2007-01-10_REVISION - M1978314 (2)

Home Browse Search

~.' I~iP)~Js ~ J/~ys sss df~ Page 1 of 2 Crosby, Erica ~rn_ ~ g~~_ ~ fL} From: Shuey, Steve ~~ ese. ass d ~ ~) ~~ d4~ Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:36 AM / / ~ / To: Mathews, Dan Cc: Crosby, Erica; Mount, Carl; Berry, David / Subject: RE: Greater Sage Grouse ~ 1~ / CN-Ol Thanks Dan. I did get some info from Janet, but this helps. The applicant for the mine expansion has agreed to almost all of DOW's suggestions for operational and reclamation measures to minimize impacts. So the objector's withdrew their comments yesteMay. However, we will use this information to keep an eye on the site and propose additional measures as necessary in the future. Thanks a bunch. From: Mathews, Dan Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:17 AM To: Shuey, Steve Subject: RE: Greater Sage Grouse Did you get anything helpful? Off the top of my head, the biggest issues with coal minelsage grouse conflicts in Colorado were at the mines in North Park; Marr Strip, Canadian, and Bourg. Those mines have all been closed down and reclaimed for I think at least a decade or so. There was generally good big sagebrush reestablishment, and I know from personal observation that there has been sage grouse use of the reclaimed areas (I think within 6 to 10 years following initial reclamation). Sagebrush reestablishment is the biggest obstacle to successfully reclaiming sage grouse habitat; native bunchgrasses and forbs are also necessary to provide adequate feed and cover, but establishment of suitable grasses and forbs in sagebrush zones is generally more reliable than establishment of big sagebrush. In northwestern Colorado, big sagebrush establishment has been more successful at higher elevations, where sagebrush types grade into mountain shrub habitats. Generally, mountain big sagebrush (A. tridentata vaseyana) predominates at these elevations and has been used in the seedmixes. Use of native only seedmixes, with limited use or exclusion of rhizomatous grasses is important, and other measures to favor sagebrush establishment (such as seeding of shrub mix separate from grasses in strips or patches, use of live topsoil from high quality sagebrush stands, and use of elk fencing), should also be considered. Basin big sagebrush (A. tridentata tridentata) has been successfully reestablished in some favorable deep soil, valley bottom locations, from seeding and live topsoil volunteer, but disturbance and revegetation within this type has been less extensive. From what I have seen (and I think this is supported in the literature) sagebrush establishment is much more of a crapshoot in lower elevation/precipitation, shallower soil sites typically dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush (A. tridentata wyomingensis). In any of these sagebrush habitats, presence of cheatgrass in the community can pose a big problem to successful establishment, particularly when there is a need to use seedmixes with limited perennial grass component, and cheatgrass control measures may need to be incorporated into the reclamation plan. There may have been some monitoring of sagegrouse lek activity pre-mine, during mining, and active mining conducted in association with the North Park mines; probably would be worth checking the wildlife sections of those permits. DOW has studied sagegrouse pretty extensively in the Danforth Hills area of Moffat County in recent years in association with anticipated expansion of Colowyo mine into important sage grouse habitats in that area. Tony Apa with DOW in GJ is the Division's sagegrouse expert, and has coordinated those studies; you might want to touch bases with him if you haven't already. I'll take a look at my files and see if I have anything on sagegrouse that might be of interest. 1/10/2007