APPENDIX 2 Species of Concern

APPENDIX 2 – Species of Concern SPECIES OF CONCERN IN UNCOMPAHGRE STUDY AREA Data from Colorado Natural Heritage Program, November 2000 (BLM) and September 2001 (FS) Group Amphibians Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Fish Fish Fish Insects Insects Insects Insects Mammals Mammals Mammals Plant Communities Name Hyla arenicolor Amphispiza belli Centrocercus minimus Falco peregrinus anatum Haliaeetus leucocephalus Vireo vicinior Gila cypha Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus Ptychocheilus lucius Callophrys comstocki Gomphus intricatus Ochlodes yuma Polites rhesus Gulo gulo Myotis thysanodes Plecotus townsendii pallescens Abies lasiocarpa-Picea engelmannii/Mertensia ciliata Plant Communities Abies lasiocarpa-Picea engelmannii/Salix drummondiana Plant Communities Alnus incana/Mesic graminoid Plant Communities Alnus incana-Cornus sericea Plant Communities Plant Communities Plant Communities Plant Communities Plant Communities Plant Communities Plant Communities Plant Communities Plant Communities Plant Communities Plant Communities Alnus incana-Mixed salix species Aquilegia micrantha-Mimulus eastwoodiae Arctostaphylos patula Atriplex confertifolia/Hilaria jamesii Atriplex confertifolia/Leymus salinus Betula occidentalis/Mesic forb Betula occidentalis/Mesic graminoid Carex aquatilis Eleocharis rostellata Forestiera pubescens Juniperus osteosperma/Amelanchier utahensis-Philadelphus microphyllus/Leymus salinus Plant Communities Juniperus osteosperma/Artemisia nova/Rock woodland Plant Communities Juniperus osteosperma/Coleogyne ramosissima Plant Communities Juniperus osteosperma/Leymus salinus Plant Communities Juniperus osteosperma/Stipa comata Plant Communities Krascheninnikovia lanata/Stipa comata Plant Communities Plant Communities Plant Communities Plant Communities Plant Communities Plant Communities Picea pungens/Alnus incana Picea pungens/Cornus sericea Populus angustifolia/Alnus incana Populus angustifolia/Betula occidentalis Populus angustifolia/Cornus sericea Populus angustifolia/Crataegus rivularis Common Name Canyon treefrog Sage sparrow Gunnison sage grouse American peregrine falcon Bald eagle Gray vireo Humpback chub Colorado river cutthroat trout Colorado pikeminnow Comstock's hairstreak Brimstone clubtail Yuma skipper Rhesus skipper Wolverine Fringed myotis Townsend's big-eared bat subsp. montane riparian forests montane riparian forest montane riparian shrubland thinleaf alder-red-oiser dogwood riparian shrubland thinleaf alder-mixed willow species hanging gardens montane shrublands cold desert shrublands cold desert shrublands foothills riparian shrubland lower montane riparian shrublands montane wet meadows emergent wetland foothills riparian shrubland mesic western slope pinyon-juniper woodlands utah juniper/black sagebrush/rock woodlands west slope juniper woodland mesic western slope pinyon-juniper woodlands winter fat/needle-and-thread dwarf shrubland montane riparian forests montane riparian forest montane riparian forest montane riparian forest cottonwood riparian forest narrowleaf cottonwood riparian forests narrowleaf cottonwood/skunkbrush narrowleaf cottonwood riparian forests montane riparian forests 1 1 6 5 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 22 1 3 1 5 1 2 4 BLM 1 7 1 3 1 7 1 2 1 FS GRANK G5 3 G5 G1 G4T3 G4T?Q 4 G4 G1 5 G4T3 G1T?Q 1 G2G3 G4 1 G5 1 G4 1 G4 1 G4G5 G4T4 1 G5 1 G5 1 G5Q G3G4 1 G3 G2G3 1 G3 G3 G4G5 4 G3 4 G3 1 G5 G2G3 G1G2 GU G5 GU GU G2 G3 G3 G4 G3? G3 G4 G2? SRANK S2 S3B,SZN S1 S2B,SZN S1B,S3N S2B,SZN S1 S3 S1 S1 S2 S2S3 S2S3 S1 S3 S2 S5 S4 S3 S3 S3 S2S3 S2 S2 S3 S2 S2 S4 S2S3 S1 SU SU SU SU S2? SU S3 S2 S3 S2 S3 S2? S3 S1 S4 ESA (PS) BLM LT LE BLM LE FED_SENS BLM 9 9 FS BLM FS/BLM Plant Communities Populus angustifolia/Rhus trilobata Plant Communities Populus angustifolia/Salix eriocephala varLigulifolia-Shepherdia argentea Plant Communities Populus angustifolia-Picea pungens/Alnus incana 1 G3 1 G1 5 G4 68 incana Plant Communities Populus angustifolia-Pseudotsuga menziesii Group Name Plant Communities Populus deltoides ssp-Wislizenii/Rhus trilobata Plant Communities Populus deltoides ssp-Wislizenii/Salix exigua Plant Communities Populus tremuloides-(Pinus ponderosa)/Danthonia parryi Plant Communities Populus tremuloides/Pteridium aquilinum Plant Communities Populus tremuloides/Tall forbs Plant Communities Pseudotsuga menziesii/Cornus sericea Plant Communities Pseudotsuga menziesii/Paxistima myrsinites Plant Communities Pseudotsuga menziesii/Quercus gambelii Plant Communities Quercus gambelii/Poa agassizensis Plant Communities Quercus gambelii-Cercocarpus montanus/Carex geyeri Plant Communities Rhus trilobata Plant Communities Salix exigua/Bare ground Plant Communities Salix exigua/Mesic graminoid Plant Communities Salix monticola/Mesic forb Plant Communities Sarcobatus vermiculatus/Distichlis spicata Plant Communities Sarcobatus vermiculatus/Suaeda torreyana Plant Communities Spartina gracilis Plant Communities Sporobolus airoides Plants Adiantum capillus-veneris Plants Astragalus linifolius Plants Astragalus naturitensis Plants Astragalus rafaelensis Plants Astragalus sesquiflorus Plants Astragalus wetherillii Plants Draba rectifructa Plants Draba spectabilis var oxyloba Plants Epipactis gigantea Plants Iliamna grandiflora Plants Juncus bryoides Plants Lesquerella vicina Plants Limnorchis ensifolia Plants Lupinus crassus Plants Mimulus eastwoodiae Plants Myosurus cupulatus sensu lato Plants Oreocarya longiflora Plants Penstemon breviculus Plants Penstemon lentus Plants Penstemon mensarum Plants Sclerocactus glaucus Plants Trifolium kingii Reptiles Cnemidophorus velox Reptiles Crotalus viridis concolor montane riparian forest Common Name fremont's cottonwood riparian forests fremonts cottonwood riparian forests montane forest aspen wetland forests montane aspen forest lower montane riparian forests lower montane forests western slope douglas fir forests mixed mountain shrublands mixed mountain shrublands skunkbrush riparian shrubland coyote willow/bare ground coyote willow/mesic graminoid montane riparian willow carr saline bottomland shrublands saline bottomland shrublands western slope salt meadows great plains salt meadows southern maiden-hair grand junction milkvetch naturita milkvetch san rafael milkvetch sandstone milkvetch wetherill milkvetch mountain whitlow-grass draba helleborine large-flower globe-mallow minute rush good-neighbor bladderpod canyon bog-orchid payson lupine eastwood monkey-flower western mouse-tail long-flower cat's-eye little penstemon abajo penstemon grand mesa penstemon uinta basin hookless cactus king clover plateau striped whiptail midget faded rattlesnake 1 BLM 2 1 G2? FS GRANK G2 GU 1 G3G4 1 G4 1 G5 G4 1 G2G3 1 G5 GUQ 1 G3 G2 G5 G5 G3 G4 G2G3 G4? G3Q G5 G3Q G2G3 G3 G3? G3 G3? G3?T3Q G4 G2G3Q G4 G2 G4G5T3? G2 G3 G4? G3 G3Q G4Q G3 G3 G5 G5 G5T4 S2 SRANK S2 S1S2 S3S4 S3S4 S5 S2 S2S3 S4 SUQ S3 S2 S5 S5 S3 S1 S2S3 S2 S3 S2 S3 S2S3 S1 S1 S3 S2 S3 S2 S1 S1 S2 S3 S2 S1 S1? S2 S2 S2 S3 S3 S1 S4 S3? ESA FED_SENS 2 1 1 6 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 20 3 7 3 1 1 1 FS BLM BLM BLM BLM 1 2 8 1 1 13 FS 6 2 4 8 1 2 1 BLM BLM BLM 1 1 1 1 102 3 2 1 LT BLM GRANK = Global Rank (relative rarity or endangerment of the element worldwide). G1-Critically imperiled globally, extreme rarity, vulnerable to extinction. G2-Imperiled globally, rare, vulnerable to extinction. G3-Very rare and local throughout its range. G4-Widespread, abundant, apparently secure globally. G5-Widespread, abundant & secure. SRANK= State Rank (relative rarity or endangerment of the element in the state). S1-Critically imperiled, extreme rarity. S2-Imperiled, rare. S3-Rare and uncommon. S4-Widespread, abundant, apparently secure, long-term concern. S5-Widespread, abundant, secure. ESA=U.S. Endangered Species Act status (appropriate standard abbreviation for US Federal Register by US Fish & Wildlife Service). FED_SENS=Federal Sensitive Species Status (considered Sensitive by the US Forest Service and/or the Bureau of Land Management). 69 APPENDIX 3 – History of the Uncompahgre Plateau • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 9000-7000 BC Paleo-Indian occupation. 5500 BC– 500 AD Archaic Indian occupation period. 1200 AD– 1881 Ute Indian (Yutas) occupation. Utes used the Plateau for hunting and the river bottoms for winter camp sites. 1680’s– Introduction of horses on Plateau. Late 1600’s– 1720’s Utes hired as slavers by New Mexico Spanish, trading buckskins, hides, dried meat and slaves for horses, mules, firearms and iron products. 