Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• Suitability Ratings with respect to wildlife are associated with the importance of the area <br />as Wintering Habitat, which has a High rating. Importance of the area as Migration <br />Habitat is given as Low, while the area rates Moderate with respect to breeding habitat. <br />These ratings appear somewhat inconsistent with documented seasonal use patterns and <br />site specific conditions of the site. It appears that the High rating as wintering Habitat <br />ignores the fact that ice covers the site for 2 to 3 months during winter and thus, these <br />wetlands are not available to wintering avian species. It is also surprising that since 7 of <br />the 9 species of waterfowl, and virtually all 10 of the species of Wetland-Dependent Birds <br />occupy the site as migrants, the migration rating is only Low. The wildlife breeding rating <br />for the site is given as Moderate which is surprising since the site is extensively utilized <br />as a livestock feedlot and calving area during the nesting period, and the native <br />vegetation has been modified to the point that it contains essentially no habitat sufficiently <br />.. protected from livestock use to facilitate nesting and brood rearing activities. WET <br />appears to exaggerate the potential of the site as wintering and breeding habitat and <br />-.. -.: -.underestimates the potential of the site as migration habitat..Additional comments relative <br />to these apparent discrepancies is found in the Discussion Section of this report. <br />-. _ According to the Summary of Evaluation Results found in Appendix C,10 functions <br />-. .- - -: =~- of this site possess High habitat suitability ratings. Seven of these values correspond to <br />_~, the hydrologic functions.of the site and three values are associated with wildl'rfe use: -The <br />---=_. functional analysisis also seemingly inconsistent with respect to:its treatment of aquatic <br />values. For example, all of the fishery ratings are in the. Low to -Moderate probability <br />• .: rating category. Using essentially the same data the Aquatic '.Diversity/ Abundance <br />--- -Ratings are given as High. Realistically; these ratings-should be equivalent since the <br />.: -habitat requirements for both groups are very similar. 'As-mentioned above, it appears <br />..that WET improperly addresses the wildlife functions in light of the existing site specific <br />conditions and apparent biological cross checks. <br />DISCUSSION <br />According to the Summary of Evaluation Results found in Appendix C, the highest <br />probability ratings correspond with hydrologic functions associated with these wetlands. <br />This finding is consistent with existing experience for this area. Although these functions <br />are associated with the highest probability ratings generated by this evaluation, with <br />respect to their Effectiveness and Opportunity functions, it appears that given the <br />abundance of these types of sites, the Social Significance of these wetland functions is <br />somewhat lower. <br />Wildlife values generated using the WET Methodology for this site appear to be <br />much more limited in their application. The importance of the site as wintering habitat is <br />grossly overestimated. Examination of the Keys used to determine these functions for <br />Wildlife Diversity/Abundance for Wintering on pages 134 and 135 of the WET Manual <br />reveals that greater importance is placed on physical site considerations than on the <br />• availability of accessible waters or wetlands during this period. These assumptions <br />appear flawed for this region and result in a distortion regarding the wintering importance <br />for such sites. Physical site factors are meaningless when the site is unavailable due to <br />