Laserfiche WebLink
_ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depanmenl of NaWral Resources <br />1313 Sherman SL, Room'15 l`~ <br />Denver, Colorado 80?03 II <br />Phone: (3071 866-3567 <br />FA%:13031 832-8106 <br />MEMO ~ DEPARTME[VT OF <br />NATURAL <br />To: Kent Gorh ,Dan F~ert}arr~ez, Larry Routten RESOURCES <br />From: Jane[ H. Binns R°Y R°m°' <br />Governor <br />Subject: Vegetation li at C Iamess.L°~nneaa <br />Date: May 19, ] 9 8 Execulrce Dircdor <br />Michael B Long <br />Drvnion Director <br />1 have reviewed CCMC's vegetation sampling plan for Phase Ill bond release. [spoke with Ryan <br />Henning of Greystone, on May 18, 1998. Greystone, Ryan and Susan Hoffmiester, plan to collect <br />vegetation data on June l8, 1998. I have a conFlic[ with [hat date as I previously have a Phase II and 111 <br />Bond Release inspection scheduled for that date in NW Colorado. Larry Routten indicated that he may be <br />able to observe the sampling. I have forwarded the sampling proposal to him. Items that Ryan and I <br />discussed regarding the proposed sampling; <br />Productivity data will be calculated in the field for sample adequacy then re-calculated on the dry weight. <br />1'd had concerns that they would not calculate for productivity sample adequacy until 8 weeks after <br />collection. Ryan confirmed that they would calculate productivity sample adequacy at he time of sample <br />col lec[ion. <br />Some crossing of the sample transects is shown on figure 2 for the grassland reference area. I mentioned <br />that+ve had some concems about crossing Vansec[s and trampling effects. Ryan indicated [ha[ they had <br />already re-plotted transects [hat would overlap, to eliminate [his bias. <br />We also clarified that noxious weeds would not be counted toward any part of the success standards since <br />this had not been clearly stated in the proposal. <br />Specific' Larry; No transect fell on [he reclaimed diversion azeas. This fits in with the "sampling of <br />small azeas'~ aspect. Would visual observation of these sinuous narrow bands be adequate to determine <br />vegetation success since they were included in the sampling universe for data collected yet no Vansects fell <br />within these bands? I ani open for further discussion of these features. <br />1 compared the approved sampling plan in the permit [o the proposed sampling plan. Permit page 2.05-5 <br />states that I00-Coot Vansects would be used and 0.25 m= production plots would be used. The sampling <br />proposal stated ~0-Meter cover transects and 0.~ m= production plots would be collected. I called Ryan on <br />May 19, 1998, to discuss these discrepancies. He stated that he would revise the sampling plan [o be in <br />agreement with the permit. Permit page 2.0~-5 indicated that years 9 and 10 will have a grazing <br />assessment to determine the reclaimed area's capability of supporting the post-mining land use. Ryan <br />indicated that this had previoush~ been discussed with Larr}' Routten. CCMC grazed the reclaimed area in <br />1996, with positive recovery of the vegetation. It was indicated that this would be appropriate to assess <br />post-mining land use capability. <br />If any other concems arise. Let's trv to resoh a them prior to Greystone's sampling event. <br />C: \j hblteam\8 1024smp. wpd <br />