Laserfiche WebLink
Com<ient_6.:_ (Page 20) ti'It is unclear how estimates of dry weight <br />_. ~_£orage - ~!,~'''; on, were derived. It could be explained in <br />~_$,~art-3 which I do not have._ If not, it is necessary <br />to explain these figures." <br />Response ~.~_Descriptions of Vegetation eamiunities at the Seneca II <br />V,.`.,yMi ~._~,s; Govded in;.the wildlife report, we derived fran a <br />ve~e#~io~J.base}ine :sttudy conducted by.Mariah Associates in <br />,_. ~o_.,.mnoett~~.tth the ;wildlife~3aaseline study during•i9J9. 7~is report <br />;: _~,. r~ravid~,d:.detailed.methodo-logy for•.collection of all .vegetation data <br />;,; ; i~p_clLud}nq dsy weight; forage ,pr~ction (see the attached exhibit <br />~,,_ 1) ,and~iS cited frequently throughout the wildlife report (Mariah <br />_- ,:, _~~,Associates,. 1980) ._ .(Note:. Apperedix.B, Part 3 prgvides the results <br />-_,..of..the ogmptiter analysis of browse condition-~an~:~tilization data.) <br />-Qni~ieh~'=T- : ~ ~ {}age 49) ~'Identifj~ Itby Faro. ~ The report is written so <br />-- ' - -n~at~Yt=~seetns'ltoy-IC~iro is-a CROW biologist when, in-fact, he is not." <br />Respdt:se`:,~ROy Raro is-a reclamation supervisor employed by Peabody Coal <br />. ,. .. ~ - 2- - .. - <br />y Canpany and stationed at the Seneca II Mine. All references to Mr. <br />ICam in the wildlife report have been revised to reflect that fact. <br />Gant-.8.;:- ,(page 50) "It is premature to state that ... "Seneca II <br />~.stt1dy }rea;does not represent:.good sage grouse habitat." While <br />-:,sage_.gxousg~use may be reiatively_light during the study period, <br />_.; ; _ one_shauid raot:. conclude that par-lions of-the. study area are not "good" <br />,t~ysage,,gxwss~habitatz More- importantly, one shouid first consider <br />' - ~,.size;.~::the contiguous_sagebrush stands(s)~and then docwnent <br />the use os nonuse of the area by sage grouse-ever.several years." <br />1esponse We acgee that a judgement as to the value (good, fair or poor) <br />b€"tFie Sef3eca-II'stvdy area ss sage grouse habitat is perhaps pre- <br />.. ,= i= : matiu~e-on tl~ basis of one year's study; such a judgment could <br />best be made after several years worth of data are collected. How- <br />ever,-the small size of--the ,sagebrush stands on the study area (see <br />~. Magrl~ Appendix A, Vegetation Baseline R@port, Seneca II Mine, Mariah <br />_• .. Associates;-1980) the._lack of large sagebrush el=ands nearby, the <br />absence of sage grouse sightings during the study, and the <br />• absence of ]mown leks nearby certainly reduce the potential of the <br />11-1-3 <br />