My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV93082
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV93082
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:14:26 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:27:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981071
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
12/24/1984
Doc Name
Wildlife Mitigation Study
From
Colorado Yampa Coal
To
Fish and Wildlife Service
Type & Sequence
PR1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br />accidental burn was significantly increased, but since this site was defined as <br />critical winter range, our discussions with the CuOW indicated that tt was not <br />feasible to suggest burning as a mitigation measure. However, we recognize that <br />tt is possible and feasible to enhance offstte properties to compensate for the <br />forage temporarily lost as a result of mining. As agreed in previous <br />discussions with the CDOW, we will agree to treat a tract of mine owned <br />overmature oakbrush with our Rota-clear machine to enhance suckering. We <br />propose to treat a tract of approximately ten acres located approximately one <br />mile north of the Little Middle Creek Tract. Using techniques acceptable to the <br />CDOW, we will monitor forage production and animal utilization response for two <br />years. Data collected from this treatment will be submitted to both CDOW and <br />USFWS to determine the degree of success of this treatment. <br />We do not fully understand how the control of livestock grazing can be used <br />as a mitigation measure. Tne CDOW publication "Guidelines for Habitat <br />Modification to Benefit Wildlife (page 61) suggests that livestock grazing of <br />big game winter range should be limited. In our area, we see little conflict as <br />minimal big game winter range is grazed by livestock due to the steep slopes <br />involved. As recommended in the CuOW publication, livestock numbers, <br />distribution patterns, and grazing season are regulated to avoid damage to <br />streams, banks and adjacent upland areas. Due to the limited site conditions of <br />aspen and other tree species and our Tack of knowledge of how grazing practices <br />can be employed to increase tree densities and heights, we are uncertain as to <br />what options are available. We would welcome any technical references you might <br />have relative to this topic. <br />20 ~.. ~;. ~,_ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.