|
Bluestone and Section 16 Wildlife Issues Report Wcstem Aggregates, Inc.
<br />' that have been captured on and adjacent to the RFP buffer zone are attributable to a
<br />combination of (1) suitable, intact habitat in and near the buffer zone, (2) extensive
<br />degradation of similar, potentially occupied habitats within the former distribution of the
<br />species, and (3) intensive, multi-season, multi-year trapping within the buffer zone, relative
<br />to superficial trapping efforts in spatially restricted, potential habitats elsewhere within PJM's
<br />distribution. Regardless, the RFP buffer zone presently represents the largest known block
<br />of occupied PJM habitat.
<br />Compton and Hugie (1993) summarized the ecology and life history of PJM, extrapolating
<br />much from the parent species (Quimby 1951, Krutzsch 1954, Whitaker 1972). Habitat use
<br />' within the buffer zone is generally consistent with Compton and Hugie (1993). In and
<br />adjacent to the buffer zone, PJM have been almost exclusively associated with moist
<br />drainage bottom habitats in Rock, Walnut, Woman, and Rock Creeks, and along Smart
<br />' Ditch (Dawson 1989, EG&G 1994a). Within the buffer zone, they have been captured in
<br />the following habitat types, in approximate decreasing order of capture: riparian shrubland,
<br />' deciduous woodland, short shrubland, mesic mixed grassland, tall shrubland, short marsh, tall
<br />marsh, wet meadow, pond margin, and range rehabilitation (EG&G 1994a). All capture
<br />locations have been along or~within approximately 200 feet of intermittent creeks. They
<br />' have nor. been recorded in xeric mixed grassland, ponderosa pine savannah, or human
<br />structure habitats (EG&G 1994a). These latter upland habitats occur along ridgelines or
<br />' atop pediments, above the drainages where PJM are apparently restricted (F.Harrington,
<br />EG&G, pers. comm., Oct. 12, 1994).
<br />' Based olt a map of PJM capture locations, dated September 8, 1994 (EG&G 1994b), the
<br />closest ttlat a PJM has been captured to the existing Bluestone Aggregates mining operation
<br />is 3,110 feet from the closest mining, and 3,330 feet down drainage from active mining.
<br />' Trappin€; was conducted further up drainage, between the most westerly capture location
<br />and the existing mine, however no additional PJM were captured (F.Harrington, EG&G,
<br />' pers. comm., Oct. 12, 1994). At the eastern distal extreme of mining in Phases 4 and 5,
<br />mining would approach to within 770 feet of the closest known PJM location and closer to
<br />habitat probably occupied by PJM. The closest PJM captured to date adjacent to the
<br />' proposecl Section 16 mining area was approximately 3,501 feet downstream in Woman
<br />Creek.
<br />There are 2 issues associated with PJM and WAI's mining proposals: direct and indirect
<br />impacts to the mouse and its habitats. These issues are each addressed below.
<br />4.1.1 DIRECT IMPACTS TO PREBLE'S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE AND ITS
<br />' HABITAT
<br />' As indicated by the aforementioned studies, PJM is a subspecies with affinities to mesic and
<br />wetland Habitats, not the xeric upland habitats found atop the pediments where mining is
<br />' Western Ecosystems, Inc ti December, 1994
<br />
|