GENERAL52599 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES D Monte Pascoe. Executive Drtedor MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION DAVID C. SNELTON Director Riohartl D. Lamm Governor April 27, 1983 T0: Jim Herron FROM: M.S. Savage ~~avAbt-.. RE: Review of Sheridan Enterprises/WRD Responses to Stipulations for McClane and Munger Permits (No. C-OO4-8U and C-007-80, respectively) Jim, I have reviewed the April 18, 1983 submittal by Sheridan Enterprises/Western Resource Development which addresses the vegetation/revegetat ion stipulations to the f4cClane and t4unger permits, and have the following comments: `MONGER CANYON Stipulation No. 9: The response to this stipulation is satisfactory. The Division may consider the requirements of this stipulation satisfied. WRD demonstrated that by combining productivity data from the Big Sagebrush affected and reference areas, an adequate sample was obtained. It is noted that the nmin calculation presented is in error by an order of magnitude, but this does not affect the adequacy of the sampling. Stipulation No. 10: The response to this stipulation was satisfactory. The Division may consider the requirements of this stipulation satisfied. WRD has demonstrated the representativeness of the sampling year. Stipulation No. 11: The information required by this stipulation was present within the permit application. The permittee may be required to sample in some communities for the reasons discussed below. For all vegetation types present at Munger Canyon, it was determined that woody plant density sampling and tree density sampling was insufficient to meet sample adequacy requirements. Several tests were performed to determine the comparability of affected and reference areas, and t4unger and McClane communities. It was determined that the means of Big Sagebrush affected and 423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado H0203 Tet. (303) 866-3567