|
Exhibit Page 27
<br />3. Assessment of mining impact on wildlife:
<br />Mining has improved grass availability on the site, while reducing some browse vegetation,
<br />however extensive areas of browse vegetation do exist on the site, in ravines and other areas
<br />not disturbed by mining. Wildlife continue to use areas not actually in production, including
<br />areas from which trees and brush have been cleared but grass and smaller browsing plants are
<br />still present, and reclaimed areas. Wildlife have also been using the water holes created by
<br />reclamation for grazing of livestock. In the long term, reclamation should improve the capability
<br />of the area to sustain wildlife, although this is not the intent of reclamation. Although the total
<br />mining operation will stretch approximately 1.4 miles from east to west, the entire width will not
<br />be disturbed at the same time, and adequate alternative routes for migrating livestock will
<br />remain, and therefore the operation should have no reasonable potential for adverse impact on
<br />migration patterns. While claims are often made regarding the negative effect on wildlife from
<br />increased human activities, and from side effects such as noise, we have found that wildlife
<br />tend to be very common around operations such as quarries and sand and gravel pits, and
<br />even around operations which have a greater impact, such as landfills. At the existing Hay
<br />Camp Pits (both Four States and County), elk and deer are often seen while mining and
<br />crushing activities are underway, and do not appear to be chased off or significantly disturbed
<br />by heavy equipment and noise. Elk are increasingly seen even in built-up areas around towns
<br />and cities, as are deer and other wildlife. Since this operation will generally be seasonal in
<br />nature, any possible impacts will be greatly reduced. Increased retention of water that would
<br />otherwise be lost in transevaporation provides water sources, which benefit wildlife as well as
<br />livestock. See Exhibit G.
<br />4. Proposed mitigation measures, including reclamation, for wildlife habitat:
<br />Since there is no reasonable potential of significant impact, no mitigation measures are planned
<br />for the sake of wildlife habitat mitigation, beyond that requested by CDOW and obtained due to
<br />actions which would be performed for other purposes. The major mitigation will be reclamation
<br />of disturbed areas, some on-going during the operation of the mine and most following the
<br />completion of mining. Planting of suitable native grasses and forage in stockpiles provides for
<br />poorer quality areas taken out of production. Seed mixes take wildlife into account, although
<br />intended for livestock.
<br />5. Name, Title, Address and Phone of Person preparing wildlife statement:
<br />Nathan A. Barton, P.E., D.E.E., Environmental Engineer
<br />P.O. Box 3471, Rapid City, SD 57709-3471 Phone: (605)348-0244
<br />P.O. Box 88, Cortez, CO 81321-0088 Phone: (970)218-4133
<br />Prepared for Four States Aggregates, LLC
<br />6. References:
<br />a. Colorado Mammal Distribution Latilonq Study, Colorado Division of Wildlife anc
<br />Denver Museum of Natural History, OCT 1990
<br />b. Colorado Bird Distribution Latilonq Study, Colorado Division of Wildlife and
<br />Colorado Fiefd Ornithologists, DEC 1987
<br />c. Colorado Reptile & Amphibian Distribution Latilonq Study, Colorado Division of
<br />Wildlife, MAY 1981
<br />d. Letter, USDA-NRCS, Robert Fuller, 17 August 2000
<br />e. Conversation, Terry Ireland, USFWS, 25 August 2000
<br />
|