BLM_COSO_GRSG_Habitat_Update_20191104_Poly

BLM Colorado 20191104 BLM_COSO_GRSG_Habitat_Update_20191104_Poly_NAD83 Vector Digital Data Set (Polygon) This is a provisional update to the original greater sage-grouse habitat mapping included in the 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA (BLM 2015). It expands on the BLM's ARMPA dataset to include all landownerships. It is considered provisional data unless/until accepted for use by CPW. It identifies areas of priority, general, linkage/connectivity, and undesignated habitat within the occupied range of greater sage-grouse in Colorado. Habitat management areas, including: PHMA: Areas identified as having the highest habitat value for maintaining sustainable GRSG populations and include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas. GHMA: Areas that are occupied seasonally or year-round and are outside of PHMAs. LCHMA: Areas that have been identified as broader regions of connectivity important to facilitate the movement of GRSG and maintain ecological processes. UDH: Areas of seasonally irrigated and harvested hay fields. These areas are utilized seasonally by sage-grouse, primarily in the late summer and fall, near edges where irrigated fields are adjacent and abutting sagebrush habitats. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) requested that BLM Colorado accept updated habitat mapping, and concurred with the data modifications noted in this description (23 Sept. 2019, Personal Communication. JT Romatzke). New greater sage-grouse habitat data was delivered to BLM Colorado by CPW (Olsson Project No. 016-0416). This data was developed under a memorandum of understanding between CPW and the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado, with the stated goal, "that revised maps will better identify areas not suitable for sage-grouse that can be used for existing and new economic development actives without reducing the overall level of greater sage-grouse conservation (2016 AGNC & CPW)." Modifications to the original data were made in concurrence with CPW to produce a dataset more suitable for land management needs on BLM administered lands. These changes included: replacement of a MGHMA designation with GHMA, redesignation of UDH on BLM administered lands to the previous designations from the 2015 dataset, and processing to create a 40 acre minimum mapping unit. In addition CPW added additional GHMA and PHMA in areas of known occupied range, and LCHMA which was not included in the Olsson Project. Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado & Colorado Parks and Wildlife (AGNC & CPW) Parachute, CO. (2016). "Memorandum of understanding for Mapping of Important Sage-Grouse Habitats in Northwestern Colorado. Olsson. (2019). "Greater Sage Grouse Statewide Habitat Mapping Methods Report. Olsson Project No. 016-0416." Parachute, CO. Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado. This priority habitat map and data were developed as an update to the habitat mapping in the 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment. These data provide a biological tool for planning in the event of human development in sage-grouse habitats. It expands on the BLM's ARMPA dataset to include all landownerships. It is considered provisional data unless/until accepted for use by CPW. These maps depict All Designated Habitats within greater sage-grouse occupied range in Colorado. *This data is delivered to CPW with the understanding that the BLM would complete the geoprocessing, but the that the data would belong to CPW. It is considered provisional data until such time that it is fully adopted by CPW. At which time CPW should update this metadata as appropriate. This data is delivered to CPW with the understanding that the BLM would complete the geoprocessing, but the that the data would belong to CPW. It is considered provisional data until such time that it is fully adopted by CPW. At which time CPW should update this metadata as appropriate. 20191104 publication date Complete Continually -109.105462953 -105.841754116 41.068664012 39.171886609 ISO 19115 Topic Category biota environment None GRSG PHMA UDH GHMA Core Areas LCHMA Greater sage-grouse Habitat Status Common geographic areas Colorado NON-PUBLIC. BLM INTERNAL USE ONLY. Unverified Dataset. These data will be restricted to internal BLM staff, contractors and partners directly involved with developing the associated planning documents. These data might contain sensitive information, and may only be accessed by the public by filing a FOIA request, which may or may not be granted depending on the applicable FOIA exemption(s). NON-PUBLIC, BLM INTERNAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION. NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY BLM AS TO THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR COMPLETENESS OF THESE DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL USE OR AGGREGATE USE WITH OTHER DATA. The User is cautioned that these data have not been verified, and have not been approved for release. The User should take reasonable measures to ensure that these data are protected from disclosure. Although these data might be available to internal BLM staff, contractors or partners; the quality and fit for use of these data should be considered unknown. The User is advised that the content of the metadata file associated with these data might be incomplete. The User assumes the entire risk associated with its use of these data. The BLM shall not be held liable for unintentional disclosure; nor for any use or misuse of the data described or contained herein. Further, the BLM assumes no liability for the current accuracy, reliability, completeness or utility of these data on any system or for any general or scientific purposes. The User bears all responsibility in determining whether these data are fit for the User’s intended use. These data are neither legal documents nor land surveys, and must not be used as such. Official records can be referenced at most BLM offices. Please report any errors in the data to the BLM office from which it was obtained. Any products derived from these data should clearly identify the source as unverified data. They must also include the statement "REVIEW AND/OR DISPLAY COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.” The BLM should be cited as the data source in any products derived from these data. Any Users wishing to modify the data are obligated to describe within the process history section of the metadata the types of modifications they have performed. The User specifically agrees not to misrepresent the data, nor to imply that changes made were approved or endorsed by BLM. This data may be updated by the BLM without notification. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado Esri ArcGIS 10.5.1 (Build 7333) Service Pack N/A (Build N/A) No formal attribute accuracy tests were conducted. No formal logical accuracy tests were conducted. Data set is considered complete for the information presented, as described in the abstract. Users are advised to read the rest of the metadata record carefully for additional details. A formal accuracy assessment of the horizontal positional information in the data set has not been conducted. A formal accuracy assessment of the vertical positional information in the data set has either not been conducted, or is not applicable. Olsson 20190301 Greater Sage Grouse Statewide Habitat Mapping Vector Digital Data Set Parachute, CO Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado Digital and/or Hardcopy Resources 20190301 publication date Source Input 1 Source information used in support of the development of the data set. Areas within the BLM sage-grouse EIS planning area were extracted from the data. UDH remained in this partial dataset as an artifact of the minimum mapping unit process. All UDH in this data was returned to the designation from the 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA in order to maintain consistency with the agreement between CPW and BLM to have no UDH on BLM administered lands. After this was completed the planning area dataset was merged back into the larger dataset, and again all polygons were dissolved by habitat and populations to have one multi-part polygon per habitat per population. 20191001 Individual population models were merged into single rangewide dataset. 20191001 UDH on federally administered surface and BLM administered sub-surface was returned to the designation previously accepted in the 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA. 20191001 Additional acreage of GHMA within the known occupied range of greater sage-grouse was added to the dataset per CPW. Additionally, linkage and connectivity habitat (LCHMA) was added to the habitat dataset. Acreages for all polygons were calculated using Add Geometry Attributes. 20191001 Data processed using polygon neighbors tool and excel to redesignate all polygons less that 40 acres in area. Polygons less than 40 acres in area had their habitat designation changed to the designation of the majority of their perimeter. This process was completed three times, then all remaining polygons less than 40 acres were hand verified and had designations changed where appropriate. After this process all polygons were dissolved by population and habitat designation to create a single multi-part polygon per habitat per population (i.e. no more than three polygons per population). 20191001 Olsson Project No 016-0416 data received from CPW 20191001 MGHMA was converted to GHMA. 20191001 Vector Simple FALSE 0 TRUE FALSE coordinate pair 0.6096 0.6096 Meter D_North_American_1983 GRS_1980 6378137.0 298.257222101 Attribute Table Table containing attribute information associated with the data set. Producer defined Feature Class 0 OBJECTID OBJECTID OID 4 10 0 Internal feature number. Esri Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated. Shape Shape Geometry 8 0 0 Feature geometry. Esri Coordinates defining the features. Activity_Code Activity_Code String 10 0 0 UpdateComments UpdateComments String 250 0 0 BufferDistance BufferDistance String 50 0 0 Species_Activity Species_Activity String 80 0 0 Shape.STArea() Shape.STArea() Double 0 0 0 Shape.STLength() Shape.STLength() Double 0 0 0 The entity and attribute information provided here describes the tabular data associated with the data set. Please review the detailed descriptions that are provided (the individual attribute descriptions) for information on the values that appear as fields/table entries of the data set. The entity and attribute information was generated by the individual and/or agency identified as the originator of the data set. Please review the rest of the metadata record for additional details and information. BLM Chris Domschke Mailing and Physical

