GENERAL45168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,• t+~. Kent Crofts Mr. Terrell Johnson Page 2 Decmiber 30, 1981 Page six, last paragraph. You are to be tended for the number of elk trapped with no apparent trap rturtalities. Page seven, last paragraph. Refer to your September 11, 1980 letter to Messrs. Crane and Banta and append this letter to future progress reports as well as the final report. Cm page seven of that letter you questione3 the need for habitat alteration as a mitigation technique in areas of Eclanan Park adjacent to and southwest of Federal Coal Lease C-22644 since the area to be altered already supports calving elk and is similar in vegetation type and ~u~osition to C-22644. Ironically, the area southwest of C-22649 has naa been included in a new Federal Coal Lease described by the USGS and currently being reviewa3 by BIM. This is mentioned from the standpoint that you recrognize that much of the remaining undisturbed land in Eckman Park will eventually be surface mined and your cronitoring in that area should be intensified v~nere practical. Additionally it is our position that the potential loss of remaining elk calving hab- itat in Eckman Park is justification for additional radio collars should statistical analysis prescribe additional radio collars. Page nine, first paragraph. Refer to the first equation on page nine. It is unclear whether the 438 elk observed were cows or bulls or calves and it is important to make this distinction. Be advised also that DFA1 Jim Hicks estimated in 1978 that 150 cow elk were using the area generally identified as C-22644 and that this estimate was based entirely on ground observations. Page nine, last paragraph. Refer to the last equation presented on page nine. Your third population estimate was based upon observations from three heliwpter flights. During each helicropter flight there was potential to observe 68 collared elk; therefore, the average number of conventionally collared in the population should be 204 in the equation you present rather than 68 (68 x 3 = 204). As you can see this would drastically alter your estimate. We suggest that you continue to use the equation presented but that it be used on data from each flight separately resulting in multiple estimates from which a mean could be calculated. Page ten, first paragraph. We request you report anv:calf ratios in the same manner ve do, i.e., calves:100 (oows):bu11s, We also request these ratios be reported separately rather than cunU~ned. For instance, your July and August grrnmd observation yielded a canbine3 ratio of 42:100 (your 2.36:1). Considered separately the July ratio was 37:100 and the August ratio ass 57:100, a 568 difference in ratios. As a point of interest your heliwpter classification yielded a ratio of 51:100. The variability in these estimates should be shown in the report. Additionally, you should continue to mare elk production ratios between wntrol and disturbed areas and, perhaps, expand your effort to wllect this data recognizing that large variance can be dealt with by increased sample size, increased replication, or a ccanbination.