PERMFILE73238 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NOU-10-00 12:58 FROM:DIU.WILDL~ WEST RG 970-255-6111 T0~038328106 PRGE:003 The plan seems to address some of the impacts that will occur at the projea site. In reviewhtg the referral packet, the summary states that the general plan is to minimally affect wildlife by sparing as much tnat~e cottonwood forested lands, as well as imparting wetland and slough habhat as little as posstble. Most of the better quality habitat e~asts on the western half of the pertmtted area, and the greatest impacts to wildlife will occur in those locations where the native riparian vegetation is domittaat. 1 would like to suggest several ideas or strategies to minitoize negative impacts to wildlife. Creation of shallow wetland areas around the ponds wtll encourage waterfowl aad shorebird utr3zatioa Shallow water areas are also beneficial to amphibians, small native fish, and small mammals like raccoons and muskrat. Some of dte stockpiled merburdea material could be used to lessen the steep slopes of the ponds and could be used to raaadmve the shoreline surface area by creating a meandering shoreline with coves and inlets. Small islands located on the ponds could also provide nesting aad feeding areas for waterfowl. A basin-like gravel pit filled with water is not very productive for wildlife species that currently utilize the area. Ravegetation. of the permitted area wtll be necessary to mitigate for loss of riparian habitat. G~ttreatly the site supports some Tamarisk and Russian Olive, as well as other non-native vegetation. The increase ofvehicular traffic aad other mining disturbance will increase the propensity for mo:desirable vegetation to establish. The first phase of to-vegetetioa should be done in order to establish erosion control with fast growing rnateria] and then estab}ishing woody shrubs and trees in the later phase to establish cover and food for wildlife species. The removal of Tamarisk and Russian Olive wt71 be critical in treating s heshhy riparian habitat during the phases of re-vegetation. Upon request 1 can provide the applicmt detailed information regarding vegetation types flat would be beneficial to wrdlife. usual and noise buffers should be considered wherever possible to reduce impacts to wt7dfif'e over the life of the gravel operation. The increase in noise from vehicles and mining machinery, along wish the increase of human activity, will Likely force some of the wildlife species to abandon the area. $ttffers could consist of eahancem~t of woody vegetation along the barriers that are shown on the plan maps. The vegetative buffers could screen visual and noise impacts from some of the more importa~. habitat areas such as the heron rookery and the slough and wetland areas. Cottonwood and willow plantings would grow quickly and provide some buffering effects along these barrier zones. I am concerned with the renewable resource mining area and its proxmmRy to the heron rookery. The disturbance m this area over a long period of time, could force the harems to abandon the rookery. The renewable resource area could be downsved allowing a greater buffer botween the disturbance area aad the heron nesting area. As mentioned above, the gravel pit ponds wr71 occur in the Colorado River basin below 6,500 feet elevation, which the 1:ish and Wildlife Service has determined likely to rapport non-native fish populations that can adversely impact native fish populations. 1'he pit ponds should be designed to make slue they could be drained if m fact they do become popuhued with non-native fish species. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service along with the Colorado Ihvision of Wildlife can provide guidance um the construction offish barriers and other.methods of control. The Colorado Division of Wrdlife would appreciate the opportunity to work with the landowners and applicants on a public Eshiag or htmtiag easement on the property when mining operations have concluded. The property could provide an oppnrtunhy for waterfowl hunting or possble fishing access