2850 Youngfield St.

Lakewood CO 80215 3032393752 BLM INTERNAL USE. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION. The BLM will not be held liable for the unintentional disclosure of these data. The BLM assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data; nor shall the act of distribution to contractors, partners, or beyond, constitute any such warranty for individual or aggregate data use with other data. Although these data have been processed successfully on computers of BLM, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by BLM regarding the use of these data on any other system, or for general or scientific purposes, nor does the fact of distribution constitute or imply any such warranty. In no event shall the BLM have any liability whatsoever for payment of any consequential, incidental, indirect, special, or tort damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, any loss of profits arising out of the use or reliance on the geographic data or arising out of the delivery, installation, operation, or support by BLM. BLM INTERNAL USE. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION. The BLM will not be held liable for the unintentional disclosure of these data. The BLM assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data; nor shall the act of distribution to contractors, partners, or beyond, constitute any such warranty for individual or aggregate data use with other data. Although these data have been processed successfully on computers of BLM, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by BLM regarding the use of these data on any other system, or for general or scientific purposes, nor does the fact of distribution constitute or imply any such warranty. In no event shall the BLM have any liability whatsoever for payment of any consequential, incidental, indirect, special, or tort damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, any loss of profits arising out of the use or reliance on the geographic data or arising out of the delivery, installation, operation, or support by BLM. 20191114 BLM Chris Domschke Mailing and Physical

2850 Youngfield St

Lakewood CO 80215 3032393752 FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998 local time Esri ArcGIS 13.3.0.52636 Greater Sage Grouse Priority and General Habitats 2017-01-01T00:00:00 2017-01-01T00:00:00 2020-01-01T00:00:00 Olsson Consultants Consultant Seth McClean Colorado Parks and Wildlife GIS Unit Lead 6060 Broadway Denver Colorado Seth.McClean@state.co.us 80216 US 303-291-7163 1 -109.088202 -105.882732 41.068322 39.415448 The data encompass the range of Greater Sage Grouse in the state of Colorado. 2016-02-01T00:00:00 2020-02-12T00:00:00 Colorado Greater Sage Grouse Colorado Occupied Potential Habitat Status Species Distribution Model SB181 1202D This data was compiled for the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in response to SB181. This layer may contain interim updates by CPW and may not represent features approved by the commission. Olsson Consultants 601 P Street Suite 200 Lincoln, NE 68508 olsson.com <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV>The data set was created by preparing fine-scale population-specific Species Distribution Models (SDMs) to map revised PHMA and GHMA areas for each of the six greater sage-grouse populations within the current occupied range of Colorado. First, known presence locations of marked greater sage-grouse were used to train Random Forest and Resource Selection Function (RSF) models to estimate seasonal (e.g., breeding, summer-fall and winter) habitat suitability. Secondly, the seasonal model results were classified into high or low habitat suitability categories and subsequently compiled to produce a year-round habitat suitability map. Third, the resulting year-round habitat suitability maps were used to develop revised PHMA and GHMA areas for each population. Finally, the current occupied range for each population were modified to 1) exclude areas identified as unsuitable habitats and 2) include areas outside of current occupied range where evidence of sage-grouse occupancy exists.Data inputs into the RSF and Random Forest Models included presence data from GPS and VHF collar data provided to Olsson from CPW biologists, which was used to refine the models. A combination of vegetative and topographic predictors were employed at multiple scales in assessing the probability of habitat selection for the populations analyzed in this study. The predictors were analyzed at multiple spatial scales, as the literature demonstrates that habitat selection by a species occurs at some scales and not others (Mayor et al. 2009, Acker et al. 2017). The predictors were measured at five scales: 100 meters (m), 400 m, 1000 m, 1600 m, and 3200 m. These were selected to assess a range of local- to landscape-level scales that may influence habitat selection. Furthermore, these scales are comparable to scales assessed in other contemporary studies concerning habitat selection of greater sage-grouse (Doherty et al. 2010; Rice et al. 2016; Walker et al. 2016).Populations were also analyzed to assess utilization of smaller mapped aspen stands as compared to larger continuous forested stands of aspen and/or mixed-conifer. While greater-sage grouse tend to avoid larger forested areas, they will utilize smaller aspen stands (T. Apa pers. comm. 2016-2018). All presence locations for each population were sampled against mapped aspen stands to calculate 1) the rate of selection for aspen stands by the population, and 2) the acreage of each aspen stand utilized. The sampled stand acreages were subsequently graphed and examined to identify natural breaks in the data. Stands with acreages less than the natural break value and not directly adjacent to other forested stands were classified and analyzed separately as isolated aspen polygons