Laserfiche WebLink
<br />n', ';o,(:il' <br />U .~.~ !~, ,) "I .n <br /> <br />Impacts on the MB-SW elk herd would be anticipated in a~l 'alternatives due to <br />habitat modification and increased human use throughout the PA and LA. The <br />combination of impacts on calving, summer, transition and winter ranges and <br />migration corridors would lead to reduced habitat suitability and increased <br />stress on this elk population, resulting in changed behavior and reduced habitat <br />utilization. Table S-7 displays the calculated habitat reduction by alternative <br />under both mitigation scenarios. <br /> <br />under all alternatives, half of the current calving habitat (which currently <br />supports 60 to BO percent of the calving) would potentially be affected by <br />private, land development. With partial mitigation, less than half of the <br />suitable calving I).abitat that would remain under Alternative A would remain <br />suitable under Alternatives E, F, and G. Alternative B would maintain 95 percent <br />of the post-Altern~tive A suitable calving habitat; Alternative E, 17 percent; <br />Alternative G, 56 percent, and Alternative H, 72 percent. The full mitigation <br />plan can increase remaining suitable habitat by approximately 30 percent of <br />current, in each alternative except Alternative E. <br /> <br />Elk summer range would be the most affected in Alternatives E, F, and G, and <br />unaffected in Alternatives Band H. Summer uses on Burnt Mountain would <br />adversely impact summer range located between the Tiehack and Snowmass Ski Areas. <br />A summer use program headquartered at Elk Camp would result in fewer impacts, due <br />to the distance to and topographic barriers between the primary elk summer range. <br />Transition range impacts would result from direct habitat impacts, maintenance <br />actions associated with ski area management, and increased recreational use of <br />NFSL. The full mitigation plan would increase the amount of suitable <br />summer/transition habitat an additional 20 percent of current. In all <br />alternatives, approximately half of the pre-development winter range would remain <br />after private land buildout. <br /> <br />Some portions of habitat within the LA would be expected to remain suitable as <br />migration corridors in all alternatives. Migration corridors are not considered <br />to be limiting on NFSL. NFSL on the northeast end of the permit area would <br />likely become more' important as security areas to migrating deer and elk after <br />they have negotiated the migration corridors on private land along Owl Creek <br />Road. Due to private land development within the LA and increased traffic on <br />Brush Creek and Owl Creek Roads, elk and deer would be expected to move more <br />quickly though the remaining migration corridors in all alternatives, which would <br />result in increased use of both winter and spring range as these animals move <br />onto those areas earlier and spend additional time foraging on those ranges. <br /> <br />Summary . 17 <br /> <br />