1750 – Spanish and Indian Treaty, led to first direct European-Aboriginal contact on the Uncompahgre Plateau. 1761-1765 – Don Juan Rivera crossed Plateau possibly three times. 1776– Dominguez and Escalante Expedition. First ‘recorded’ trade between Indian and European in Western Colorado. Utes called the Uncompahgre River “Anacapagri”. Early 1800’s– European trappers and traders entered area. 1828– Ft. Uncompahgre Trading Post established by Antoine Robidoux just north of Uncompahgre/Gunnison Rivers confluence. After 1848– Utes moved from one reservation to another. 1869– Uncompahgre Tribe described the Colorado Utes as a “whole” by Colorado Ute Reservation Indian Agent. 1870’s– Gold and silver mining in the San Juans. 1880– Ft. Crawford established near Colona for final movement of the Utes. 1881– Dave Wood Road built to haul food and supplies to ranchers and miners and to haul ore from Telluride and surrounding area. 1881 – Ute Indians removed from the Uncompahgre Valley to Utah by the U.S. Calvary under authority of the U.S. Congress to make way for settlement by whites. 1880’s– Lumbermen, ranchers and freighters established trails and roads throughout the Plateau. Many of the roads are believed to have followed Indian trails. 1881– Introduction of cattle from Gunnison to the Plateau by George and Bob Roberts. 1882– Town of Montrose incorporated. 1882– Railroad arrives in Montrose. 1880’s– Logging begins with some of the first sawmills built on the south end of the Plateau. Early 1900’s– elk, grizzly bear, and wolf extirpated; deer numbers low. 1905– Uncompahgre Plateau added to the National Forest Reserve System. Livestock grazing prior to this on a first come, first serve basis. 1906– 23,803 head of cattle and horses were permitted on National Forest. Early allotments controlled by large herd owners until 1930’s. 1909– Opening of the Gunnison Tunnel bringing additional irrigation water to the Uncompahgre Valley making way for extensive agricultural expansion. 1915– Sheep grazing allowed on upper Plateau. Heavy trespassing of livestock until 1936. Civilian Conservation Corps established on the Plateau, working on roads, trails and insect control. 1934– Taylor Grazing Act, regulated livestock grazing on public lands. 1930’s– 1970’s Uranium and Vanadium mining on the west side of the Plateau. 1930’s– 1970’s Vegetation and land treatments to improve grazing including contouring, chaining, spraying and seeding with exotics. 1970’s– Skiing and recreation in the Telluride area creates a boom for growth and subdivision growth and development occurs on the south end of the Plateau. 1970’s– Ranching and farming decline as lands are bought for development. 1980’s Recreation expansion on the Plateau, ATV’s, mountain bikes, hiking, etc as well as more home development on private in-holdings. 2000 The initiation of the Uncompahgre Plateau Ecosystem Restoration Project (UP). APPENDIX 4 – Management Plans CITY, COUNTY AND UN-INCORPORATED COMMUNITIES • • • Community Master Plans, Delta, Grand Junction, Montrose, Naturita, Norwood, Nucla, Olathe, Ridgeway, Whitewater. County Master Plans, Delta, Mesa, Montrose, Ouray and San Miguel Counties. The San Miguel Watershed Plan, Community Collaborative, 1998 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE • • • • • • • Billy Creek Master Management Plan, CDOW, 1982 Master Management & Development Plan for Escalante State Wildlife Area, Lower Gunnison River Tracts, CDOW, 1999. San Miguel Sage Grouse Conservation Plan, CDOW, 1998 Uncompahgre Habitat Partnership Program Distribution Management Plan, CDOW, 1996. E-20 DAU Elk Management Plan, (Draft) CDOW, 2002. B-5 DAU Bear Management Plan, CDOW, 2000. L-22 DAU Mountain Lion Management Plan, CDOW, 2000. U.S. FOREST SERVICE • • • • • Land and Resource Management Plan for the GMUG Forests, USDA, FS, 1983 Amended Land and Resource Management Plans for the GMUG Forests, 1991 & 1993 Uncompahgre National Forest Travel Plan, USDA, GMUG, FS, 2000 The Uncompahgre Rangeland Initiative (North 2/3 of Plateau), USDA, GMUG, FS, 1996. The Horsefly Environmental Assessment (South 1/3 of Plateau), USDA, GMUG, FS, 2002. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT • • • • • • • • Grand Junction Resource Area, Resource Management Plan and ROD, USDI, BLM, 1987 Mesa Creek Coordinated Resource Management Plan, USDI, BLM, 1993 Northwest Uncompahgre Plan, USDI, BLM 1997 San Juan/San Miguel Planning Area Resource Management Plan, USDI, BLM, 1985 Uncompahgre Basin Resource Management Plan & ROD, USDI, BLM, 1989 Uncompahgre BLM Field Office Fire Management Plan, USDI, BLM, 1999 21 Allotment Management Plan, USDI, BLM, 1995 Grand Junction Field Office, Fire Management Plan, USDI, BLM, 1999. U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE • • Conceptual Management Plan for Habitat Enhancement in Flooded Bottomlands. USFWS Escalante State Wildlife Area, Downstream of Delta, CO. USFWS 1994 71 APPENDIX 5 – Local, State & Federal Laws and Regulations CITY AND COUNTY CODES AND REGULATIONS Local codes, plans and regulations are developed by city and county planning commissions with citizen participation before being adopted by city councils and county commissioners. Direction from federal and state mandates in addition to enabling legislation has directed the development of many local regulations. Individual counties and cities have adopted their own regulations to meet the needs of the local community. Master management plans for cities and counties zone for type and location of growth. Zoning is managed by Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Regulations. Counties and local municipalities also implement specific codes for watershed and fire protection, human health and safety, air and water quality, historic sites, sensitive geologic sites, hazardous areas, wildlife habitat, utilities, municipal and industrial water projects, animal control, weed control, transportation development, open space, educational districts, representative districting etc. These local codes and planning efforts vary from county to county and city to city. Detailed information on these regulations for the UP area may be obtained at the county and city land use or planning offices for Delta, Mesa, Montrose, Ouray and San Miguel Counties and for the towns and cities of Montrose, Olathe, Delta, Grand Junction, Fruita, Naturita, Nucla, Norwood, Telluride, Ouray and Ridgway and unincorporated communities of Gateway and Whitewater. Collaborative planning with the local communities is imperative to insure that local concerns, regulations and permits are implemented in the restoration projects. It is important for the communities to work within the guidelines of the local decision making process. Issues of local concern may also be of concern to the state and federal entities a well. When local agencies review projects they look at many issues including those noted below and more. Wetlands/Floodplains/Riparian Areas Sensitive Areas Historical Sites Special Management Areas (Wilderness study, non-motorized) VQO Air Quality (Retention Visual Quality Objective) Watersheds (Special Interests to Municipalities) Threatened and Endangered Species Geologic Hazards Scenic Byway Corridors Slopes 40-60% Big Game Winter Range Special Wildlife Habitats High Geologic Hazard Administrative Sites Recreation Complexes 72 STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS State laws and regulations are generally implemented to cover the entire state and can supersede local regulations that might not protect resources outside the local communities or counties. Many of the issues outlined in the local regulations are considered to be “Items of State Concern” and are addressed in state regulations and statutes. Some of the state laws and regulations or commissions, and the date of initiation, that UP will or might be involved with include: Colorado Coal Mining Reclamation Act 1973 Colorado Land Use Act H.B. 1041, 1973 Colorado Non-game, Endangered or Threatened Species Conservation Act 1984 Colorado Noxious Weed Act 1990 Colorado Stream Protection Act S.B. 40, 1969 Colorado Water Quality Control Act 1973 Colorado Weed-Free Forage Certification Act 1993 Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act H.B. 1034, 1973 Mined Land Reclamation Act 1976 Minimum Stream Flow Act S.B. 97, 1973 State Board of Land Commissioners 1876 Water and Air Quality (CRS 25-7-123; 5CCR 1001-3; Reg. No. 1, Section II.C. FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS Federal laws and regulations normally supersede state and local regulations because they are instituted to protect the people and interests of the