which were included as potentially suitable habitat; the remaining aspen stands were classified as forested and integrated with mixed-conifer forests, which were assumed to be non-suitable habitat.Finally, the distance to forested areas was measured as a vegetative predictor using the Euclidean Distance tool in ArcGIS 10.4, excluding all isolated aspen patches and mixed-conifer patches less than 0.5 acres (and see previous paragraph).Vegetation types were derived from the Colorado Vegetation Classification Project (CVCP), a 25 m resolution raster dataset developed by CPW, which mapped landcover conditions through the periods from 1993to 1997. In addition, vegetation types were also derived from the 2001 LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) layer for areas adjacent to the study area in Utah and Wyoming to provide complete and continuous vegetation cover for populations abutting the state boundary. The LANDFIRE EVT is a 30 m resolution raster dataset developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) mapping landcover conditions from 2001 (LANDFIRE 2001). Vegetative types were classified into biologically relevant classes and subsequently measured as percent-proportion by dividing the number of cells for the particular class by the total number of cells within the radii of the five defined scales using ArcGIS 10.4. The assigned classes of vegetative types varied by population and are detailed in the population-specific reports provided to BLM.Topographic predictors were derived from the 10 m resolution National Elevation Dataset (NED) Digital Elevation Model (DEM) developed and maintained by the USGS. Key topographic predictors include aspect, Compound Topographic Index (CTI), elevation, percent slope, slope position and surface roughness. Aspect and percent slope were calculated in ArcGIS 10.4. CTI, slope position and surface roughness were calculated using the Geomorphology and Gradient Metrics toolbox (Evans et al. 2014). In addition, aspect was subsequently transformed using the TRASP method in the Geomorphology and Gradient Metrics toolbox. To develop the multi-scale predictors, CTI and percent slope were measured as the mean of all values within the radii of the five defined scales; slope position and surface roughness were calculated using the radii of the five defined scales.The following summary of the step-wise procedure was developed to convert the Random Forest and RSF continuous surface model results into revised Habitat Management Area Prescriptions. Details of these methods follow this list:<OL STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 0;"><LI>1. Classify all seasonal Random Forest and RSF model results into high and low habitat suitability layers.</LI><LI>2. Ensemble all Random Forest and RSF classified seasonal layers to form a single year-round annual habitat layer designating locations as either high or low habitat suitability.</LI><LI>3. Convert all highly suitable locations to Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) and all locations designated as low habitat suitability to General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA).</LI><LI>4. Classify all areas within a 0.6-mile radius from lek locations having an active or unknown status designation as PHMA, regardless of habitat suitability classification.</LI><LI>5. Identify all irrigated agricultural lands and designate interiors as Undesignated Habitat (UDH).</LI><LI>6. Review and apply site-specific manual conversions of initial management prescription designations based on CPW biologist and stakeholder input.</LI><LI>7. Remove identified non-habitat areas from Current Occupied Range (COR). Expand COR in areas beyond the current population boundary where evidence exists to demonstrate occupation by greater sage-grouse.</LI></OL>The previous habitat layer generated by CPW, only two habitat designations prescribed by the BLM ARMPA exist for assigning management approaches for conservation of the Colorado greater sage-grouse populations; PHMA and GHMA. PHMA have the highest conservation value based on a combination of habitat and sage-grouse population characteristics and are managed to minimize disturbance activities through No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations and implementing capped disturbance allowances. GHMA represent areas with lower greater sage-grouse occupancy and generally have marginal habitat conditions with fewer management restrictions that provide greater flexibility in land use activities.The initial step to applying PHMA and GHMA habitat management prescriptions involves converting all areas classified as highly suitable habitat in the population’s year-round classified habitat layer to PHMA, while the remaining low habitat suitability areas are converted to GHMA. Secondly, all lek locations with a CPW-prescribed active or unknown status designation are buffered with a 0.6-mile radius and the entirety of the interior of the buffer area is converted to PHMA. Third, the most recent mapped irrigated agricultural lands data was acquired from the Colorado Division of Water Resources for all applicable populations, then the following procedure described below were implemented to apply the Undesignated Habitat prescription to the interior of all irrigated agricultural lands.Undesignated HabitatThrough the course of this study, an additional management prescription was established by AGNC to address concerns regarding habitat management on privately held irrigated agricultural lands.An Undesignated Habitat(UDH) management prescription was developed to address concerns surrounding the management of privately held irrigated agricultural lands. The UDH prescription is applicable to all populations, excluding the Parachute-Piceance-Roan population (due to a lack of irrigated agricultural lands). UDH are areas of seasonally irrigated