GENERAL53749 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII STATE OF COLC~I~9UU DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Deparlmem of Natural Resources 1 313 Sherman 51 , Roum ? I S Irl~` Denver, Cobrada 80203 III Phune:13031 865-3567 FAX: 13031 832~R106 DEPARTMENT OF DATE: July 9 , 1997 / ~$~[JR~ $ TO: David Berry / ~ ; R°oef ~ fames 5. Lechhead FROM: Dan Mathews ~ erecwlve olrecinr An chae~R. LOng RE: HG Mine Phase 3 Bond Release Vegetation Report DrvsiunD~,e~~°, Permit C-80-003 Per your request, I have reviewed the 1996 Reclamation Bond Release Study Report for the H-G Mine. Data was collected in August, 1996 by Intermountain Resources for the operator, Terramatrix Inc. The report addresses 1st year data collection; the operator will be collecting 2nd year data as required by regulation this summer. I reviewed the report for compliance with applicable regulations, the Division's bond release guideline, and the amended "Bond Release Vegetation Sampling Plan", dated July 12, 1996. My comments are listed below. 1. In Section 4.1, the report indicates that sample observations were proportionally allocated within designated reclamation parcels, and Section 5.0 indicates that sample site locations are "plotted on the map included". The map included with my copy of the report shows only reference area transect locations, and not reclaimed area sampling locations. A map showing reclaimed area sample observation locations (for cover, production, and woody plant density) should be included. Also, to demonstrate that proportionality was achieved, parcel acreages and sample observations within each parcel should be provided in a tabular format. 2. Table 7 lists "estimated reference area acreage weighted means" for cover and production, along with reclaimed area means demonstrating that the respective standards were achieved. The acreage weighting formula with actual vegetation type acreage and reference area parameter values should be included, and maps used to determine the appropriate weighting percentages should be referenced. 3. Section 5.6 discussion indicates that the species diversity standard was not met. This conclusion is based on a species diversity standard which has been subsequently amended, and as such the discussion is outdated. The section should be appropriately updated.