Laserfiche WebLink
Seneca II study area to be classified as good sage=gi~,se.habitat. <br />Comrent 9 (page. 51), "The browse oonditioii „did t~~'i3ifounation ~' <br />is good. and so:rnF interesting conclusions are~=presetil0~d; -however, <br />- ~,- <br />-- ' <br />Appendix B, part 3 is necessary for a echiplete-~vnd8rstanding." <br />Response See response to Camient 4 above. Also, a eat~Iete set of <br />appendibes were:suppi9.ed~:wa,th all reports. I 'do net know the rea- <br />son the`report'~` Feyiesed.,by.CDOf3:.clid riot have appeniiices. <br />,: ~, .. <br />ComnPnt ~]:0'°: (page 5.3) "Conclusions made recja++~' ~ cii.tica7" deer <br />,,. <br />~" wintei r e are unacc ' " - .. - ' ~ =~' -...:;., ._ _ <br />ang eptsable-based on-inforcnatton presented in <br />the report. I Yecamiarxi.the conclusion that "habitats in the <br />vicinity of the -Seneca II_Mine do. not presently constitdte cri- <br />tical' mule deer-habittat" _be stricken from the report:" 4~liile <br />the winter of 1979-80 was relatively noanal; the winter°~ 1978- <br />79 was one o~ the :aorgir~ on . record." -Mule :deei losses in spring, <br />1979 zere estimated to be 44~ of the herd'in the ~Picearice Basin. <br />., a;Jl:. <br />Losses could have. been .equally high in the, study area'"CDCW nei- • <br />then agrees with the applicant's census techniques nor the argu- <br />ment presented in support of that mnclusion.l Ftir`tf~eimre, criti- <br />cal winter=range:is that winter range available in the c~orst twv <br />or three: winters out of ten,_,nnt eves winter._'If alI mule deer <br />and elk were forced onto"critical winter r e ev" "- eat, the <br />..,~.::~ <br />range could not recover ancL would eventually ` be ~ incapabte of <br />,.. <br />supporting sufficient animals to maintain populations"o`bjectives." <br />Response In response to the above oaiment, the paazagraph presenting <br />the above conclusion will be modified as follows: <br />"While the entire Yampa Valley area provides important (and critical) <br />winter mule deer range, the low number of winter observations of <br />mule deer (as cat~ared to DOW density estimates on critical winter <br />range), the low utilization of browse (see Browse Condition and <br />Trend) and the lack of severe weather during the winter of 1979-80 <br />indicate that habitats in the vicinity of the Seneca II Mine ware <br />not 'critical' to mule deer survival during the 1979-80 winter. <br />Howevp~, a number of factors such as an increase in mule deer • <br />11-1-4 <br />