entire nation. Federal laws and regulations of importance, and their date of initiation, include: Archaeological Resource Protection Act 1976 Archaeological Resource Protection Act 1979 Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act 1937 Clean Water Act 1977 Clean Air Act 1990 Colorado River Storage Act 1950 Colorado R. Water Quality Imp Act 1976 Eagle Protection Act 1940 Endangered Species Act 1973 Federal Land Policy & Management Act 1976 Federal Onshore Oil & Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 Federal Water Pollution Control Act 1956 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 1934 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 1974 Forest Highways Act 1958 Granger-Thye Act 1950 Highway Safety Act 1966 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 1964 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 1918 Mineral Leasing Acts 1920& 30 Mineral Materials Act 1947 Mining and Minerals Policy Act 1970 Multiple Use Sustained-Yield Act 1960 National Forest Management Act 1976 National Forest Roads and Trails Act 1964 National Historic Preservation Act 1966 National Trails System Act 1968 Organic Administration Act 1897 Preservation of American Antiquities Act 1906 Public Rangelands Improvement Act 1978 Rangeland Reform 1994 Reclamation Act 1902 Rocky Mountain Regional Guide Amended 1992 Surface Mining Control & Reclamation Act 1977 Surface Transportation Assistance Act 1978 The Dept of Energy Organization Act 1977 U.S. Mining Laws Act 1872 Wilderness Act 1964 73 APPENDIX 6 – The UP Partners: Roles and Responsibilities PUBLIC LANDS PARTNERSHIP (PLP) The Public Lands Partnership includes county commissioners, city administrators, user groups from the timber industry, agricultural producers, environmentalists, recreationists and citizens from Delta, Montrose, Ouray and San Miguel Counties. PLP organized in the early 1990’s as a loose knit group of citizens from Delta and Montrose Counties to promote public education and awareness of economic and environmental issues related to public lands. It provided a forum to air different sides of natural resource issues. Ouray and San Miguel Counties later joined the partnership. It is hoped that Mesa County will join. The goals and objectives of PLP are: To influence the management of public lands in ways that enhance and help maintain diverse, healthy and viable communities, ecologies and economies; to demonstrate different ecologically and economically sustainable approaches that contribute to the health and bio-diversity of public lands in the areas; to better define and strengthen opportunities for local involvement in public lands issues and processes and to participate in and monitor the GMUG Forest Plan Revision Process. PLP is one of twelve groups throughout the United States selected to participate in a five- year Community Based Forestry Demonstration Program initiated and funded by the Ford Foundation. The program has four components of which UP is one. The other three are: the Living History Project; the Logger Demonstration Project and the Rancher Habitat Project. These four projects are all relevant to the Uncompahgre Plateau with interrelated objectives. The Ford Foundation has been a significant partner in the overall partnership development. Within the guidelines of the Demonstration Program, the PLP has developed strategies for determining short term, intermediate and long term outcomes for community, environmental and economic accomplishments as a “self monitoring instrument”. Within this monitoring system are a series of goals. Each goal is measured by indicators; has targets and baselines and has data collection tools and plans for accomplishing the tasks. Detailed information on this monitoring instrument is available from PLP. PLP operates under an annual Working Plan. PLP established Uncompahgre/Com, Inc. (UCI), a 501(C)3, non-profit organization. UCI is the depository for project funding and serves the role of maintaining financial accountability, servicing invoice payments and supervising various agency and personnel contracts, including the coordinator positions. 74 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE (CDOW) The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) is a division within the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. Its mandate is to protect, preserve, enhance, and manage the state’s 960 wildlife species and their environments for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of this state and its visitors. Improving the productivity of the Uncompahgre Plateau’s mule deer population is a priority for CDOW. CDOW manages several State Wildlife Areas within the project area encompassing over 8,000 acres (<1% of the Plateau). BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Interior whose mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. BLM manages 545,280 acres (37%) on the Plateau. These lands are administered by two area offices located in Grand Junction and Montrose. BLM’s goal is to work as an active partner and good neighbor in UP to enhance and restore the ecosystem that is a part of the lands they manage on the Uncompahgre Plateau. This goal includes working with the other partners to insure their planning and implementation programs are in accord with the Forest Service and state and private landowners to benefit the landscape from top to bottom. U.S. FOREST SERVICE (USFS) The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is responsible for the administration of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG), which includes 545,907 acres (37%) on the Uncompahgre Plateau. The Forest Supervisor’s Office is located in Delta, Colorado. Local administrative offices include the Grand Valley Ranger District in Grand Junction, Ouray Ranger District in Montrose and Norwood District in Norwood. The Forest Service is dedicated to multiple use management of the nation’s natural resources. It is the goal of the USFS to be an active collaborator and partner in efforts to restore the ecosystem of the Plateau through the planning and implementation of natural resource programs and projects on national forest lands while working to insure these programs mesh with programs on BLM, state and private lands. The USFS is working closely with UP during the revision of the GMUG Forest Plan. 75 APPENDIX 7 – Community Information, Education and Outreach Goals & Tools INFORMATION/AWARENESS • • • • • Inform the public about UP, its partners, purpose and proposed actions. Update the public on UP’s ongoing activities and assisting partners (organizations, contractors, agencies, individuals, etc.) Inform the public about educational opportunities (seminars, field days, workshops, demonstrations, etc.) Increase public awareness of the condition of the Uncompahgre Plateau. Increase public awareness of the available means to improve the health of the Plateau. EDUCATION • • • • Provide educational opportunities to learn about the Uncompahgre Plateau history, natural resources, wildlife, economic uses, recreational uses, current state, etc. Provide educational opportunities to learn about ecosystem processes, management and health. Provide educational opportunities to learn about tools to manage the ecosystem (fire, grazing, technology, etc.) Provide hands-on educational opportunities for children, interested citizens and organizations. PARTICIPATION Provide a medium for the public to give input and receive feedback and offer opportunities for groups, organizations and community members to become involved at any level, including the development of local geographic focus groups. PUBLIC SLIDE PRESENTATION AND VIDEO • A 30 minute slide presentation about UP has been developed to describe the project history, objectives, direction and spirit of collaborative partnerships for managing the Uncompahgre Plateau ecosystem. The initial program is formatted to fit all groups but will gradually develop various formats and focus for different audiences (based on ID interest groups and potential audiences). Basic project information handouts will be available at presentations. PLP has developed an excellent video on the “Living History of the Uncompahgre Plateau”. This video is an important outreach tool for distribution to schools, agencies, organizations and other entities. • 76 NEWSLETTER AND WEBSITE • A quarterly newsletter (UPP–Date) is available in both electronic form on the website and in hard copy. The newsletter is designed to have different sections to update project happenings, present scientific and educational literature, provide notice of