RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE MONITORING 



With the conclusion of this monitoring study, four to five years' data have 

 been gathered on wildlife populations in the study area. The study period has 

 included very wet and very dry years, and severe as well as mild winters. Data 

 gathered over the entire study period, therefore, present a much clearer long- 

 term assessment of wildlife use of the study area than would be observed during 

 a one-year baseline study. For example, 1977 was an unusually dry year with a 

 severe winter; had wildlife investigations been limited to this year's baseline 

 study alone, very different conclusions concerning wildlife use and distribution 

 would have been reached. White-tailed deer, winter mule deer, and pronghorn use 

 of the .Mine Study Area would have been greatly underestimated (Figures 6, 10) 

 and many raptor nesting areas that were not occupied in 1977 would not have been 

 identified. On the other hand, ring-necked pheasant and white-tailed jackrabbit 

 abundances would have been greatly overestimated (Figures 3, 4). Also, the 

 importance of study area stockponds as waterfowl production areas would not have 

 been documented (Figure 14); in fact, stockponds MA07, MA02 , and NCOl --which 

 were among the most productive ponds during the 1980-81 study period--produced 

 no young at all during 1977. In all, 33 wildlife species that were absent or 

 undetected in 1977 would not have been documented (Table 3) . In view of this 

 monitoring program's ability to reveal long-term wildlife distribution patterns 

 and trends, it is recommended that monitoring of the parameters discussed in 

 this report be continued. 



Future studies, however, should not be limited only to monitoring these 

 parameters. Emphasis should also be placed on gathering more precise 

 information regarding the special concerns previously mentioned; such 

 information will be critical for developing acceptable mining and reclamation 

 plans. It has become obvious, for example, that the dendritic coulee system 

 shown in Figure 23 is of great importance to wildlife; this coulee system was 

 not included in the original Proposed Mining Area, although it now falls largely 

 within the new Permit Area. Thus, its importance should be further 

 investigated. Likewise, it also is apparent that the study area supports 

 important pronghorn and mule deer populations, and that additional data on 

 movements, spring-fall distribution, and seasonal populations will be necessary 

 to assess mitigation and reclamation needs. 



To facilitate the collection of more monitoring data and information 

 regarding areas of special concern, the following modifications or additions to 

 the present monitoring plan are recommended: 



Dendritic Coulee Foot Routes 



Two routes, shown in Figure 25, should be walked on two consecutive mornings 

 during each month of field study, beginning at local sunrise. Total numbers 

 of each vertebrate species seen or heard on each route should be recorded on 

 standard data sheets and tallied according to extent of tall coulee shrub 

 habitat use (see Appendix D for a detailed description of the method to be 

 used). All observations of wildlife should be mapped. 



Dendritic Coulee Habitat Description 



Dendritic coulee habitats should be described quantitatively using a 

 modification of the methods employed by Daubenmire (1959), Nudds (1977), and 

 Nobel et al. (1980). Vertical structure and species diversity of vegetation, 



-55- 



