My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE115110
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE115110
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:11:10 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 12:29:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
EXHIBIT 11 WILDLIFE INFORMATION
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
138
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
and the resultant effect on the affected elk herd. Obviously there must <br />be some point at which total elk numbers will decline if calving areas <br />are sufficiently disturbed. <br />The Division of Wildlife has made considerable payments to landowners • <br />in the Axial Basin and Deer and Morapos Creeks for game damage to certain <br />agricultural crops. We expect this problem to intensify as the Federal <br />government and industry develop coal resources in the area. <br />We have no documentation that I am aware of that Colowyo is wholly <br />or partially responsible for game damage mentioned; however, one could <br />resonably expect that if animals are displaced from historic wintering <br />areas where their use was not considered damage to areas where their use is <br />considered damage, then the entity responsible for displacing these <br />animals has placed a fiscal burden on the state. Monies For payments to <br />landowners for game damage, game damage prevention materials, and labor <br />costs for game damage responsibilities come from the Game Cash Fund which <br />is entirely funded by sportsmen through license sales. <br />~ have mentioned this because I want to stress that deer and elk pop- <br />ulations are probably affected in two ways. First, there is a direct loss <br />of habitat by mining and anallary facilities both of which consume habitat <br />formerly occupied by wildlife populations. Second, there is a displacement <br />of animals, some onto private lands where these animals are not wanted, re- <br />sulting in direct payments to landowners as well as labor and material <br />cost which effectively decrease the total amounts of funds available for <br />positive wildlife management actions. <br />Some wildlife losses can be at least partially mitigated. Many tech- • <br />niques have been developed to enhance rangelands by increasing available <br />forage. Activities such as prescribed burning, roller chopping, anchor <br />chaining, and fertilization have been used and offer wide application <br />opportunities. <br />I recommend that we meet to develop an effective mitigation plan for <br />your prJ~PCt. It =~ ~mcortant to identify those impacts that can be mit- <br />igated and then to apply the most appropriate Cechniques to accomplish the <br />mitigation goals. This can only be done subsequent to an intensive field <br />review. <br />I would further recommend that you communicate directly with Dr. Clait <br />Braun regarding sage grouse and any possible impacts your project may <br />have on this species. He can be contacted at: <br />Research Center <br />317 West Prospect <br />Fort Collins, CO 80522 <br />484-2836 <br />You should also ask the same questions of Chuck Woodward that you asked of <br />me. I am sure that you will find Woodward~s knowledge of wildlife popula- <br />tions important to you in preparation of the application. He can be contacted <br />at: <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.