upcoming meetings and important dates and offer opportunities for guest articles. The newsletter will be the center piece for published information in hardcopy for folks not having access to the internet. The web site, www.UPproject.org, is an extended version of the newsletter. Although it focuses on UP, it encompasses all PLP projects. It has links to topics and other related web sites to keep the collaborative partners and community better informed on a variety of topics. The website is designed to be an information hub for a variety of natural resource issues. Some of the information topics available on the website include: information on the Uncompahgre Plateau Project and UP Partnership; project boundaries including maps; a landscape description with photos; history; ecology; management objectives; uses; ecosystem health; management tools; past and upcoming events; grant opportunities; community input and involvement opportunities and educational opportunities. • MEDIA The news media, including newspapers, radio, and TV, are important UP partners. Providing project information to them and inviting them on tours and to demonstrations will be an ongoing process. BROCHURES AND DISPLAYS Several brochures have been published to provide basic information on the project. The brochures are part of a display board that gives additional background information on the project. These materials are used primarily during community and educational programs. Specific brochures can be custom designed for specific information purposes. The general UP brochures can be available as information at agency and public information distribution centers. INTERPRETIVE SITES Interpretive education is an important tool for demonstrating the efficacy of ecosystem restoration treatments. It is important to look at a site and see what changes occur after a treatment. Interpretive sites can illustrate the impacts of several kinds of treatment techniques for comparison purposes and serve as a local laboratory for scientific research, community and school education, community project development, and learning centers for anyone wanting to learn about landscape and vegetative changes resulting from disturbance. Developing interpretive sites with community involvement is an important part of the UP information and education program. 77 CONTACTS As part of the UP outreach efforts, two letters were sent out to a cross-section of interested parties in December 2001. The recipient agencies, government officials, community service groups, media and user organizations are listed after the sample letter shown below. 78 RECIPIENTS OF THE UP INTRODUCTORY LETTERS AGENCIES CO Dept of Natural Resources US Forest Service CO Dept of Parks and Outdoor Recreation US National Park Service CO Division of Water Resources USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service CO Division of Wildlife USDA NPS Curecanti National Recreation Area CO State Forest Service USDI BLM Gunnison Resource Area CSU Cooperative Extension USDA Ag Stabilization & Conservation Service US Bureau of Land Management Western Area Power Association US Fish & Wildlife Service LOCAL GOVERNMENT City of Grand Junction San Miguel County Environmental Health County Sheriff Offices San Miguel County Commissioners Delta County Commissioners Southern Ute Tribe Fire Districts Town of Gateway Gunnison County Commissioners Town of Naturita Mesa County Commissioners Town of Norwood Montrose County Commissioners Town of Nucla Northern Ute Tribe Town of Olathe Ouray County Commissioners Town of Whitewater Saguache County Commissioners Ute Mountain Ute Tribe COMMUNITY SERVICE GROUPS Altrusa Nucla/Naturita Area Chamber of Commerce Kiwanas, Lions, Rotary Ridgway-Ouray Community Council Montrose Chamber of Commerce MEDIA Associated Press KOTO Radio CBS Evening News KPRN - CO Public Radio Crested Butte Chronicle & Pilot KQIX FM 1340/ Daily Sentinel - GJct KQIL 1340 AM Delta County Independent KREY-TV Denver Post KRYD 650 Fruita Times KSNJ 100.7 FM Gunnison Country Times KSTR Radio High County News KURA 105.7 FM KDTA Radio KUSA-TV9 - Western Bureau KEKB Radio KVNF Public Radio KEXO/KQIX Radio Montrose Daily Press KJCT-TV Mountain Valley News KJOL Radio North Fork Valley Chronicle KKCO TV Norwood Post KKXK / KUBC Ouray Co Plaindealer & Ridgway Sun KMGH News Palisade Tribune KMSA Radio Plateau Valley Times KMXY 104.3 Rocky Mountain News KNZZ NEWSRADIO 1100 Silver World Newspaper KOA Radio Telluride Daily Planet 79 USER ORGANIZATIONS American Sheep Industry Biodiversity Legal Foundation Black Canyon Audubon Society Black Canyon Backcountry Horsemen Black Canyon Regional Land Trust Bowie Resources Ltd. Cannon Forest Products Cedaredge Rod & Gun Club Club 20 CO Assoc of 4WD Clubs, Inc CO Bowhunters Association CO Cattlemen's Association CO Enviromental Coalition CO Farm Bureau CO Guide & Outfitters Association CO Mountain Club CO Off-Highway Vehcile Coalition CO Snowmobile Assoc CO Timber Industry Assoc CO Wildlife Federation CO Woolgrowers Association COHVCO Colorado Wild Crested Butte Mountain Resort CU Wilderness Study Group Delta County Livestock Assoc. Delta Montrose Electric Association Delta Timber Company Ducks Unlimited Forest Conservation Council Forest Guardians Grand Mesa Jeep Club Grand Valley Audubon Society Gunnison Basin Biodiversity Project High Country Citizens Alliance Holcomb Oil & Gas Intermountain Forest Products Livestock Permittees within UP boundaries Lone Eagle Lumber Company Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Minnesota Canal & Reservoir Co. Motorcycle Trail Riding Association Mountain Coal Company, LLC Mule Deer Association Mule Deer Foundation National Wildlife Federation Natural Resource Conservation Service Nordic Ski Council Ouray County Alliance Ouray County Cattlemen’s Association Overland Ditch and Reservoir Company Oxbox Mining, Inc People for the USA Powderhorn Resort Rangeland Users Assoc Realtors Association Region 10 Rocky Mountain Biological Lab Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative Safari Club San Juan Citizens' Alliance San Miguel Basin Forum San Miguel Power Sheep Mountain Alliance Sierra Club, Rocky Mtn chapter Sierra Club, Uncompahgre Group SINAPU Smith Forest Products Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project Taylor Park Cattle Association TELCO Telluride Co The Nature Conservancy The Trail Group, Inc. The Wildlands Project Thunder Mountain Wheelers Trail Riders Association Trail Users Partnership Tri-State Electric Trout Unlimited, Grand Valley Anglers Uncompahgre Valley Association Valley Land Conservancy Western Colorado Congress Western Slope ATV Assoc Western Slope Environmental Resource Council Western State College Wild Turkey Federation Wilderness Society 80 APPENDIX 8 – Additional References for the Uncompahgre Plateau Anderson, A.E., D.C. Bowden, and D.M. Kattner. 1992. The Puma on the Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado. CDOW Tech. Publ. No. 40. 116 pp. Archer, D.L., L.R. Daeding, B.D. Burdick, and C.W. McAda. 1985. A Study of the Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River. Final Report-Cooperative Agreement, 14-16-006-82-959. USDI, UFWS, Grand Junction, CO 134 pp. Blankenship B. 1983. Echinocereus triglochidiatus var.inermis, “The Spineless Hedgehog Cactus, an Endangered Species Ecological Study and Monitoring System. BLM, Montrose, CO and Student Conservation Association. Charleston, New Hampshire. 97 pp. Boettcher, A.J. 1972. Ground Water Occurrence in Northern and Central Parts of Western Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey and Colorado River Water Conservation District. Colorado Water Resources Circular 15. Bureau of Reclamation 1966. Feasibility Report: San Miguel Project. Salt Lake City, UT. ______. 1976. Final Environmental Statement: Dallas Creek Project, Colorado. FES 76-50. Salt Lake City, UT. ______. 1979. Final Environmental Statement. Paradox Valley Unit. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project. FES 79-14. Salt Lake City, UT. ______. 1983. Fish and Wildlife Monitoring. Dallas Creek Project, Construction Phase. Denver, CO. ______. 1984. Dominguez Reservoir Project, Colorado Planning Report and Appendices, Salt Lake City, UT. ______. 1987. Lower Gunnison Basin Unit Winter Water. Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program Pre-construction Report. Salt Lake City, UT. ______. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Statement. AB Lateral Hydropower Facility. Uncompahgre Valley Reclamation Project. Montrose and Delta Counties, Colorado. FES 90-25. Salt Lake City, UT. Butler, D.L., B.C. Osmondson. 