Laserfiche WebLink
9/10/13 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Fwd: response to EFCI letter <br />comply with the State Board of Land Surveiyors requirements. <br />Doug <br />It probably doesn't make much difference who first proposed that Mergen Ecological Delineations <br />Company, but it sure wasn't I. <br />With regard to Mr. Crofts' Trimble GPS instrument and its precision, he can obtain submeter accuracy only <br />when he post processes the recorded data. The problem arises when he uses that post processed data back <br />in his office to determine the start points for his transects. He returns to the field and navigates to each of <br />those starting points. Since he cannot post process the location of those points, each can have up to a plus <br />or minus 5 meter error since he does not use a beacon when he returns to the field. The reason for this <br />objection to the accuracy of his GPS unit is that there is the north/south boundary line between the <br />Vento port reclamation tract and The Corley Company line. As you will recall at the meeting with Mr. <br />Crofts prior to the veg sampling, he asked that I delineate on the ground the property boundary. I declined <br />because I am not authorized to set out a property boundary without supervision by Jack Keilers. There <br />ensued a long conversation of how to make sure that none of the transects on either property either started <br />or ended on the other property. As you will also recall Mr. Crofts asked Daryl's permission to alter the final <br />drawing location in the event that a transect should appear to cross the property lime on the final map. In <br />fact, he used the word that he would "fudge" the location. Since I don't consider fudging to be acceptable, I <br />climbed the hill south of the portal area and put red flagging on the terminus of the existing fence which is on <br />the property line in order to help the veg samplers get a visual landmark. <br />There is another observation that I would make. The coordinates Mr. Crofts gave us for the proposed veg <br />ref area were apparently obtained about a year or more ago. Since he readily agreed that he had a serious <br />GPS instrument failure, does that mean that the GPS locations he determined for the past year or more are <br />similarly in question? <br />Again you state that the proposed veg ref area is more like the portal reclamation with regard to slope <br />aspect. I will refute that with the facts that the slope aspect of the old veg ref area is NW, the slope aspect <br />of the proposed veg area is E, and the slope aspect of The Corley Co. portal reclamation is partly W and <br />NW. The slope aspect of the proposed veg ref area is 135 to 180 degrees opposite to our portal area. <br />https: / /mai l.g oog le.com/mai I / ?ui =2 &i Ir4546421 a5a &�A ew-- pt &search =i nbox&th= 1410842t3092d397 2/2 <br />