and harvested hay fields. These areas are utilized seasonally by sage-grouse, primarily in the late summer and fall, near edges where irrigated fields are adjacent and abutting sagebrush habitats. UDH is considered effective habitat, but it is the long-term irrigation and haying practices which have created and maintain this habitat type, and thus the unimpeded irrigation, haying operations and maintenance are not considered to be a negative impact to sage-grouse. While utilization of the edges of irrigated agricultural lands by sage-grouse is known to vary from population to population, studying grouse utilization on a population-specific basis proved problematic as most populations lacked adequate telemetry locations within irrigated agricultural lands to yield results with any level of confidence. For this reason, the North Park population was selected to analyze in detail due to the high number of telemetry points located within irrigated agricultural lands. Approximately 20 percent of all summer-fall telemetry locations for the North Park population occur within irrigated agricultural lands, compared to less than 1 percent to 3 percent utilization demonstrated in the remaining populations.All summer-fall telemetry locations occurring within irrigated agricultural lands were sampled to calculate the distance each point occurred from the edges of irrigated fields. The distances for each location were plotted in a histogram and subsequently reviewed by CPW and AGNC team consultants, revealing a natural break occurring in the data at approximately 83 m. As a result, all interior irrigated agricultural lands lying beyond 83 m from the edge of sagebrush habitats are designated as UDH, while the zone occurring from the 83 meters up to the edges of sagebrush habitats retained the PHMA or GHMA designations as determined by the Random Forest and RSF model results.Final Review.Finally, the resulting revised management prescription layer was manually reviewed by AGNC and by CPW biologists and researchers to identify areas that may warrant conversion from PHMA to GHMA, or vice versa, based on biological considerations, habitat characteristics or the potential for impacting critical future economic development activities.Each population model was slightly different based on the data and nature of the populations. Below is a brief summary of the models by population along with reference to the specific population model documentation that describes each model in much more detail.Northwest Population Model: The approach to analyzing greater sage-grouse habitat suitability for the Northwest population follows the procedures outlined in section5.0 Methodsof the Methods Report. However, as described further below, the telemetry data acquired for analyzing the population were highly clustered. Employing these data in models to predict habitat suitability across a vast, variable landscape resulted in spurious and unreliable predictions in areas further removed from known presence locations. For this reason, we also developed a fourth model for the Northwest population to predict habitat suitability based on known lek locations to enhance predictions in areas lacking available telemetry data (see section 3.4.2 Random Forestbelow). Detail documentation for this model is in the Olsson Report: AGNC_GRSG_NW_Population_Report.pdfParachute-Piceance-Roan (PPR) Population Model: The approach to analyzing greater sage-grouse habitat suitability for the PPR population follows the procedures outlined in section 5.0 Methodsof the Methods Report. RSF models were not developed for the PPR population as part of this study, rather, this project employed RSF models previously developed by CPW in a separate study performed in 2015 to analyze sage-grouse habitat conditions within the PPR area (Walker et al. 2015). CPW’s analysis in their 2015 study implemented the same procedure in developing RSF models to assess habitat conditions and were therefore considered appropriate for inclusion in this project. The 2015 PPR habitat study performed by CPW differed in two respects concerning 1) scales of analyses, and 2) seasonal cut-off dates. First, CPW considered two additional scales for analyses, 800 m and 2400 m in their 2015 study, as compared to the scales analyzed in this study. To ensure consistency with CPW’s RSF models, the Random Forest models developed for this study also include these same scales of analyses. Secondly, CPW utilized marginally different cut-off dates to define seasonal date ranges. The breeding season in the 2015 PRR study was defined as occurring between March 14thto 14 days beyond the date on which approximately 90 percent of females finished nesting for that year (Walker et al. 2015). In addition, the summer-fall season was defined as ending on November 30thin CPW’s 2015 study, as compared to November 15thin this study. The telemetry data employed in Random Forest models analyzing seasonal habitat conditions in the PPR population for this study utilize the same seasonal date ranges as defined above to ensure consistency between Random Forest and RSF model analyses. CPW’s complete 2015 report, titled “Mapping and Prioritizing Seasonal Habitats for Greater Sage-Grouse in Northwestern Colorado”, and supplemental information are included as Appendix I of this report. Detail documentation for this model is in the Olsson Report: AGNC_GRSG_PPR_Population_Report.pdf.North Park Population Model: The approach to analyzing greater sage-grouse habitat suitability for the NP population follows the procedures outlined in section 5.0 Methods of the Methods Report. RSF models were not developed for the NP population as part of this study. Rather, this project employed RSF models developed by CPW in a separate study performed in 2016 to analyze sage-grouse habitat conditions for the NP range (Rice et al. 2016; Appendix I). CPW’s