Laserfiche WebLink
<br />this creek. Certainly wildli[e enhancement is desirable ,but in this <br />case it is subjective, since while substitution of new different <br />habitat allows invasion of species hitherto unknown in the area, it <br />does so at the expense of density reductions to endemic flora and <br />fauna. <br />Q (b)(2) Describe how barriers, especially fences, have been minimized with <br />reference to lazge anima] movement (in accordance with 30 CFR <br />817.97(d)(2)). <br />R Fences, if properly designed, (See response to 784.21(a)(1)) aze not <br />barriers to big game movement. However, Northern has minimized <br />fence construction to date and only plans to build one additional <br />fence around the Milk Creek Railroad Loadout Loop (see response <br />to 784.21(a)(1)). Other potential barriers are the surface facilities <br />• associated with the entire pla:med operation. However, no <br />evidence of inhibition of big game migration has been noted to date <br />(see response to 784.21(a)(1)). Northern does not think any known <br />and important wildlife migration routes occur on its vazious leases, <br />but this determination should be made by the Colorado Division of <br />Wildlife (see response to 783.20(b)(c)). <br />Q (3) Describe in detail elk utilization of the proposed refuse disposal <br />site and plans to lure them to new azeas. It appeazs from the <br />application (v7, p. O-1) that elk utilize this area in winter. If so, <br />describe the new areas and how the elks' needs for cover will be <br />met. Describe the procedure used by Colowyo's mine (mentioned is <br />v7, p. O-1) to lure elk to new habitat; include a discussion of their <br />success. Contact Ed Hollowed of the Bureau of Land Management <br />(303/878-5084) for guidance on the mitigation of impacts to elk <br />neaz the refuse disposal site and in the design of alternative winter <br />range azeas. <br />• <br />0.14 <br />