APPCOR10107 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~. 7 • • 2. To enhance pronghorn +ind mule deer. populations, by encourag- ing the expansion of pal.atablc shrubs and fortis. 3. To enhance other fauna] populations, by encouraging an increase in plant biomass and diversity. 4. To minimize disturbances from mining activities. We view the mitigation plan, not as a Uig game restoration project, but as a "featured species" plan for sage grouse, within an overall "plan for species richness". The first con- sideration was derived from meetings held earlier with the regulatory agencies, during which emphasis was placed on sage grouse. The second consideration takes into account L-he multiple purpose planning mandates under which the [3ureau of Land Manage- ment currentl}• operates, as well as addressing the global need to preserve biological diversity. In view of legislative and scientific advancements since Plummer's publication, we do not believe ttrat tl~e ecological opportunity costs and impacts on non-target wildlife of methods such as Plummer describes leave been properly assessed. In short, we believe that economic-extensive metltocls, which place emphasis on natural process, e.g., plant succession, should be given precedent over economic intensive measures, e.y., cabling and fertilization, the impacts of which cannot be fully evaluated at this time. we have proposed a monitoring program, specifically in order to measure the efficiency of 'the mitigation program. It is possible that additional mitigation measures may become necessary. However, it is equally probable that mechanical and other methods of manipulation might exaggerate impacts on the local fauna, especiaJ.ly on non-target species. In selecting an ecological study area as the principal mitigation program, we were influenced by the following observations: a. Response of vegetation to protection from grazing within research natural areas in similar community types. b. Response of vegetation to protection from grazing in nearby wildlife refuges. c,~ Response of vegetation to protection in range exclosures in similar community types, d. Response of vegetation to protection within production .sampling cages on the permit area. e. Response to vegetation within management areas esCabl.ished by mining companies in similar community types in Wyoming and Montana.