2000. Physical, Chemical and Biological Data for the Uncompahgre Project Area and the Grand Valley. West-Central Colorado. 1993-1998. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 99-453. Denver, CO. Clary, Warren P. and Douglas C. Morrison, 1973. Large Alligator Junipers Benefit Early-spring Forage. Journal of Range Mgt. 26 (1):70-71. 81 Clements, Amanda, Ecologist, BLM, Montrose, CO. 2001 (Personal Communication) Colorado Bird Observatory, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund, and Partners. 1997. Reference Guide to the Monitoring and Conservation Status of Colorado’s Breeding Birds. Colorado Division of Wildlife 1973. Wild Turkey of the Uncompahgre Plateau. Federal Aid Report W-37-R. Denver, CO. ______. 1975. Fish and Wildlife Analysis for the Dallas Creek Water Project. Denver, CO. ______. 1981. Colorado Reptile & Amphibian Distribution Latilong Study. Denver, CO. ______. 1990. Colorado Mammal Distribution Latilong Study. Denver, CO. ENSR 1998. TransColorado Gas Transmission Project. Final EIS. Colorado/New Mexico USDI, BLM. Ft. Collins, CO. Harpole, George B. 2001. Integrated Utilization Opportunities for Forest Restoration Projects on the Uncompahgre Plateau. Special report prepared for the Public Lands Partnership, Delta, CO. Kittel, G.M. and N.D. Lederer 1993. A Preliminary Classification of the Riparian Vegetation of the Yampa and San Miguel/Dolores River Basins. The Nature Conservancy’s Colorado Program. Boulder, CO. Rector, C.D., E.W. Mustard, and J.T. Windell. 1979. Lower Gunnison River Basin Wetland Inventory and Evaluation. Published by USDA, Denver, CO, in cooperation with Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Soil Conservation Service and University of Colorado. Reed, Floyd, Range Specialist, USFS, Delta, CO. 2000. (Personal Communication). San Miguel Watershed Coalition. 1998. San Miguel Watershed Plan. Telluride, CO. Schott, M.R. & R.D. Pieper, 1985. Influence of Canopy Characteristics of One-seed Juniper on Under-story Grasses. Journal of Range Mgt. 38 (4) 328-331. Sedgwick, J. 1997. Aerial Survey to Identify Suitable Habitat Crossed by the Proposed TransColorado Pipeline Project. Conducted September 22-24, 1997; and Personal Communication with L. Nielsen, ENSR, Ft. Collins, CO. Sept 1997. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Drantz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guides. Prepared for the BLM, USFS and USFWS by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 82 Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association and Montrose Partners, Ltd. 1974. Wetland Assessment for the Lower Uncompahgre River, Colorado. Montrose, CO. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. Ridgway Dam and Reservoir Uncompahgre River, CO. Draft EA. Water Control Manual. USDA, USFS 1983. Effects of Commercial Clear cutting of Aspen on Under-story, Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Values in Southwestern Colorado. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper RM-246. Ft. Collins, CO. _____. 1983. Aspen Management Guidelines. GMUG Forests. Delta, CO. _____. 1983. Land and Resource Management Plan for the GMUG Forests. Delta, CO. _____. 1986. Aspen Regeneration in 6 to 10 Year Old Clear cuts in Southwestern Colorado. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Note RM-467. Ft. Collins, CO. _____. 1991 and 1993. Amended Land and Resource Management Plan for the GMUG Forests. USFS Rocky Mountain Region, CO. _____. 1997. Grand Junction Resource Area Northwest Uncompahgre Plan. Colbran/Grand Junction Ranger Districts, Grand Junction, CO. _____. 2000. Uncompahgre National Forest Travel Plan. Delta, CO. USDA, USFS & USDI, BLM 1993. Oil & Gas Leasing. Final EIS. GMUG National Forests USDA, USFS, USDI, USFWS, NPS & BLM 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53. Missoula, MT. 142 pp. USDA, USFS & USDI, BLM. 2001. Draft EIS. Nucla-Telluride Transmission Line Project. USDI, BLM 1985. San Juan/San Miguel Planning Area Resource Management Plan. Montrose District, CO. _____. 1987. Grand Junction Resource Area Resource Management Plan and ROD. Grand Junction District, CO. _____. 1989. Uncompahgre Basin Resource Management Plan & Record of Decision. Uncompahgre Basin Resource Area. Montrose District, CO. _____. 1991. Colorado Oil and Gas Leasing and Development. Final EIS. Colorado State Office, Denver, CO. _____. 1993. Mesa Creek Coordinated Resource Management Plan. EAC-030-U-93-36. Uncompahgre Basin Resource Area. Montrose District-BLM. 83 _____. 1999. Uncompahgre Field Office Fire Management Plan. BLM Uncompahgre Field Office, Montrose, CO. USDI, USFWS, 1994. Conceptual Management Plan for Habitat Enhancement in Flooded Bottomlands. Escalante State Wildlife Area, Gunnison River Downstream of Delta, CO. USFWS. Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fishes in the Upper Colorado River Basin. USDI, USGS 1995. Bibliography, Indices, and Data Sources of Water-related Studies, Upper Colorado River Basin, Colorado and Utah, 1872-1995. Open-File Report 95-450, National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Denver CO. _____. 1996. Detailed Study of Selenium and other Constituents in Water, Bottom Sediment, Soil, Alfalfa, and Biota Associated with Irrigation Drainage in the Uncompahgre Project Area and in the Grand Valley, West-Central Colorado, 1991-93. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4138. USDI & USDA, BLM, USGS, NRCS & ARS. 2000. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version 3. Technical Reference 1734-6. Welch, Bob, Wildlife Biologist, BLM, Montrose, CO., 2001. (Personal Communication). Watkins, Bruce, Wildlife Biologist, BLM, Montrose, CO., 2000. (Personal Communication). 84 APPENDIX 9 – Current GIS Matrix UP GIS Data Inventory/Status; Version Date:3/6/2002 PRIMARY DATA SECONDARY DATA LAYER LAYER GIS Data Layers Acquired Treatment Projects Past/Historical STATUS SOURCE SOURCE CONTACT/FILE NAME USFS-Armlovich Activities.e00; GJRA/BLM: Diekman: GJFOPROS.e00, …L.00, …P.e00; BLM/UFO:Vlahos ufo_rip_poly.e00 SOURCE SCALE 1:241:100K EVENTUAL DATA USE Incomplete USFS+BLM+CDO W Determine effectiveness of past activities + location of past activities Treatment Projects CDOW Mule Deer Treatment Projects Fire History Currently Proposed Proposed target treatment areas Wildfires Incomplete USFS+BLM+CDO W Complete CDOW Bob Welch provided data: need to have Vlahos incorporate. BLM/gjfo: Diekman: has several file names 1:100K 1:100K Determine where projects currently planned will occur Focus habitat improvement projects in these areas. Incomplete BLM +USFS 1:24 or gps chart rehab success and to use for determining treatment sites. ? chart rehab success and to use for determining treatment sites. Use in determining treatment sites Fire History Wildfires Complete BLM +USFS Digital OrthoPhotos Digital Raster Graphics Digital Elevation Models Landsat TM Imagery DOQ's DRG's DEM's Complete Complete Complete complete BLM USGS USGS BLM USFS - Armlovich 1:24K 1:24K,1:100 Use in Plots K: +1:250K 25 meter Use in elevation and resolution slope/aspect modeling criteria 25 meter could try to pull out more pixel detailed veg types than in vegetation classification 1:100K; 1:24K 1:24k? modeling + ID of important habitats for wildlife Hydrography complete Fire Management Plan Allotment Boundaries CNHP Element occurances data CNHP Potential Conservation Areas WRIS layers Land Ownership/Management rare plants, animals, riparian inventory on south end cdow/usgs: depends on layer 1:100K; CDOT 1:24K; BLM 1:24K, USFS: 1:24K Incomplete USFS+BLM USFS-Watts;BLM/GJFODiekman- resdir_gjra.e00; BLM/UFO=Vlahos Complete On-going Ferriday from USFS+BLM CNHP Ferriday BLM-GJ: Diekman; BLM-UFOVlahos Peggy Lyon 1:24k for contact info on treatments w/in allotments Areas rare elements are Complete concentrated Complete Complete CNHP CDOW BLM Peggy Lyon 1:24 1:50K BLM/gjfo: Diekman/ BLM/UFO: Vlahos 1:24k Display GAP vegetation Basinwide Vegetation Housing Units Ecological Site Inventory Data layers Complete Complete Complete complete for gjfo portion of plateau complete complete CDOW CDOW+BLM 1990 Tiger Data ? BLM - north end done Hobbs' study: Gary Wockner BLM-gjfo/Diekman 1:500k 25m ? 1:24K Display/ analysis Display/ analysis analysis Aid in determining treatment sites Aerial Photos Geology photos from the 30's, 60's, and 80's CDOW - HOBBS USGS ? 1:250K Aid in determining treatment sites + change detection Display/ analysis 85 PRIMARY DATA LAYER SECONDARY DATA LAYER STATUS SOURCE SOURCE CONTACT/FILE NAME SOURCE SCALE EVENTUAL DATA USE GIS Data Layers not yet acquired and needed: Soils Incomplete BLM+ USFS USFS: Armlovich; BLMGJFO: Diekman; BLM-UFO Bob Vlahos. 