Laserfiche WebLink
<br />EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br /> <br />Mitigation for impacts to wetland habitat, wildlife, and the endangered plant, Astragalus ostertlcLrtii due <br />to the proposed Muddy Creek reservoir were discussed in both the Draft EIS (USDA-FS 1987) and <br />Supplemental Draft EIS (USDAJUSDI 1988) for the proposed project. Following its selection as the <br />Preferred Attemative, additional detailed mitigation planning was conducted resulting in this plan. <br />Impacts and mitigation are discussed for three resources: wetland habitat, big game, and the <br />endangered plant. Table I summarizes the impacts, mitigating measures proposed to offset those <br />impacts, and the expected results of mitigation. The overall goal of mitigation was to replace all <br />impacted values for each discipline as close to the area of impact as possible. <br /> <br />A team comprised 01 federal, state, and private biologists was formed in 1985 to guide the impact and <br />mitigation process. Approximately 892 acres 01 wetland habitat would be impacted by the proposed <br />reservoir project, but all the functional values of the impacted wetlands except wildlife habitat would be <br />replaced by the reservoir. Therefore wildlife values were the only functional values that required <br />mitigation. Impacts to wetland wildlife values were evaluated using HEP procedures, a method of <br />quantifying values on different areas using wildlife indicator species. Models for three indicator species <br />were selected by the team for use in evaluating Muddy Creek wetland habitat: beaver, yellow wa.rtJler, <br />and a modified elk model. ~e EPA and Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concern over use of these <br />models, primarily the elk model, near the end of the mitigation development process in 1988. An <br />additional model, the general wetlands habitat model, was developed and used to meet the concerns <br />of these agencies. <br /> <br />The HEP procedures were used to evaluate the wildlife value of the 892 acres of impacted wetland <br />habitat at the reservoir site using the four selected models (Table I). The same models were used to <br />evaluate present conditions on the mitigation area selected by the team, the bottomland along Muddy <br />Creek below the proposed dam. Management actions (Table I) that would be required to improve the <br />wildlife values of the mitigation site were developed and include removal of livestock grazing, <br />development of an irrigation system, planting wetland shrubs and trees and developing permanent <br />pond habitat (Table I). Pond and cottonwood habitats were not adequately covered by the HE? <br />analysis, therefore, their wildlife values were mitigated by acre-far-acre replacement. Mitigation would <br />require about 410 acres of the lower Muddy Creek site plus an additional 40 to 50 acres at another site. <br /> <br />Big game impacts involved loss of 1,523 acres of winter range for deer and elk, potential increased <br />future depredation on agricultural areas, and increased potential for big game-automobile collisions on <br />Highway 40. Mitigation included fertilization and/or vegetation manipulation on 800 acres near Wollard <br />Mountain and on 125 to 175 acres near the wetlands mitigation site; hay would be provided to attract <br />big game away from agricultural areas, and signs would be placed along Highway 40 to reduce collision <br />hazards (Table I). <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Impacts to Osterhout's milkvetch included direct loss of 18 acres of habitat by inundation, disturbance <br />of habitat by power line reconstruction, and indirect impacts due to recreational use of the plant's <br />habitat along the proposed reservoir. Mitigation included a 5-year conservation study on the plant and <br />its habitat. and securing two offsite populations by purchase exchange or conservation easement. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In addition to the three major areas of mitigation, additional enhancement and conservation measures <br />are discussed. These include endangered fish conservation, stocking the reservoir with game fish, <br />monitoring reservoir water quality, and enhancing fish habitat in the taitwater area <br /> <br />Costs for the entire mitigation, enhancement and conservation package are projected at over $2 million <br />in 1989 dollars. <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />} <br /> <br />111 <br /> <br />t <br />