analysis in their 2016 study implemented similar methods to developing RSF models to assess habitat conditions and were therefore considered appropriate for inclusion in this study. The 2016 North Park habitat study performed by CPW differed in two respects concerning 1) scales of analyses, and 2) seasonal cut-off dates. First, CPW developed their seasonal RSF models for the NP population as single-scale models. The scales analyzed were derived from Average Daily Movement (ADM) distances calculated from the available telemetry data for each season. The scales employed for each seasonal analysis were 150.8 m, 83.1 m and 203.6 m for the breeding, summer-fall and winter seasons, respectively. Secondly, CPW utilized marginally different cut-off dates to define seasonal date ranges. The breeding season in the 2016 North Park study was defined as occurring between April 1st to July 15th; the summer-fall season was defined as July 16th to September 1st; the winter season was defined as starting October 1st and ending March 1st. The telemetry data employed in Random Forest models analyzing seasonal habitat conditions in the NP population for this study utilize the same seasonal date ranges as defined above to ensure consistency between Random Forest and RSF model analyses. CPW’s complete 2016 report, titled “Mapping and Prioritizing Seasonal Habitat Use by Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) on a Landscape with Low Density Oil and Gas Development”and supplemental information are included as Appendix I of this report. Detail documentation for this model is in the Olsson Report: AGNC_GRSG_NP_Population_Report.pdf.Middle Park Population Model: The approach to analyzing greater sage-grouse habitat suitability for the Middle Park population follows the procedures outlined in Section 5.0of the Methods Report. The breeding season was defined as March 15th to June 15th, the summer-fall season was defined as June 16th to November 15th, and the winter season was defined as November 16th to March 14th. Detail documentation for this model is in the Olsson Report: AGNC_GRSG_MP_Population_Report.pdf.North Eagle-South Routt Population Model: The approach to analyzing greater sage-grouse habitat suitability for the NESR population follows the procedures outlined in section 5.0 Methodsof the Methods Report. The breeding season was defined as March 15th to June 15th, the summer-fall season was defined as June 16th to November 15th, and the winter season was defined as November 16th to March 14th. Detail documentation for this model is in the Olsson Report: AGNC_GRSG_NESR_Population_Report.pdf.Meeker White River Population Model: The approach to mapping greater sage-grouse habitat suitability for the MWR population differed from the procedures outlined in Section 5.0of the Methods Report. The population contained 97 total marked locations of greater sage-grouse across all seasons, resulting in insufficient data to adequately train habitat models to yield credible and defensible results. For this reason, this project relied on the expertise and knowledge of CPW Wildlife Managers, Moffat County officials and local landowners to manually digitize revised areas of PHMA and GHMA for the MWR population. On October 25th, 2018, CPW and AGNC representatives, as well as AGNC consultants, met with Moffat County officials and local landowners to discuss the current state of the population’s greater sage-grouse and habitat conditions, as well as the ongoing modeling efforts attempted to date. AGNC consultants and CPW informed participants that the population lacked an adequate pool of telemetry locations to perform the same modeling methods implemented on other Colorado populations in assessing habitat conditions and developing revised areas of PHMA and GHMA. For this reason, it was conveyed that the approach for revising management areas in the MWR population would rely on the local officials and landowners, as well as the input provided by the experience and expertise of CPW staff, to identify areas having the highest habitat quality evidence of utilization by greater sage-grouse. The identified areas would subsequently be digitized in a GIS and managed as PHMA, while all remaining areas would be managed according to GHMA guidelines and stipulations.In recent decades, the MWR population has seen considerable areas of lands converted from sagebrush to agricultural uses, thereby reducing the amount of suitable habitats available to the region’s sage-grouse. The conversion of these lands is most pronounced in the north-eastern lobe of the MWR population, as well as the northern portion of the western lobe of the population; the two smaller lobes in the southeast remain unaffected by agricultural operations and are predominately sagebrush habitats with smaller components of mixed-mountain shrubs.The vast majority of the lower elevations occurring in the northern portion of the western lobe of the MWR population are currently utilized in agricultural operations and host little, to no, sagebrush cover. Moving south to the higher elevations in this area of the range, the vegetation transitions to broader expanses of sagebrush intermixed with a moderate component of mixed-mountains shrubs and smaller stands of pinyon-juniper and aspen. While a considerable portion of these lands are currently protected under an assortment of Conservation Easements, these habitat conditions are nevertheless considered marginal in the ability to support greater sage-grouse occupancy. In addition, no sightings of greater sage-grouse have occurred within this region according to recent records or the available telemetry data. Finally, while three historic leks are located within this area, no evidence exists to suggest active lekking occurs within this region. In the prior decade, CPW attempted to establish two leks in this area, but the