1:24k rfrom Use in determining treatment NRCS sites Riparian maps Precipitation T+E+Sensitive sp. Data Transportation non-cdow/cnhp roads, trails, recre. Status (OHV, Hiking only, etc. not yet begun ? ? cdow ? BLM BLM-gjfo/Diekman; ufo/Vlahos Counties; USFS: Armlovich; BLM-GJFO: Diekman; BLMUFO: Vlahos ? 1:24K + GPS ? ? ? ? issues with treatments; need to avoid powerlines Influences treatment and reseeding aid in determining treatment sites Use in model to determine treatment site: anticipate buffer distance modeling usfsBLM/ USFS complete; BLM-partial complete partial CDOW - HOBBS CDOW - HOBBS Historical enclosure data Past Treatments Power Lines Noxious Weeds ? Incomplete WAPA? DMEA? Diekman-BLm USFS?BLM-GJFO BLM/GJ BLM, USFS, complete Counties? on Dominguez side ? BLM BLM: Diekman Gas Lines Cultural Resources BLM:UFO/Vlahos BLM: GJFO/Diekman/ ? ? Treatment area selections/access Incomplete SHPO: Mary Sullivan 303-8664673 Incomplete BLM/USFS Range Improvement fences, water Projects developments? BLM: Diekman + Vlahos= ufo_rip_lines and ufo_rip_points; USFS: Armlovich; Water Developments Parcels Assessors database ? ? Water users?/water ? resources? Counties ? water availability for project work? analysis of private lands Mesa: Rick Corsi, Delta: Katie Benson, Ouray:, Montrose:, San Miguel: Heather Widlund Diekman/BLMGJ Jim Sazma ? 1:24 Visual Resource Management SVIM Soil vegetative inventory method GIS Data Layers not yet acquired and needed: Soils BLM/GJ complete BLM-UFP complete BLm/GJ: BLM/UFO Influence site design Incomplete BLM+ USFS USFS: Armlovich; BLMGJFO: Diekman; BLM-UFO Bob Vlahos. 1:24k rfrom Use in determining treatment NRCS sites Riparian maps Precipitation T+E+Sensitive sp. Data Transportation non-cdow/cnhp roads, trails, recre. Status (OHV, Hiking only, etc. not yet begun ? ? cdow ? BLM BLM-gjfo/Diekman; ufo/Vlahos Counties; USFS: Armlovich; BLM-GJFO: Diekman; BLMUFO: Vlahos ? 1:24K + GPS ? ? ? issues with treatments; need to avoid powerlines aid in determining treatment sites Use in model to determine treatment site: anticipate buffer distance modeling usfsBLM/ USFS complete; BLM-partial complete partial CDOW - HOBBS CDOW - HOBBS Historical enclosure data Past Treatments Power Lines Incomplete WAPA? DMEA? Diekman-BLm USFS?BLM-GJFO 86 Noxious Weeds ? BLM/GJ BLM, USFS, complete Counties? on Dominguez side ? BLM BLM: Diekman ? Influences treatment and reseeding Gas Lines Cultural Resources BLM:UFO/Vlahos BLM: GJFO/Diekman/ ? ? Treatment area selections/access Incomplete SHPO: Mary Sullivan 303-8664673 Incomplete BLM/USFS ? Assessors database ? Range Improvement fences, water Projects developments? Water Developments Parcels BLM: Diekman + Vlahos= ufo_rip_lines and ufo_rip_points; USFS: Armlovich; ? water availability for project work? analysis of private lands Water users?/water ? resources? Counties Mesa: Rick Corsi, Delta: Katie Benson, Ouray:, Montrose:, San Miguel: Heather Widlund Diekman/BLMGJ Jim Sazma ? 1:24 Visual Resource Management SVIM Soil vegetative inventory method BLM/GJ complete BLM-UFP complete BLm/GJ: BLM/UFO Influence site design 87 APPENDIX 10 – UP Project Funding Application UNCOMPAHGRE PLATEAU PROJECT (UP) PROJECT FUNDING APPLICATION The first five items to filled out by UP      Project #: Applicant: Approved: Y / N Date: Amount: UP Funding Source: Application Date: Project Name: Applicant (Agency/Organization & Primary Contact. Include Phone #, Mailing & Email Address): Project Location (Township, Range & Section, Show on a 7.5’ Topographic Map): Project Type & Purpose: Describe How the Project Meets the UP Ecosystem Restoration Goals: Project Size in Acres: Project Reseeding Needs: Project Schedule: NEPA Compliance: Project Partners & Contributions: Describe Pre & Post Monitoring Plan: Describe Post Treatment Management Plan: Funding Requested: See Page Two for Instructions 88 INSTRUCTIONS FOR UP PROJECT FUNDING APPLICATION Please submit applications to: UP Project, c/o Division of Wildlife, 2300 S. Townsend Avenue, Montrose, CO 81401. PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS: The purpose of the UP project application is to help applicants obtain support and funding for projects which meet the UP objectives for ecosystem restoration on the Uncompahgre Plateau. The application provides the UP Technical Committee with a formal document that is used to review, prioritize, coordinate and approve projects. The application process is a clearing house for all endorsed UP projects, providing open communication for the UP Partners and community, in addition to providing a tool for tracking projects. The application is available electronically in MS Word and Word Perfect to facilitate easy transfer via e-mail. If you need assistance or have questions on the application, please contact UP at 970-252-6002. The applications are due two weeks prior to the UP Technical Committee meeting held on the first Wednesday of each month. Please keep comments complete but as brief as possible. Applicants are encouraged to talk to an UP Technical Committee Representative about the project and are welcome to present the proposal at the monthly Technical Committee meetings. Contact your UP representative about the time and place. Application Date: List the date the application is submitted to UP. Project Name: List common name and tracking number, if applicable. Applicant: List the agency or organization, the project manager or contact and list his/her phone #, mailing and email addresses. Project Location: Note the project location by Township, Range & Section and identify the project area on a 7.5 minute topog. (8.5”x 11” photo copy acceptable). Project Type & Purpose: List the type of treatment and purpose. Describe How the Project Meets the UP Ecosystem Restoration Goals: Explain how the project meets UP/Community objectives for ecosystem restoration and describe the economic and sociocultural values of the project. Project Size in Acres: Note the anticipated treatment size plus the impacted acreage if applicable: i.e., if a mosaic roller chop is 200 acres of treatment but affects a 500 acre outside perimeter note both. Project Reseeding: If the project requires reseeding, check the UP recommended list, note seed mix, rate and quantity needed. Describe application techniques and timing to maximize success. 89 Is there outside potential for using other programs to aid the reseeding efforts, i.e., seed bed preparation using machinery, livestock etc. Also, please note if you need technical assistance developing a reseeding plan. Project Schedule: Note project schedule from beginning of planning to completion. Also note the fiscal year funding is needed and due date for funding approval. NEPA Compliance: Note if NEPA and permitting is required and to what extent, i.e., EIS, EA, FONSI, air or water quality permits or other. Also note if cultural clearance is needed. Project Partners: Note partners, contributions and match requirements. What funds are currently committed by which partners? What efforts have been made to coordinate the project with other partners? Describe Pre & Post Monitoring Plan: Note what pre and post-project monitoring will be done, how it will be tracked and where the information will be stored. Describe Post Treatment Management Plan: Describe the post treatment plan and what management actions will be taken to maximize opportunities for treatment success. (i.e., grazing management, subsequent treatments, noxious weed management, etc.) Funding Requested: Note how much UP funding is requested and whether it is needed in a lump sum or in phases. Unless approved by the UP Technical Committee, advanced funding will not be available. The UP application process has been developed to promote continuity, communication, long term information tracking and TEAM work for restoring the Uncompahgre Plateau ecosystem. Project requests will be considered on a monthly basis. Emergencies will be considered when appropriate to meet your needs. Projects will be prioritized based on UP goals, cost: benefit for a specific treatment type or for overall ecosystem benefits. Flexibility will be emphasized to help you accomplish project and UP objectives. We welcome you to discuss your project with the Technical Coordinator or members of the Technical Committee at any time to answer questions, facilitate project efficiency or to coordinate with outside partners. We also encourage you to contact the UP Education and Outreach Coordinator to assist you with project information or public involvement needs. Thank you for your efforts! 