REP33845 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Wildlife Resources Assessment Cemex "C" Pi[ and CKD Disposal Site Page 12 roosting, and perhaps for nesting. They also use the high walls in the active mine at Dowe Flats. They have not been observed using the water in the bottom of the pit. Deer or other large mammals might approach the water by means of the access road on the south side of the pit, or by descending the steep CKD slopes. This is not likely, since the pit is the security equivalent of walking down a dead end street at night. There is no security cover and escape routes are limited. There is an abundance of nearby water outside the pit with security cover. Since the pit is largely isolated from terrestrial wildlife, the main concern is avian wildlife, including waterfowl, shorebirds and bats, that can fly into the pit and land in the water. Swallows could conceivably investigate the water surface for hatching insects, but once it becomes obvious that food is not available, they will forage somewhere else where there is food. Some waterfowl and shorebirds that do not have low flight trajectories may want to investigate the pit, but there is the same problem as with large mammals when it comes to security and escape routes. Bats often forage over water but normally do not come into contact with the water. In summary, wildlife has not been observed in the bottom of the pit, and the probability that wildlife will occur here is low to very low. This conclusion is moderated by the fact that any wildlife that does come into contact with the water will most likely be injured or die. Further, the longer the water is present in the pit, over a 10 year period for example, the greater the chance that wildlife will eventually access the water. ' 6.5 Mitigation Options Mitigation options are divided into short term (1 to 2 years) and long term options (beyond two years). Short term mitigation options include 1) no action, 2) minor mitigation efforts including gating of the access road on the south side of the pit and ' placement of moveable fence along the top of the leading edge of the CKD bank, 3) major mitigation efforts including netting of the airspace over the pit, or floating a densely spaced arrangement of buoys in the water, and 4) drastic mitigation efforts such ' as treatment of the water, removal of the water, or closing of the pit. Long term mitigation options include all of the same options as described above, but would take two or more years to implement. 6.6 Mitigation Analysis No action is a viable action for the short term as the probability of any significant impact ' to wildlife is low. No action is not an acceptable long term solution as the influx of water needs to be halted, potential ground water infiltration from the pit needs to be addressed, and the water feature should not be regarded as a permanent feature. ' Minor mitigation is acceptable as a short term option, and not acceptable as a long term option for the same reasons as the no action alternative. ' Major mitigation is worthy of further investigation and implementation only if a permanent, long term solution is not developed. Placement of nets over the pit to obstruct avian wildlife may restrict access to the water, but the netting itself presents a hazard to wildlife, and thus does not result in any significant advantage over the no action alternative. Placement of buoys in the water would discourage waterfowl, but would not prevent swallows or shorebirds from contacting the water.