locations were not utilized and subsequently established as active lekking grounds. For these reasons, all parties agreed the western lobe of the MWR population should be managed in accordance with GHMA guidelines.The two smaller lobes located in the southeast portion of the MWR occupied range exhibit similar vegetation characteristics, though sagebrush cover is more dominant with less intermixed mixed-mountain shrubs, pinyon-juniper and aspen components. While agricultural operations are absent in these areas, there is no evidence to suggest occupancy by greater sage-grouse. There is no record of recent sightings in either area nor any marked locations of sage-grouse in the available telemetry data. Furthermore, there are no records of active, inactive or historic leks that have occurred in either lobe. Consequently, all parties concurred that both areas should be managed in accordance with GHMA guidelines.The northeastern lobe of the MWR population, located directly west of the Town of Meeker, contains the highest quality habitat within the population’s current occupied range. Despite substantial conversion of historic sagebrush lands to agricultural operations in recent decades, evidence suggests continued utilization of the surrounding habitats by greater sage-grouse, though to a far lesser degree as compared to other State populations. All 97 telemetry locations that exist for the MWR population occur in this region, consisting of three individuals collected in 2010. The population’s only active lek occurs in this area, in addition to three historic leks located on the surrounding landscape. In addition, both County officials and local landowners relayed sightings of a single individual within this area in recent years.Based on this evidence, all parties agreed that the northeastern lobe of the MWR population should be managed as both GHMA and PHMA. The northeastern lobe is bisected east to west by County Road 6. Sagebrush habitats north of County Road 6 are of lesser quality and are highly fragmented by agricultural activities, and to a lesser extent, natural gas extraction operations. Accordingly, all areas north of County Road 6 were agreed to be managed consistent with GHMA guidelines. By contrast, lands south of County Road 6 exhibit improved habitat conditions and less fragmentation. Not surprisingly, the majority of available telemetry locations occur within this region, as well as the population’s only known active lek. Therefor, it was collectively decided this region be managed in accordance with PHMA guidelines and stipulation. Furthermore, local officials and landowners indicated sightings of greater sage-grouse in this region beyond the eastern perimeter of the occupied range boundary. For this reason, the MWR boundary was expanded further east to protect additional habitats within the population’s occupied range. Detail documentation for this model is in the Olsson Report: AGNC_GRSG_MWR_Population_Report.pdf.Additional BLM and CPW Edits:The final product from Olsson was a vectorized version of the ensembled models, this resulted in a data set with a number of GIS related issues. 1) The were small grid cell sized (25 meters squared) of a particular habitat type, in a sea of another habitat type. This biologically did not make sense and was at a scale smaller than the BLM minimum mapping unit. The BLM GIS shop ran a process to remove these outlier habitat categorizations to get a more uniform layer. 2) The data were not snapped to the boundary of Colorado, the data set was intended to include range for the entire state of Colorado, however there was a sliver of non-habitat along the Wyoming and Utah border that was missing in the final version from Olsson. The CPW GIS Unit fixed this issue and snapped the Habitat layer to boundary of the state of Colorado, using the official state boundary from the State GIS data warehouse. 3) The data set was converted from a raster without the smooth option resulting in a data set with squared off boundaries at every 25 meters. This cause a large number of vertices in the data making the loading of the data set for staff very difficult. To deal with these issues the Simplify tool was used with the retain critical bends method and a simplification tolerance of 25 meters. 4) Finally, since the data was converted from a raster it no longer matched up with the boundary of the GrSG Occupied Range Layer, also there were a few omissions of occupied range that needed to be added to the final habitat layer. To rectify this the habitat layer, minus the linkage polygons was intersected with the GrSG occupied range layer and all the pieces that were not in common were saved. The pieces of the habitat layer that were outside occupied range were deleted and the pieces that were missing to complete the boundary of occupied range were added and classified as the habitat type of the adjacent polygons. These pieces were small, just triangles that caused the raster converted habitat layer to to be squared off versus the smooth occupied range layer boundary. Then small bits of occupied range that had been noticed as an omission were added.