Although the primary objective of mitigation measures is revegetation, site- 

 specific evaluations and procedures are needed to obtain maximum results. For 

 example, a uranium mine will have a smaller impact on vegetation and soil removal 

 than a surface coal mine or an open pit shale operation. The chance of contamination 

 of runoff or water supplies by toxic substances will normally be greater for oil shale, 

 uranium, and eastern coal mines than for western coal operations.^ 



Streeter, et al.'* identified several site-specific factors requiring consideration when 

 evaluating the effects of mining on wildlife resources: 

 "I. species of fish and wildlife present and their interrelationships; 



2. seasonal use of the area by wildlife (e.g., winter, transitional or summer range); 



3. unique wildlife uses of the area, such as reproduction, epigamic display, 

 migration, or wintering; 



4. availability and condition of adjacent habitats; 



5. physical size and expected duration of the mining operation; 



6. relative importance to wildlife of the affected habitat; and 



7. time frame and extent of other related activities in the vicinity." 



All coal, uranium, and phosphate surface mines in the I 1 western contiguous 

 states (plus North Dakota and South Dakota) that were larger than 10 acres and in 

 operation before 1976 have been evaluated.' Each mine was categorized as to 

 geographic location, operator, surface and subsurface ownership, summary of min- 

 ing plan and methods, dates of operation, area affected by mining activities, reclama- 

 tion history where applicable, and current land use and vegetation conditions. 



A new technique for projecting environmental impacts has been developed in a 

 study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Environmental 

 Research Lab in Corvallis, Oregon.'" It involves the application of mathematical 

 equations to planning and decisionmaking. A second method, called "Habitat 

 Evaluation Procedures," is under development by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 (FWS)." It consists of: ( 1) applying index values to existing habitat conditions; (2) 

 identifying differences between index values of existing conditions and expected 

 values after development; and (3) establishing, in habitat value units gained or lost, 

 beneficial versus adverse impacts realized due to development. 



Another study, applied to the Yampa River basin in Northwest Colorado, evalu- 

 ated a new approach to land and water project impact analysis. A computerized 

 Geographic Information System (GIS) permitted management and analysis of 

 mapped information that was impractical by manual means. Mapped wildlife data 

 were composited to identify habitat values of land units. Proposed locations of coal 

 and water developments then overlaid on composited wildlife maps to identify 

 potential conflicts. A method was created which yielded quantification and compari- 

 son of relative impacts on wildlife for development schemes. 



Another effort'- yielded results of an extensive survey of over 400 existing data 

 bases for Montana and Wyoming. This project, sponsored by the FWS Western 

 Energy and Land Use Team (WELUT), was designed to promote more effective 

 consideration offish and wildlife resources in state and federal decisions involving 

 western resources. A Systems Approach to Ecological Baseline SridJies,^^ developed 

 in anticipation of expanding western resource development, provides guidelines for 

 ecological baseline studies for energy conversion projects. 



A major program involving the FWS is the Federal Coal Management (leasing) 

 Program, suspended in the early 1970s but recently renewed. The Secretary of the 

 United States Department of Interior (USDI) has mandated a coal leasing program 

 in which the Fish and Wildlife Service exercises a key role in reviewing leasing 

 actions, providing information, participating in environmental assessments, prepar- 

 ing impact statements, identifying lands unsuitable for coal mining/ leasing, and 

 prioritizing mineral-bearing lands. 



The mechanisms for participation and input are detailed in a Memorandum of 

 Understanding on coal between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of 



186 



