| description:
|
<DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Version 1 - 03.17.08: Sage-Grouse (sg) Core Areas as defined by the Governor's Sage Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) on 3.17.08 in Lander, WY. Polygons were drawn on a paper map using a sage-grouse breeding density background that was created using Dr. Kevin Doherty's kernel lek density method. At the SGIT meeting, industry, NGOs, and various governmental organizations used pooled knowledge to draw polygons to protect sg breeding habitat. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P /><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Version 2 - 08.07.08: Everything from version 1 except the redrawing of East Buffalo core area in the BLM Buffalo field office to match up with PLSS lines and better reflect the local conditions identified in an EIS. These changes were approved by the Governor's Office. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P /><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Version 3 - 06.29.10: These core areas took the versions 2 core area concept further and refined the boundaries based on local conditions and more up-to-date threats to sage-grouse habitat. Each of the eight Local Working Groups (LWGs) met at least once and used core area scale maps (~1:90,000), local knowledge and known seasonal habitat use (winter and brood-rearing) to make recommended edge adjustments to the core area boundaries. The data available included: NAIP 2009 imagery to access the habitat and topography, oil/gas development, mining permit boundaries, permitted wind development, leks, and baseline data (roads, counties, etc.) The LWG's also had sagebrush habitat maps, WGFD Wildlife Observation System data, human footprint data, updated sage-grouse breeding density, and other supplemental datasets to make their decisions. The SGIT reviewed the recommendations by the LWGs and all the available data and finalized the boundary lines. Two connectivity corridors to Montana were also identified by the SGIT in consultation with the Northeast LWG. The final map, version 3 core areas, was presented and approved by the governor on 6/29/10.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P /><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;"><SPAN>Version 4 - 07.29.15: Similar process as the version 2 to version 3 revision. The best available science and data was used to refine the core area edges to include new leks, dense population areas, and associated habitats while excluding known conflicts. The data available included: NAIP 2012 imagery to access the habitat and topography, oil/gas development, oil/gas unit boundaries, mining permit boundaries, EIS boundaries, transmission corridors, land ownership, permitted wind development, leks, updated sage-grouse current range, statewide existing disturbance data from the Density Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT), baseline data (roads, counties, etc.), sagebrush habitat maps, WGFD Wildlife Observation System data, research locations from Chapter 33 permits issued by WGFD, updated sage-grouse breeding density polygons from Dr. Kevin Doherty, and other supplemental datasets to make their decisions. Each of the 8 LWG's examined the core area boundaries in their area and heard proposals from NGO's, government agencies, private land owners, and industry to modify the version 3 core area boundaries. The LWG recommendations were passed along to the mapping subgroup of the SGIT. The mapping subgroup held public meetings where the original proposals were reviewed and new proposals to modify the core area boundaries were considered. The mapping sub group presented its findings to the SGIT along with the original LWG suggestions. All options and suggestions were weighed by the SGIT and they made formal recommendations to Governor Matt Mead who decided on the final core area version 4 boundaries. In addition to the core areas and connectivity areas, winter concentration areas (separate file) were also delineated. These polygons, located in western Wyoming, delineate a large portion of winter birds not covered by core area designation. Proposals were received to adjust the connectivity boundaries but the SGIT passed recommendations along to the Governor to leave these boundaries unchanged from version 3 to 4. Governor Mead accepted these recommendations. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /><SPAN /></P></DIV></DIV></DIV> |