</DIV></DIV></DIV> Seth McClean Colorado Parks and Wildlife GIS Unit Lead 6060 Broadway Denver Colorado Seth.McClean@state.co.us 80216 US 303-291-7163 Seth McClean GreaterSageGrousePriorityHabitatManagementArea_2026 002 156131.285200 424082.045800 4370497.656600 4546734.810000 1 Projected GCS_North_American_1983 Linear Unit: Meter (1.000000) NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_13N <ProjectedCoordinateSystem xsi:type='typens:ProjectedCoordinateSystem' xmlns:xsi='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance' xmlns:xs='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema' xmlns:typens='http://www.esri.com/schemas/ArcGIS/3.3.0'><WKT>PROJCS["NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_13N",GEOGCS["GCS_North_American_1983",DATUM["D_North_American_1983",SPHEROID["GRS_1980",6378137.0,298.257222101]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0.0],UNIT["Degree",0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION["Transverse_Mercator"],PARAMETER["False_Easting",500000.0],PARAMETER["False_Northing",0.0],PARAMETER["Central_Meridian",-105.0],PARAMETER["Scale_Factor",0.9996],PARAMETER["Latitude_Of_Origin",0.0],UNIT["Meter",1.0],AUTHORITY["EPSG",26913]]</WKT><XOrigin>-5120900</XOrigin><YOrigin>-9998100</YOrigin><XYScale>10000</XYScale><ZOrigin>0</ZOrigin><ZScale>1</ZScale><MOrigin>0</MOrigin><MScale>1</MScale><XYTolerance>0.001</XYTolerance><ZTolerance>2</ZTolerance><MTolerance>0.001</MTolerance><HighPrecision>true</HighPrecision><WKID>26913</WKID><LatestWKID>26913</LatestWKID></ProjectedCoordinateSystem> 20260318 08191600 20260318 08191600 20251211 14580500 1.0 FGDC CSDGM Metadata FALSE 150000000 5000 FGDC Enterprise Geodatabase Feature Class dataset EPSG 6.11(3.0.1) 0 20260318 Seth McClean Colorado Parks and Wildlife GIS Unit Lead 6060 Broadway Denver Colorado Seth.McClean@state.co.us 80216 US 303-291-7163 Seth McClean The original data set was created by Olsson Associates and submitted to BLM and CPW. Both agencies did some additional edited, which is described in the details section of this metadata document. The final product from Olsson was a vectorized version of the ensembled models, this resulted in a data set with a number of GIS related issues. 1) The were small grid cell sized (25 meters squared) of a particular habitat type, in a sea of another habitat type. This biologically did not make sense and was at a scale smaller than the BLM minimum mapping unit. The BLM GIS shop ran a process to remove these outlier habitat categorizations to get a more uniform layer. 2) The data were not snapped to the boundary of Colorado, the data set was intended to include range for the entire state of Colorado, however there was a sliver of non-habitat along the Wyoming and Utah border that was missing in the final version from Olsson. The CPW GIS Unit fixed this issue and snapped the Habitat layer to boundary of the state of Colorado, using the official state boundary from the State GIS data warehouse. 3) The data set was converted from a raster without the smooth option resulting in a data set with squared off boundaries at every 25 meters. This cause a large number of vertices in the data making the loading of the data set for staff very difficult. To deal with these issues the Simplify tool was used with the retain critical bends method and a simplification tolerance of 25 meters. 4) Finally, since the data was converted from a raster it no longer matched up with the boundary of the GrSG Occupied Range Layer, also there were a few omissions of occupied range that needed to be added to the final habitat layer. To rectify this the habitat layer, minus the linkage polygons was intersected with the GrSG occupied range layer and all the pieces that were not in common were saved. The pieces of the habitat layer that were outside occupied range were deleted and the pieces that were missing to complete the boundary of occupied range were added and classified as the habitat type of the adjacent polygons. These pieces were small, just triangles that caused the raster converted habitat layer to to be squared off versus the smooth occupied range layer boundary. Then small bits of occupied range that had been noticed as an omission were added. Rational is in the process description. 2020-01-01T00:00:00 CPW GIS Unit Colorado Parks and Wildlife GIS Specialist 317 West Prospect Road Fort Collins Colorado 80526 CPWGISUnit@state.co.us US (970) 472-4300 /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEAAQABAAD/2wBDAAgGBgcGBQgHBwcJCQgKDBQNDAsLDBkSEw8UHRofHh0a HBwgJC4nICIsIxwcKDcpLDAxNDQ0Hyc5PTgyPC4zNDL/2wBDAQkJCQwLDBgNDRgyIRwhMjIyMjIy MjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjL/wAARCACFAMgDASIA AhEBAxEB/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAAAgEDAwIEAwUFBAQA AAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1FhByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkKFhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3 ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZWmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWm p6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXGx8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/8QAHwEA AwEBAQEBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtREAAgECBAQDBAcFBAQAAQJ3AAECAxEEBSEx BhJBUQdhcRMiMoEIFEKRobHBCSMzUvAVYnLRChYkNOEl8RcYGRomJygpKjU2Nzg5OkNERUZHSElK U1RVVldYWVpjZGVmZ2hpanN0dXZ3eHl6goOEhYaHiImKkpOUlZaXmJmaoqOkpaanqKmqsrO0tba3 uLm6wsPExcbHyMnK0tPU1dbX2Nna4uPk5ebn6Onq8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwD3+iii gCvfX9tptq1zdy+XCpALYJ/lVZtc05MeZcGPPTfGy9yO49QabrttHeaabeRC29xt+XIBHIJHccdK wNVs1u4l/dQJfu3lpKQQsjYPByAVbHIOPTBrGpV5XYaR08Wp2cxYRzhtpw2Afl+vpUjX1ogBa6gU HjmQCuIVp7e5tUvGlF822CONrljt5UM4AIzkE8g9vat25udRiC2UNqbqQKA8zptVgc8jtxjkEjrW EsVJPYfKbK6hZOcLdwMc44kB5/On/arf/nvF/wB9iuHmv4DOIvtiMbtMSTCPL5K7QoCj5sB26d/T BFWbLVINNmka4iuJYzIwW4htysKBjuOc9Dk4xzgKO+ap4mVvh/r7gsdoCCAQcg0Vy8Wt2N3Cktta CZpJNgQJlwe5IAPA9ar/ANj6muqw3krwyReZiSFAvC5OCMr0xjI+tSsX/MrfMOU7CiuRGj3Or21j NdM9pLC2JY1AHmY6nIAIPXpx3HGDW3Dp1tBjajMQu353Z/T1PXjr/jRLHQXTUOVmnRXPLaXj2z/2 fJGAszo63EkiHAJzyp468HHTHNZzwzu7Ge8vY/OIWAQ3UoHXqCT/ABA9844Hoa39ts2txWOyorlY o7uTULeGPUnktsDc4mYOOn3gT1OMAe54446qrhNTV0IKKKKsAopjTRJKkTSIJHzsQsMtjrgd6zLe 4vLe98m7dmj5HmSBVB64IwOnHOTn5hUuVrAa1FNR0kXcjKynupyKZcGQQMYidwweBk4zzj3xmm3Z AS0VXtJDIrky7wG46Zx+H41YojJSSaAKKKKYBRRRQBBdiLyQ00vlAMNr5xtY/KPbvjn1rNnjeaPY 6oZZIyVeI5WVfT265HocHPUVLr0Xn2CxMITC0iBzK2AORj684pYUU6LbtbA5hQeX5mBjHBB6Dpke lc9WCk7x+JbDTMFNDS71FTes003lFIT5bIuFC/eB7A9/VuOnEOr3V4j75bG4QiMRrHHMztGeTuIQ 8jn17V0dtPa6rbLPH8yhjgg4ZWB55B4/A1mapaaqIZBbFbgeYXiJIEkPB4DNnPzY7jjI6cDkjVhL