2008-06-09_REVISION - C1980007 (3)

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 moderate winters and the area has not been identified as `critical' winter range by the CDOW (Madariaga 2007b). MDW project post 2007. The increase is a result of decommissioning temporary roads and user-developed ATV trails. • Habitat for elk has improved on the GMUG as range management practices have been implemented and range condition has recovered from the livestock overgrazing that occurred in the early 190CIs (USDA FS 2001b). Elk populations have been relatively stable or growing over they GMUG for the last decade. Habitat Effectiveness (HE) for Elk: Elk HE is adversely influenced by the presence of open roads and trails (Thomas et al. 1979; Hoover et al. 1984). In ;general, habitat effectiveness decreases in proportion to the amount of motorized routes per square mile of habitat (Lyon 1983). This research is the basis for the Forest Service's HABCAP model used to determine habitat effectiveness. The factors considered when. determining effects on ells are forage, cover (both thermal and hiding), route density (the milers of routes in a specific area), and the amount of motorized use along these routes. The Forest Plan identifies HABCAP as the model to be used to integrate these factors into calculated values to be used for assessing and comparing :habitat conditions which may result from alternatives. The Forest Plan. requires the FS to "Manage public motorized use on roads and trails to maintain or enhance effective habitat for elk" (Page III-76) and sets aForest-wide objective of elk HE at 40 percent (Page III-76). The Forest Plan also indicates that an acceptable method for determining HE is using the USFS Region 2 Habitat Capability computer model (HABCAP) (Page III-77). Previous HABCAP modeling completed on the Forest and adjacent to the project area indicates that the elk HE objective of 40 percent is being met (USFS 2002a). In 201)2, HE was modeled and determined for the Coal Methane Drainage Project Panels 16-24 project analysis area and EA to be 33 percent for the years of active MDW operation from 2002 to 2007 and then increase to 48 :percent at completion of the Merriam's Wild Turkey Turkeys will utilize ponderosa pine and Gainbel oak forests, grassland and shrubland meadows, riparian areas, aspen forests and higher elevation coniferous forests during the spring, and migrate to lower elevations in the winter. Important habitat features for turkeys include diverse understory and horizontal struchue for nest cover, and dense conifer stands for thermal cover and pine seeds during the winter. Within the GMUG Forest, the abundance and distribution of turkeys correlates to the availability of ponderosa pine, pinyon juniper with ponderosa pine stringers, Gambel oak, and forest-meadow edges within or adjacent to these vegetation types (USDA FS 2005a). Turkeys use a variety of seasonal habitats, ideally with structural diversity within and between stands. Turkey populations on and adjacent to the Forest are apparently self sustaining and healthy enough to support both a spring and fall hunting season (USDA FS 2005a). The population of turkeys within Colorado has been expanded as a result of transplanting efforts by the CDOW. CDOW has conducted turkey reintroductions adjacent to the Forest in the last 16 years that may have contributed to local turkey populations and expanded turkey distributions. State-wide, there are an estimated 21,000 Merriam's turkeys (USDA FS 2005a). Due to the diversity of habitats that turkeys utilize, all communities in the project area could potentially provide habitat for turkeys depending on the season. Approximately five years ago, the CDOW released 25 turkeys in the project area. While turkey surveys have not been completed in the area, the current CDOW estimate of winter turkey populations within the Miimesota Creek drainage is approximately 30 to 40 turkeys (Madariaga 2007a). :- .1 • ~_ ~ • 94 Deer Creek Ventilation Shaft and E Seam Methane Drainage Wells FEIS