REV02454 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Although suggestions are being provided to you on potential methods of determining wildlife impacts and wildlife mitigation, it should be noted that it is Getty/CYCC's ultimate responsibi- lity to prepare a committed wildlife management/mitigation plan. Our agency and CDOW will assist BLM, MLRB, and OSM in determining the merit of pour company's wildlife mitigation proposals. Further thoughts on impact assessment and mitigation techniques are as follows: Habitat value loss - We have proposed two basic methods of assessing_ relative-habitat value of the Little Middle Creek Tract. One method, a species specific habitat analysis (e.a. HEP), involves assessment of area importance to key, indicator species of wildlife. As such, known measurable factors of habitat suitability for given species would be compared with habitat conditions on the Little Middle Creek Tract. '' The other method is to determine (bp mapping) refined vegetative cover types on the Little Middle Creek tract and compare relative availability of those vegetation types within the local area (within, for example, a 3 to 5 mile radius of the proposed lease). Comparative importance of habitats (cover types) to wildlife, both within the tract and control areas. could be evaluated through intensive wildlife baseline inventories of pre-determined study plots. Study plots of uniform size would be randomly selected but stratified by cover type. Within each study plot avian and mammalian species composition and abundance could be evaluated by standardized methodology. Thus, the relative importance of the Little Middle Creek Tract to the total wildlife community could be more realistically depicted. Both methods of assessment would require at least one full field season and cannot be completed in a time frame that would permit proper review and mitigation development prior to your proposed construction schedule. Our concern is that mining of the Little Middle Creek Tract will result in permanent Loss of what we believe are structurally diverse and extremely valuable wildlife habitats. You and Kent have stated your interest in pursuing experimental reclamation practices that you feel have high potential for re- establishing habitat structures and densities similar to those that now exist. Obviously, we would favor such habitat reclamation if no long-term net loss of relative habitat value occurs. Indeed, we would prefer such mitigation over other alternatives. Therefore, we agree that the feasibility of aspen revegetation should be thoroughly examined and perhaps given greatest priority.