My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL49906
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL49906
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:29:46 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 5:30:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981071
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
2/10/1994
Doc Name
MINE 1 2 AND ECKMAN PARK FN C-81-071 PHASE II AND III BOND RELEASE
From
DMG
To
KENT GORHAM
Permit Index Doc Type
VEGETATION
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman 81., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 8020] <br />Phone: 130)1 866~35G7 <br />FA%:13031832-8106 <br />DATE <br />T0: <br />FROM <br />RE: <br />February 10, 1994 <br />Kent Gorham <br />Steve Shuey~js/ <br />Mine 1, 2 and Eckman Park, file C-81-071, Phase II and III Bond <br />Release <br />I~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OI <br />NATUFtAI <br />RESOURCE` <br />Roy Romer <br />Govemnr <br />Kcn Salazar <br />E aaueve Dheaur <br />M¢hac d. Long <br />Divnian Direnrn <br />I reviewed CYCC's November 30, 1993 responses to the Division's vegetation and <br />sampling adequacy review letter dated September 17, 1993. The following comments <br />to these responses are numbered similarly to maintain continuity. <br />Vegetation Data Review <br />CYCC's sampling data does not support their contention that proportional <br />allocation, based on a density of one transect per four acres, was used to <br />predetermine the sampling points recorded in the Block A Sampling event. <br />This is evident in the analysis shown below. <br /> # Transects # Transects Sampled <br />Parcel Acres @ 1 peryacre5 1990 Diff 1991 Diff <br />COAS-4.BR1• 5.4 1 4 (+3) 3 (+2) <br />COOJ97-3.BR1 97.3 24 21 (-3) 20 (-4) <br />COEJ64-8.BR1 64.8 16 15 (-1) 15 (-1 )" <br />COEJB-S.BRI 8.5 2 6 (+4) 6 (+4) <br />CPEK23.O.BR1 23.0 6 10 (+4) 6 0 <br />CPFJ114-I.BRI 114.1 28 25 (-3) 20 (-8) <br />As shown, not all areas met the density of one transect per four acres. <br />Also, CYCC maintains that if extra transects are needed to achieve sample <br />adequacy, additional transects would be proportionally distributed among the <br />parcels. If this was the case, all parcels should have at least the minimum <br />density of transects and any additional transects should be dispersed among <br />all parcels, not clumped as evidence in parcels COA 5-4.BRI, COEJ 8-S.BRI, <br />and CPEK 23-O.BRI (1990). <br />Based on this analysis, it appears that CYCC did not conduct statistically <br />valid vegetation sampling as required by Rule 4.15. Curiously, when this <br />information is considered with vegetative cover and production data, all <br />parcels where extra sampling points were placed have exceeded the reference <br />area values for cover and production. All parcels with less than the minimum <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.