Laserfiche WebLink
54 <br />• 1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br /> <br /> <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />not this vertical type thing that we see quite often. <br />It is pretty gentle of a slope. <br />It's been designed actually for easy <br />access to wildlife so I don't think fencing would be <br />necessary, <br />MR. DONALD: Has the Division of <br />Wildlife been contacted for any guidance or counsel <br />on wildlife? <br />MR. RENNER: Yeah, we've received <br />comments from the Division of Wildlife. Some of <br />their concerns regarded impacts to winter migration, <br />the potential for successful revegetation in relation <br />to wildlife use and such like this. <br />And it was felt that these impacts -- <br />I'm sorry -- the other concern they voiced was <br />impacts to the aquatic system of the Rito Seco. It <br />was felt that the migratory and wintering impacts <br />would be short term and would probably be mitigated <br />by suppressed activities during those short periods <br />of time during the winter months and such. <br />The impacts to the Rito Seco itself <br />would appear to be minimal provided that the sediment <br />control and the haul road crossings are constructed <br />as a group. <br />They did not voice a concern with the <br />