, and Wilderness Study Areas Marie Lawrence Technical Writer-Editor Writing, editing, and associated tasks Molly Purnell GIS Specialist GIS data management, map-making, and related tasks
A Supplement to the Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan 43 Bureau of Land Management Royal Gorge Field Office 3028 East Main Street Cañon City, CO 81212 (719) 269-8500 https://go.usa.gov/xQcZT