2018-01-03_PERMIT FILE - C1981010A (12)

Home Browse Search

r 9 •- • f Gr`� mine plan area, adjacent area and the Williams Fork Mountains. Displacement of deer fawning within the mine plan area due to mining activities will not be detrimental to fawning activities. Adequate fawning habitat exists.adjacent to the areas of active mining to meet the fawning requirements of resident deer i populations. I* Winter Range: -far nu.�QLe� The mine plan area is considered both important winter range and critical win- ter range by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1978) as illustrated in Map M21. Pellet group"•census__data_ (Figure,_2..4-1.)_show_anIncrease of deer usage inwinter months_in_both the sage -grass and mountain shrub vegetation types,. Kling (1975) described a pattern of deer activity based on aerial surveys dur- ing the winters of 1973 and 1974. This study indicated that mule deer numbers on the mine plan area were generally low during the first census each year, increased for a short period as snow levels increased on higher elevations, decreased after snow levels on the mine area became too deep for the animals to tolerate, then increased again in the spring when snow melted off the slopes. During the periods of heaviest snow accumulation, the deer concen- trate at the base of the slope or on areas with less snow, such as southfacing slopes or windswept areas. During periods when snow is not deep enough to limit deer mobility, the animals were usually observed scattered throughout the census area. Appendix E provides big game aerial survey methods, survey area, and data derived from flights made in 1973 through 1979. Table 2.4-3 lists the average minimum number of big game sighted and their locations within and adjacent to the mine plan area. Figure 2.4-2 shows the average minimum number of deer sighted in the east portion and west portion of the mine plan area while Figure 2.4-3 illustrates average minimum number of deer sighted with respect to the north and south facing slopes. 2-146