Laserfiche WebLink
' CHAPTERFOUR Enuironmenta~ consenuences <br />4.8.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts <br />4.8.2.1 Proposed Action <br />Piceance Site <br />Mu[e Deer <br />Impacts to mule deer include direct impacts from permanent or temporary loss of habitat, direct <br />impacts from increased mortality (vehicle collisions), and indirect impacts from displacement, <br />avoidance and blockage of migration routes. Both direct and indirect impacts to habitat could <br />reduce the availability of key winter habitat and decrease habitat carrying capacity and herd size <br />in the Piceance Basin. All of the Piceance Site is classified by Colorado Division of Wildlife <br />(CDOW) as severe winter range, and the eastern half of the site also has concentrated use during <br />' spring and fall migration (Section 3.8.1). <br />Direct Habitat Loss. Direct habitat loss for the life of the project (30+ years) would occur from <br />construction of permanent facilities, such as the processing facilities, evaporation pond, and <br />access roads. These facilities would occupy about 70.4 acres at the Piceance Site and would only <br />be removed and reclaimed in the distant future after the end of commercial mining. Existing <br />' habitat losses under the exploration and experimental test mine plan aze approximately 15.5 acres <br />(Steigers 1998a). <br />Much lazger areas of habitat would be directly affected for shorter periods of time during <br />development and operation of the mining panels. The size of the mining panels would range <br />from 125 to 209 acres, averaging about 172 acres. About 70 percent of the vegetation within <br />each mine panel would be removed for construction of well pads, temporary access roads, and <br />the piping system. The portions removed would be distributed throughout the mine panel in a <br />checkboazd pattern, with [he cleared areas linked by roads and pipe racks. Although not all of <br />the land surface would be physically disturbed within the mining panel, the habitat value of the <br />remnant vegetation would be limited during construction and operation of the mine panels. <br />Although the remaining vegetation would continue to provide available forage, it would <br />' experience reduced use because of displacement. For the same reason, the remaining vegetation <br />in the mine panels would not effectively provide thermal or hiding cover during operation. <br />The affected habitat in the mine panels would be primarily pinyon juniper woodland, which <br />provides shrub species for browse, hiding cover, and protection from cold and wind during winter <br />(thermal cover). For thermal cover to be effective, vegetation must be greater than 5 feet in height. <br />For maximum thermal effectiveness, canopy cover must be at a minimum of 60 percent, 75 percent <br />' being optimum, and stand width greater than 300 feet. Thermal cover is also used as hiding cover. <br />Hiding (escape) cover is defined as cover capable of hiding 90 percent of bedded deer at 150 feet or <br />' less. The azeal extent of suitable hiding cover requires from 6 to 26 acres and between 600 and <br />1,200 feet in width. For optimum habitat, thermal cover needs to be up to 30 percent and hiding <br />cover 15 percent of the available habitat (Leckenby et al. 1986). The construction of wells and <br />linear facilities in the mine panels would result in an ultimate distribution and extent of woodlands <br />t~ldlife 4-45 <br />