GENERAL48692 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-35- In addition to deer and elk, sage grouse have been identified in the rxpplication as a potentially affected species. In the Preliminary Adequacy Letter of April 9, 1981, the Division stated that, although portions of the permit area were described in the application as being used by sage grouse for nesting and brood cover, there was no discussion of the impact of mining on sage grouse. In addition, the Division noted that although a stated objective of the reclamation plan was to restore and improve habitats for deer, e1 k, and sage grouse; no sagebrush was included in the seed mix and no specific mitigation was proposed for sage grouse. The Division questioned whether existing adjacent habitat was capable of supporting present nesting and brood population levels without mitigation, The Division of Wildlife (DOW) also reviewed the application and indicated by letter on August 2Z, 1981 that the impact on sage grouse populations could not be quantified bascy3 upon information presented in the application (see Attachment No. 4). DOW recommendsr3 that Colowyo sulsnit a plan to mitigate for the loss of sage grouse nesting and brood rearing habitat. In a preliminary findings document dated Dec~nber 11, 1981 the Division requested additional information on sage grouse use of the Colowyo permit area and a description of habitat mitigation measures, The applicant's responses, submitted on May 25, 1982 describe the mitigative effect of the cessation of grazing within the Federal coal lease and the rs~Iuc~d grazing pressure on adjacent properties owned by W.R. Grace. Colowyo asserts that the reduction in grazing pressure since 1976 has resulted in increased forb and grass production, thereby resulting in better nesting cover and increased food availability for sage grouse in undisturbed _ Shrub communities adjacent to the mine. The Division is in agreement with the applicant's assertion. The increased food and cover in adjacent areas should mitigate to some extent the temporary loss of habitat during mining and the early stages of reclamation. The Division of Wildlife has indicated that the reduction in grazing in adjacent areas is a satisfactory mitigation measure, and has recommended no additional mitigation (see Attachment 5). Colowyo has proposed not to include sagebrush in the seed mix or to plant sagebrush seedlings, The applicant contends that natural reinvation of sagebrush from adjacent areas and seed sources in fjreshly spread topsoil will be adequate to restore suitable sage grouse habitat:- Substantial sagebrush volunteering has been documented at a number of mines in Northwest Colorado where Zive topsoil handling is practices. For lands disturbed during this permit term, sagebrush seeding and transplanting will not be required. The applicant has committed to a revegetation monitoring program, ane object of which will be to evaluate the degree of native plant invasl@n~:. If the Division determines in future permit reviews that natural reestablishment of sagebrush is insufficient to meet the post mining Land use needs; seeding or planting of sagebrush may be required.