Laserfiche WebLink
'~fl ,/ <br />fiJ k T~i~ /~y-- <br />United States Department of the I'n~te~rror -- <br />m Rer~e <br />R EFERTO <br />3400 (161) <br />C-37210 <br />BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT <br />Uncompahgre Basin Resource Area <br />2505 South Townsend Avenue <br />P:ontrose, Colorado 81401 <br />IVOV ~ U i°87 <br />~~ <br />AUG 111986 <br />Colorado Westmoreland, Inc. <br />Attention: Kathy [dolt <br />P.O. Box E <br />Paonia, Colorado 81428 <br />Dear Ms. [•lelt: <br />The enclosed map shocas potential vegetation treatment areas that offer <br />CWI some choices for location of mitigation work. Jim Ferguson and Tom <br />Jacobs from our staff, have visited these areas to determine their suit- <br />ability for treatment. The area marked "A" is the largest contiguous block <br />of treatable public land within a reasonable distance from the proposed <br />Roatcap portal site. Those sites marked "B" contain small cells of Land <br />suitable for treatment. Because of the small size of the suitable sites <br />in the "B" areas, the cost per-acre for treatment would be higher than in <br />area "A". <br />• [de have some concerns about all of these areas in terms of their potential <br />for success. If the total or individual treatment acreage is too small, the <br />potential for failure would be high. The large number of deer and elk present <br />in this area could permanently damage or destroy a small seeding, especially <br />during the first two years when the plants are becoming established. It may <br />be best to base the treatment size on the maximum acreage of disturbance you <br />anticipate at the portal, including the access road, coal transport facilities, <br />etc. This would allow CWI to get the mitigation out of the way early in the <br />project. The larger acreage would be more cost-efficient for treatment. <br />All of these sites have cheatgrass in the understory, that could be released <br />by treatment and dominate the site. Area "A" would probably have [he great- <br />est risk of problems from cheatgrass. None of these sites are ideal treat- <br />ment candidates. <br />Treatments are not the only mitigation option open to C4II. An appropriate <br />acreage of suitable habitat on corporate land in lower Roatcap Creels could <br />be set aside for big game use for the life of the portal. In many ways, <br />this type of mitigation might be the most beneficial, since lost habitat <br />acreage would be replaced with guaranteed habitat. <br />I hope this gives you some basic information with which to formulate options. <br />U <br />