Sas19xVn0OfjspDOHj8uK1ljkcTTbC4depXDZUgg8g9MA9KNPhOpXey6mf7ALdJCiFcOiAA7sdfm T/0LpSDT4dTsZIhM0OsJMzTQzS/KCW5P0x/XgmtTTNJDW0cywvBATNI7p/rWP3RtwBgEZPAHanKd k7vUC/oAaLfAsJCeWjmUxmPdkcfLjBPGScnk/gNyuT8K61c3bz/bVceY2YcZIwMg4XsBjrwM1sXm p6ewNvNKqvlfklJjIBIGeR79DXJVhL2jTRSehpJIkq7o3Vx0ypzUE19BDIYmc+Zj7oHPtz0/OsQw X2mvPNDNPc3N1nybdm3JGOpY4x1OBkYA3AdBmqmv2d4lo9tBBHtYI7TE7jJjA2kYP8R3c9h2xRGk nK1wub+hCSawniup1nDOw2qm3AJIPPfJ3Vox2VvFIHRCCCW++cZ9cZxn3rn7Kd/D+kwNeSF9qOpE rAPtBJU9T6qD1xx0xW1ZataXlssguIg3lq7jdjbn69s8Zr1qUozivIzehT1WO5FxatJPuge4Eflx qAfmyM5IJ4BJ/DP02qozW0lxcxXKSxuilSnbaOMkEdc9Pp+Ob1ard6CCiiiqAwtdtopbu3kubqS3 gRHbchx864IOfUDd+GfesfxBp0Nvbpey3DTReYpkM0jMufug7QeeN2e/PFQ+K9Xuf7Sl09ykdqpQ EdS2cNnp64XuMZrKtYpItA1G4NyPJjdI4w8fyOEJJ+VePvMOc9Qea46yanzKXyKRf0LxBa6LeTW0 s4ktZJSPNXhF7DCkdODnr2967+ORJolkidXjYZVlOQR7V5rFHZXlj5Uvlw3Kkf6QGbleCCDzgnqe mB9MV1vg66afw9BHI5aSEbPmXB29VyP93FbUp30YmjYjtvLn8wSNj5vl+pyanoorVJLRCCiiimAU UUUAVruKG5aKCeJ3UtvBAO0FfU++eh681LLCJbdoQdoK4GB0/D0qjqNy6XEcENyY5jE8ix4B8zGO OQT+XPNZ1rrersoin0dzc7s4VtqbNowSx4yTnjqPSsnVgm4yY7Mlv7C7W0gECqJo97GaJQWDc7Rg 9jk59Kn0+xvrGAxyOty7MWZ2lYcnHQEHA/E85rJPjZoPOF5pv2d4yV8szEsxGOR8oGOvOe3Stqx1 ddVsJZrSGZJFj3Ks0eASQSOeh7d+hHrUypU6i1C7RjXumXFrJfTbEIlVpGlZ9wUngDBycDoTjp0x isbT7e4ANtKGllulZLiKRpVlUsuScgbep6nj5hk10yXAtNRlkuZJjujZgJISTKoUnAwAARtPHf05 BqOC+sLd7eE3dssgUGf99ht4UKC3PPQgg+3pXPUl7NJxW/6DWpQsFvdNt2tlSB5JlLRbSI3kBzjk kAYB42qcccCsrXZr2e/SZxbLOjeVFHgOZCDjbt+boWJ5wOR6Vv6w6RaXD5Ti6RyESNlViw9V45PA 55459K5K0thNBc38Gju7xOuFkkIKkAEqFAG7I+p5H1qKVpJ1HYb7HZ6NFObq5muNS+1NuZEj3L8g DcnAA9B+XvWySAMk4rj4n0qxiNy/+iIcsJrZn2szDnaMkBhgjDDoK1LS6udShQyoPIBLANCXaRST sJA4AK4J9/aueVJylfp6DuW9Qs4dTgZWVVdMeVM6g4OQeM9RwPrXLXzT2lzYSapaTCGNm86RCERm PKhdp6DHtnGT1rqG0wOd0trJIo7s6hlz/dC8f/r4zmoLqJk05mmna7tiQPJaPBI6YJwW4PPTPFax g6bUXs+/9MNxmhyCbVrwR3S3KwxjYRwi7iSAMEjpjJq0980UqNJJKbjgvD90Ko68enPXnJHWqvhm W1kuJzDYmwcRLvg4weT83qOQRzipppft2rW7xRBWVSy+b/y0wxAO0ehyQc9Dmu1xtGK5tvxIN+ii iugR5vf6kqeKtSc2yXud0UcRVSzP8q4I6kAZHT1qgj3MQWMLOCk/mSJKwCxksQcA9f4fm65z+O7r yHWNWmSyVY7uBWt5YZUAMqnJVlbkYyM9iMZ4qxp2ka19ofa9tFbNDsn8398txJ8wZiODyeuSPxFc 1SPvWjqykYt/LHdaPBp0cF2LmKcrLxuYqScgY+9/DhfpjIGa7Tw7pcOnaZC6x7J5IlEp2lS2MkZH qMkVydjo+rW3iKCCa0eO1S4Vg8ILIFUlxgnoO3PTJ9a9ErSlDkQmwooorUQUUUUAFFFFAFG7itry 6W2mRhIqb45UYqy84IDDkdPxFUlj1OAOLiW0IbCq8khAwB0xgcn/AD2FT3eZdVW38pWzGrbn6DG/ t3/+vmpP7ItniKyrudlIZhwOfQdK55wVSVpR26jvYwrzwva3UpuzqQiupT+6aNsKDghgMkkgk/h6 cmsyS+13TNHWGaeZZpZdodvn8tTnBJxuyWB6+ldRcxy28JWRoIzIxQTAAZABIDgjGMDB/TFVUlaS FobeNJ3I2tHIozx9DgAH1xjtms+eaXKo2+Y7IytAlk1KC/nWYTz28p2ySoFYqd2Oo46BhnkYx0qv ZT3eparHpU0xJaM3C3AXBQ/eRsYGOcZ55zjPr2FppVtb2csHkRJ5xYyiPvknv7ZrkLjwhqv9vmW1 uPJjZB/pMe1NrD2HPPt/KtfZJtSaFc1jpiS2U9rHCsl7bOhjV2+UgEH5f7o5Yce2R2rOt9eeG4k0 +6tvMa3kYyzK4BQg4JAKjPfn61vDSYtMeG4glZFXd9odmLMxbHz5JJ6gZzkY+lVZ/DdreSvdgHzp GHnjeVyRnPPoc9xnB/Cs6lOMvda1Q0zGvJozc/aLO5SLz5fOeNo28twN2CcjIyOCcYJIxk5rpdFu JbiR2zbNEyliYSTg5wBzj0bt/OsvUftFvpsFpHZx/wBnlljbZJyyZUADOTzzk4Jxz14o8IWepW6C WaF7aGQEvC6BAMcLheueMknH48YjDxu+btoDOtqL7ND54m8sCQc5Hr0zj1561LRXdYkwG8m4uri5 tYTCYw0d0CAm/k9wDzwfQ4INTq0jnfLJGtwqhUWKQ8Enqfx29c9K2Kw9bvRZbXMcgSJdxMYGQgKk sAeODt9evT15a1K7UrlJm5RSKwZQynIIyDS11EnD6O7w65LDPNHI81yfO8xNxZdpwQx6AttwPb2r tkRY1CooVR0CjArz7ULb7VcPC4hjmYvLJISdo+bIVucL3H4/iei0y/ns54ra8le5juMGO6HKByT8 n6fyrCFZX5XuOx0NFFFbiCiiigAooooAKKKKAKOowKYvtAMgkjKkFD6HuPQZJ/zirNtK01ukjoEL c4DZ47HPuOaWeFbiB4XLBXGCVODj61SsyVu2t4ZHaG3AjwSCAAoAHqTnP6+1Q9H6gXZZoodnmyKm 9ti7jjJ9P0rG1pYpruO2WRo5tm8CNirMSflwQf7wHX17cVo6jayXUCeVs8yKRZVD/dYjsTg4rD0z WrXUvEDxfP52Sy/J8mAMYB6npnJA6CpqXa5V1GjqKoanpx1BAjMGjHPlMSAT2OR0x16HpV+oLq9t bGMPdTpEp6FjjNaNJqzERM0ltBb24ZWkK7dzAkcDr157d6YltGsUaMqvsULkjrilnVXeK6ilEgkK 7BncpB7rzgcZOe9Q3EkRulilJwFDBACdxORzj0/mRXmYxzdS3Q0jsPnnQAAbiRIvRT2IJGemeOlX 0dZEV0IZWGQR3FYdtb25t9tzPGG34YSRjfljlQd2Rnp2/wAa2reBLa3jhTO1BgZ6munCU5U4tPYm TuSUUUV1khXL+JodSDyNCYJba5jW3EL7g+456EH6E+w/PqKwtbuPtM8GmxNP/rN1w8A+aNQNw7H2 /ED1qKiXK7jQttrE8Vs3n2wcIoKvGVQFABuOGbIwc4/DpW1G6yRrIudrAEZGODWHB4dg8qVotQuH FwpEmQhR8/7O3j8MVqw3to58uOVBtOwD7oz0AGev4VMOdfG0DMnxBZ7ruzvDLJGqt5W+Nwpjzk5y eMHAH5eprDms7u98MeXLctutZVICJ85IHTHU53cdOx71uarePqFvfWFtbGWRDs+8OSAD0PGPx6+9 YGmWVtbXHkSRvPHIEMUBdsEkAqcMdpXO488jng4Jrnrr3uZf1YaOjtdVNiI7W+cycErcqchlGPmb PT7yjIyMnr1oufEH+hvc2lrO8MZBeaSPaoTjJAJBPWucVDBdXMMli0xJjSImNECP/CjoowevXB4x 9R2tvAW09ILhS2U2OGPJHTnFbUZTatITK+jaqNWtWlMLROjbWU859CDWjUMFrBbFjDGFL/ePUn6n 8T+Zqatle2ogooopgFFFFAEF3btcwGNZniP95Dj/AD/9anwQRW0KwwRrHGvRVGAKkooAK8xk0waJ qrtKd8UN0hLmMkKpIOWbrj7p6jk49cd/rGprpGmvdtGZNpACg46nFclc6+Nc1KayhsHmhaHy5DAw 3j5hzkjGP5VnUdlcaO7VldQysGUjIIOQRVW/0621KFY7lCdpLIynBU4Iz+vQ8VwUWrazoKPsgY2q zsTE2C3K8KxySMcHA/rTH8Y6pHiYk+RJBsjDYy5BwzcYwevPQY+tNTjJXQrHWWGm3ulS3SvL59kn zwF2wyA5LDAGM5/D6VoNBHNdqHByY25BwRgrivPrTxnqShYZ50uIpJF8zemGCNywB9uRk+vtXodr LFcXDPFIjrGpXKMDyTyPw21zTpr28Wlvf8ik9Ah0u1hnMwTdITks3c8c/Xgc1doorrSS0RIUUUUw CqeqIrabO5RmaONnTb94EDgjHOfpVyszXLme108SW8pjfeBkR7ycg8AfXH60ntqBz2ma99hlukmh jDu6yEvNzEhJAEjnPPcDHRqmkv4LtEmghY+XHuVI0ZgWDEnnABGBkDIIx0q1a6Nb6h4Wjt0iaCYr zJJGQ5cHJJyM4JH5dOlZUdpqUfi2KAlreOcLJhNpUKgPGVwSOg6Ac8g4rBxklZajOkg0mB3F2k7A ug2NbnYpU85xzknOc/Sqtz4aRZbe5sZXjngOQGbIbg9yDyTzk571tW8PkRbN245JzjA5OeB2qWtV BctrAYttZ217di6mUw36lftEaMcOU+7n2zgjHtnNbVVXsI2uxciSVHzkhXwG6dfyHHSrVUkIKKKK YBRRRQAUUUUAFFFFAFa/ngt7N3uQrRHClX+6STgA54GTgZPFcP8AZ10q8uZ9JcxIcGayYfvIzjJZ P7wHcen5V3lzbRXds9vOm+JxhlzjNYVvol/DLHIzaY7xhQrtaktwAud2eCVUflUyipKz2A4ydNQl uZZmklmYpt4c5dDjlT0+6T1H3c8dcULJhFcz6fFA80U2ExsV2R+RuHBBONwGDjB6+npSaOZQUuLa 3jMasIpLdiAd2cgqRwMsfXr9RXL3nhj+zp9OmJYqZx54Ee4kb88N64AAwMnn6VHIrWHchvfD15aa BiNYZrNVWRJSmZATgnaCBtB7555A7ZrofCWhzabC11NOZBcASonzKULDkEZx6du1dP0oq1FJiCii iqAKKKKACiiigAqre2EN8q7y6SIcpLG21l5B4P4CrVFADY0ZIlRpGkYDBdsZb3OAB+Qp1FFABRRR QAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABTJJY4U3yuqL6scU+qOqWct5bKIXAkjbzFVhlXI6A+1JgXEd ZI1kRgyMAVI7g06se0vtTnnijazRBn99uUrtHqDnnPbj/wCtsUJ3AKKKKYBRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABR RRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFF FABRRRQAUUUUAf/Z