90 APPENDIX 11 – Restoration Project Selection Checklist SELECTION CRITERIA There are many considerations for selecting an area and restoration project. The selection and decision for using UP funding for projects will be made by the UP Technical Committee. In order to assist the committee in this effort, input from Collaborative Council (Community) meetings, Geographic Focus Groups and general public is welcomed. The following checklist should be considered during the selection process.                    The project is designed to meet UP goals for restoring ecosystem health and sustaining or enhancing social, cultural and economic values. The treatment area has been identified by the Landscape Assessment, the agencies, UP Partnership or community as being in poor ecological health. The area is not meeting the needs of the ecological community and is on a significant decline as a result of previous or current management activities. The project has multiple objectives and partners, is cost effective and can be cost shared. Restoration work is consistent with existing management guidelines. Catastrophic natural events such as flooding, landslides and fires have impacted ecological, cultural, historical, economic or other important community sites such as roads, streams, vegetation etc. The area is critical wildlife habitat in a state of vegetative decline. Consideration is given for T & E or sensitive species. The landscape has been fragmented to prevent normal hydrologic processes, soil deposition and vegetative health. An improvement in vegetative species composition and age structure is desired to meet ecosystem restoration objectives. Watersheds can be improved to enhance water quality, quantity, retention and flow releases. Invasive, non-desirable species need to be controlled. A reduction in forest fuels is necessary to prevent catastrophic fires. Potential for developing demonstration, educational and research sites for treatment types. A sensitive site needs protection from disturbance, i.e., a sensitive archaeological site. Energy transmission corridors susceptible to catastrophic natural fires, downed timber and other impacts are considered. The project meets all NEPA, agency and community goals and regulations. The project is for the benefit of the ecosystem and community. Grazing impacts and permittee needs are considered. Consideration is given to working with private landowners. 91 APPENDIX 12 – Pre-Project Assessment Guidelines SURVEY AND INVENTORY GUIDELINES Guidelines and criteria for surveying and inventorying a restoration site begin by identifying goals, needs and answering basic questions. Common sense should guide the survey and inventory. Efficiency, thoroughness and accuracy are essential. Someday, someone will try to determine the treatment purpose. Once the project area is surveyed to establish the location, the next step is doing an inventory. The inventory will follow a series of site reviews to determine if a project is warranted. If selected, the treatment type and site boundary are determined. The inventory should be recorded in a permanent, track-able project file. Consultation with UP partners is recommended to coordinate activities, access additional information and insure the project meets ecosystem goals.     Project name. Survey date. Name of project manager, agency and survey team. Location of project. Township, range, section and quarter section & P.M. GPS coordinates if project perimeters are being established. Delineation of the project area on a 1:24,000 topographic map. Format the information, if possible, so that the survey is electronic and can be part of a retrievable data base. Type of project. Description of survey purpose. Type of survey being done. Photographs at established GPS points. Location of survey information. Relationship to associated projects and other survey information you wish to include. Site history. Vegetative Composition. (Percentage of each type; grasses, forbs, shrubs, trees) Site Condition: Stable, degrading, improving Seral stage by vegetative type. (Early, mid, late) Representative list of vegetative species by type. Previously treated area. (Yes, No). If yes, date of treatment, type & results. Indication and type of management or natural occurrence. GIS location of permanent photo points. Soil types. Elevation. Aspect. (Prevailing direction, N, S, E, W). Gradient. (Average slope percentage). Precipitation level. Site description. (Wetland, riparian, riverine, upland, forested, mesa, steep canyon with vertical walls, shallow sloped canyon, vegetated walls, mixed terrain, closed or open canopy, isolated, close to roads, human activity area, etc). Sensitive issues. (Archaeological, special designation area, T & E or sensitive species, cultural, historical, social, economic or easement structures). Sensitive timing issues. 92                             Animal impact. (Wildlife or livestock; type, number & season of use). Wildlife observations and potential. Potential for natural re-vegetation. Potential treatment problems. Land ownership: (Agency if public, landowner if private) Private land permission (Type of agreement to do work) BLM TRANSECT INVENTORY GUIDELINES This is an example of a site monitoring transect technique used by the BLM. • Use a map of the project and nearby surrounding areas to randomly select two sites within the treatment area. Draw XY coordinate axes on the bottom and left side of the treatment polygon, number from 0 to 100 in 10’s; select two random X and Y coordinate pairs between 0 and 100 (e.g. (34, 21)), and find your study points on the coordinate axes. • Locate each study on the ground as near as possible to each coordinate pair, making sure you are actually in a treated patch. Set up parallel untreated studies as near as possible to your treated area studies in a block of untreated vegetation that is similar to what the vegetation was before it was treated. These will then be paired studies. There will be two sets of paired studies for a project. • Cover transect: Set up a semi-permanent cover transect at each study point and at the paired untreated area. Use white pvc pipe stakes about 2’ lengths to mark beginning and end, 100’ apart. Orient the transect so it is completely contained within the treated/untreated patch, run it down-slope if the patch size does not constrain orientation. Take two oblique pictures of the transect showing the start post, the tape, and some background features. Read 15, 50x20 cm plot frames located every 6.5’ on the right side of the tape, use the Daubenmire six cover class categories to estimate plant canopy cover. Use the small frame to read herbaceous and sub-shrub cover, and use a 6’x 2.5’ frame to read shrub cover at the same 15 points. Using the small frame, take point intercept readings of groundcover (at four corners and two midpoints of long sides). • Production estimates: Use a 9.6 square foot hoop to estimate annual production of forage and browse species. Develop an easily visualized weight unit for each species by clipping and weighing one unit. Place the hoop down five times in the treated, five times in the untreated at each paired study location, spacing placement 50 paces apart, making sure each placement lands in the appropriate treatment type (keep treated and untreated vegetation production estimates separate). Clip and weigh all plants in the fifth and tenth frames to develop estimation corrections. Note phenology and utilization level for each species encountered. You will end up with 1 10 plot production transect for the treated vegetation, and 1 10 plot transect for the paired, untreated vegetation. • Pellet group counts. Use an 11.9’ rope to define a circle for counting deer and elk pellets. You will run two ten circle transects for each study point. One each in the treated and untreated areas. Start the first circle at the cover transect start post. Record all deer and all elk pellet groups (>4 pellets) for each circle. Walk 20 paces between each circle, keeping in the appropriate treatment/untreated type. • Browse form and age class. Rate the first 20 browse plants (palatable shrubs) encountered walking in a straight line oriented parallel to the transect for age class and form class based on the form and age class definitions on the data sheet. 93 APPENDIX 13 – Restoration Project Design and Implementation Guidelines PLANNING CRITERIA Criteria for Planning include:  Plan the project in collaboration with UP Partners, to insure the project meets local and ecosystem health objectives.  