My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP08101
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP08101
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:38:05 PM
Creation date
11/26/2007 11:48:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1993041
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
1/27/1994
Doc Name
APPENDIX DOWE FLATS PROJECT WILDLIFE
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.
/
23
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
METHODS <br />• A wildlife biologist conducted surveys on the project area and <br />the surrounding topographic basin on 1 and 15 June and 7 July <br />1987 to identify the types and distribution of habitats, <br />qualitatively identify wildlife present, and evaluate potential <br />wildlife use in the area. Habitats were delineated in the study <br />area based on vegetative composition and functional wildlife <br />value. Wildlife, or their sign, opportunistically observed <br />during site visits were recorded along with the habitats they <br />were observed in. <br />Biologists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Colorado <br />Division of Wildlife (CROW), Colorado Natural Areas Program <br />(CNAP), Boulder County (BC) and the Boulder County Nature Association <br />(BCNA) were contacted to obtain existing wildlife data applicable <br />to the study area. Distributions of wildlife of special concern <br />in Boulder County were reviewed on 1041 maps at the CDOW's Denver <br />office. These 1041 data had not been updated since 1977 and <br />it should be noted that they are intended only to provide a <br />general idea of wildlife presence and critical habitats in an <br />area and should not be used without site specific data. <br />Three additional site visits were conducted on 30 July and 6 <br />and 7 August with representatives of the CROW, FWS, and BC. <br />The purpose of these on-site meetings was to (1) introduce the <br />• representatives to the proposal and familiarize them with the <br />project area, (2) discuss what was known of wildlife use in <br />the area, and (3) discuss what wildlife-related issues each <br />agency would like to see addressed in subsequent baseline studies <br />and impact assessment. Letters documenting the concerns of <br />each agency were requested. Those received are contained in <br />Appendix A, <br />RESIILTS AND DISCIISSION <br />HABITATS <br />wildlife abundance and diversity are related, in part, to the <br />size, celative abundance, juxtaposition, and types of habitats <br />present in an area, as well as those in the surrounding area. <br />The relative value of the habitats present in the project area <br />are generally low for most wildlife groups (there are, however, <br />important exceptions which will be discussed below), while habitats <br />in the surrounding ridges (Rabbit and Indian Mountains) support <br />much higher wildlife density and diversity values. <br />Six major habitat types (agricultural land, grassland, mountain <br />shrub, ponderosa pine, riparian, and wetland) occur in the project <br />area. Because vegetation types delineated in the study area <br />. 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.