Laserfiche WebLink
Kent A. Gorham <br />Page Nine <br />February 1, 1993 <br />Map 62 from CYCC's permit and the plat book put out by 4H, the <br />following is the breakdown of the acreage of private vs federal vs <br />state. <br />3 mile radius <br />Private - 89.6$ <br />Federal - 10,4% <br />5 mile radius <br />Private - 82.7% <br />Federal - 12.1$ <br />State - 5.2% <br />Examination of this area reveals very limited surface coal <br />reserves. Topography, depth of coal, faults, etc. make the <br />likelihood of any extensive future surface coal mining very small. <br />With regard to the percentages given within the three and five mile <br />radii, they were taken from Table 118 page 780-206 (f) and Map 62 <br />"Vegetation Types Surrounding Permit C-81-071". This map and many <br />of the aerial photographs used to generate it were reviewed by the <br />Division during approval of TR-17. A description of methods used <br />to generate the map can be found in CYCC's Elk Calving Behavior <br />Study 1983 Annual Progress Report. It should be noted that Western <br />Energy Land Use Team vegetation maps obtained from CDOW were used <br />to augment the mapping. Comparison of these maps with CYCC's <br />vegetation maps revealed a close correlation. CYCC conducted this <br />vegetation mapping over a 650 mi' area, which encompassed the <br />majority of elk movements within the elk study. Examination of <br />this data by way of combining the shrub and tree dominated <br />habitats, i.e., Mountain Shrub, Aspen, Conifer and Sagebrush, shows <br />that they account for 74$ of the 650 mi' area, 69$ of the 79 mi.' <br />(5 mile radius) area, and 65$ of the 28 mi' (3 mile radius) area. <br />7.) CYCC does not believe it is prudent at this point to propose <br />out of kind measures until it is understood if mitigation is <br />required. CYCC requests that Division identify specific areas <br />that may require mitigation. It would be beneficial to CYCC's <br />understanding if the Division would address the specific species <br />and their associated limiting factors, especially as one looks at <br />a broader, regional use of habitat. <br />8.) Edge comparisons were made by measuring all of the premising <br />and postmining vegetation boundaries on Map 63 "Mines 1, 2 & Eckman <br />Park Premising Vegetation & Postmining Land Use" for 1650 acres of <br />currently reclaimed land located in Sections 17, 18, 20 T4N R86W <br />and Sections 13 & 24 T4N R87W. These measurements show 117,000 ft. <br />of edge premise (71 ft./acre) and 42,000 ft. of edge postmine (25 <br />ft./acre). The existing edge is 35$ of the premise edge, not the <br />less than 1$ claimed by CDOW. It was also observed that 35,000 ft. <br />of the premise edge (22 ft./acre) was due to Improved Lands. If <br />