Plan the project in cooperation with the livestock permittee.  Plan livestock grazing to stimulate timely, vegetative growth and to assist with managing noxious weeds and to set up conditions for prescribed fires.  Look for alternatives to make the project multi-dimensional.  Develop plans that can be easily tracked for future monitoring and learning opportunities.  Review treatment alternatives to insure the best management prescription is used to meet project objectives.  Plan the project to integrate with adjacent projects meeting ecosystem goals.  Plan funding requests to leverage funding with other programs and partners.  Plan project to clearly outline the levels of expected accomplishment.  Insure planning efforts have met all NEPA compliance and local, state & federal regulations.  Plan ahead to insure adequate time is available to review and discuss projects between cooperators, partners and vested interests.  Discuss contract preparation with partners and understand the process for contracting and payment through Uncompahgre/Com, Inc.  Plan a noxious weed prevention strategy for the project.  Plan re-seeding efforts to utilize native plant lists and vegetation plan recommendations to be developed by UP.  Involve interested parties in project planning for collaboration, learning and assistance.  Treatment plans should consider impacts on the site as well as off-site areas. Is the treatment going to be so successful that grazers destroy the treatment immediately?  Considerations for treating alternate sites in the same year, alternate years and other combinations should be done to prevent funneling of grazers to the new vegetative sprouts. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES Once the treatment area has been surveyed, inventoried, planned, budgeted and approved, implementation steps are necessary. The following steps are recommended prior to and at the time of implementation: • • Communicate with the various UP Partners to let them know what you are doing and when. Invite opportunities for collaboration and team efforts. Meet with the UP Partners through the Technical Committee and Technical Coordinator to communicate last minute details and to insure that the project meets ecosystem objectives and collaborative efforts. Run through the checklist so that important objectives or partnership opportunities are not missed. 94 • • • • •   Look for opportunities for sharing project costs and equipment with adjacent projects when possible. Consider weather and seasonal moisture conditions. Are the biological and physical conditions correct for the treatment type that is to occur. If not, consider alternatives. Cost/benefits are related to timing and good decisions. If the treatment is being re-seeded, does the seed mix meet the recommendations of the UP Partners? Are standard operating procedures being followed to minimize and control noxious weed invasion post implementation? Develop and utilize a native seed list, application rate and technique according to a vegetation management plan which indicates site potential. The application rate, timing and technique should be developed through team planning and utilizing agency and UP experts. Be prepared to consider other treatment alternatives if monitoring determines the treatment has not met objectives. This may require re-seeding, fertilization, additional changes in livestock grazing etc. Develop ecosystem management plans, rather than single purpose plans. 95 APPENDIX 14 – Post Project Management Guidelines The post management of the treatment site and adjacent areas should be carefully discussed and planned with other experts. Open communication and project brainstorming often expands the benefits of the treatment beyond the initial goals as well as opening possibilities for other funding. Ask for help in post treatment management ideas from inter-disciplinary sources. Some recommendations for managing treatments include:   Determine if post treatment management options are possible. Evaluate site conditions and potential for natural, post treatment re-vegetation. Seeding may be necessary to out-compete invasive weeds. Existing species viability may not be productive enough to provide natural seeding or re-sprouting. Manage for maximum native species and natural regeneration. Follow-up management until it is determined that the revegetation has met the objectives. Consider other management techniques to enhance natural restoration, i.e., use an annual seed mix for immediate site control until the seed bank becomes established. When appropriate, provide public educational literature about the treatment. This might occur on site with display boards, in newspaper articles, on the UP website etc. Explain the objectives of the project and what the public can do to help the project be successful. Manage grazing after the treatment to insure project success. Grazing management might include: removal of livestock from the treatment location for at least one year; seasonal rotation of livestock; big game herd management; distribution of livestock and wildlife by restoring a variety of habitats in areas adjacent to the project. Utilize livestock grazing when appropriate to impact soils and to prepare a seed bed immediately before or after seed distribution. Manage treatments to buffer the impacts of other projects. This may include timing a project so that new growth is available to settle erosion from a new road, pipeline, housing development or other project that disturbs soils adjacent to the project.      96 APPENDIX 15 –Comment List for Draft UP Plan* *The following individuals and organizations submitted comments on the Draft UP Plan. Most comments were brief or noted as informal notations in draft copies of the plan. Corrections and ideas have been incorporated into the plan. A reminder that the UP Plan is a working document and will change over time to incorporate new information and adaptive changes. Dr. William Baker, Dept. of Geography, University of Wyoming Bill Day, Black Canyon Audubon Society Keith Fife, Division Director, Mesa County Planning Department Nancy Fishering, Colorado Timber Association and PLP Dave Gann, Regional Director, The Nature Conservancy George Harpole, Forest Economist and Private Consultant Dan Huisjen, Fire Ecologist, Montrose Field Office, BLM Linda Ingo, Ouray County Cattlemen’s Association Ron Lambeth, Wildlife Biologist, Grand Junction Field Office, BLM Harley Metz, Ecologist, Grand Junction Field Office, BLM Dennis Murphy, Hydrologist, Montrose Field Office, BLM Ouray Ranger District Staff, U.S. Forest Service Dr. Deborah Paulson, Dept. of Geography, University of Wyoming Allan Pfister, West. Colo. Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Walt Rule, Western Colorado Congress and PLP Alan Staehle, Ouray County Commissioner, PLP Greg Walcher, Executive Director, Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources 97 SIGNATURE PAGE The undersigned agency administrators and the president of Unc./Com have reviewed and approved the Uncompahgre Plateau Project (UP) Plan. The Plan describes an approach through the voluntary association of responsible agencies and Unc./Com for the improvement of the land health of the Uncompahgre Plateau. The intent of this plan is to accomplish improved resource conditions on the Plateau through a collaborative, community-based, ecosystem restoration effort. This document is not a decision document. Future actions and site-specific projects on public lands will be analyzed through the National Environmental policy Act (NEPA) process and subsequent decision documents. This document provides an organizing framework of the information necessary to begin analyzing and prioritizing appropriate management activities. It can be used by agency administrators and managers for the facilitation of program and budget development based on restoration needs and priorities. This plan is not an obligating document for fiscal resources and does not bind agencies or organizations to a financial commitment beyond the scope of the MOU. Future assessments of the MOU's are not precluded by this plan. Signed___________________________________________________ Date ____________2003 State Director, Bureau of Land Management Signed___________________________________________________ Date ____________2003 Executive Director, CO. Department of Natural Resources Signed___________________________________________________ Date ____________2003 President, Unc./Com., Inc. Signed___________________________________________________ Date ____________2003 Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service 98