GENERAL56279 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Ms. Carol Pahlke 2 March 11, 1980 Mr. Braun explained that grouse have no stones in their gizzards and cannot utilize grain. He expects to experiment with raising grouse in captivity and feeding them on pellets and corms through the sumrer. He stated that there has never been a successful attempt to raise sage grouse. Len Carpenter noted that his experiments in North Park show that fertilizer does benefit Wyoming big sagebrush. Carol Pahlke stated that the Mined Land Reclamation Division would like to see docimp-ntation of the effect of fertilizer on sagebrush and requested Len's data. Mr. Carpenter then said that data can be interpreted many ways and that discussing the meaning of research might be very time-consuming. Mr. Carpenter objected to bi~**+~ng sagebrush because of the possibility of erosion if a hard rain occurred afterwards and because rabbitbush might invade the burnt area. Ebrbs might also be reduced. Fertilization would create a net improvement in the habitat and the normal obligates would be helped by sagebrush vigor. Fertilizer's effect on water quality will be negligible. Kent Crofts cited research which showed that grasses and forbs would utilize nitrogen more than would sagebrush. He observed that fertilizer is not a proven mitigation for sage grouse. During this discussion Clait Braun stated that if mitigation isn't done, then the Division of Wildlife would oppose any further wal leases and would use the unsuitability classification if necessary. He made several accusations about Wyoming Fuels forthrightness in discussing their plans for new leases and about Energy Fuels operations in North Park. Both companies felt that he was misinter- preting events. He also refused to consider Carol Pahlke's suggestion that the group list the questions for which it needed answers (Will fertilizer affect sagebrush? Will fertilization affect the sage grouse? etc.). In inducting the proposed study Mr. Braun stated that he would prefer to act as research adviser for a graduate student, that he strongly urges that mining companies not hire consultants to do the study, and that he strongly urges that mining companies, the Division of Wildlife and the BIM cooperate to accor[q~lish his program. He would like to hire a graduate student to begin work July 1, 1980 and have fertilizer applied in October, 1980. (Energy Fuels and Wyoming Fuels protested that they don't even have leases and permits yet.) SID7 is naa funding a three-year study on the pre-mining impacts to sage grouse for $16,000. When questioned about the escalating costs (from $12,000/year in December to an average of $32,000/year in February) of the proposed study, Mr. Braun said that the was the first hard look at the actual rosts, that they were realistic for the first year and had padding for inflation in subsequent years. It was suggested that O6M and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service might have money available for the proposed study. Mr. CarlJeilter asked how many acres would be fertilized, given the assumption that mining ca~anies would agree to apply fertilizer but would not fund the study (Flatiron made no oamtitment on either project) . Zfo viewpoints emerged. Kent Crofts pointed out that o~rg~anies do not disturb every acre permitted and that mitigation is appropriate only for disturbed acreage. He pointed out that if we had data on sage grouse response to fertilized sagebrush, then we could have score basis for establishing a ratio of acres disturbed to acres to be fertilized.