Laserfiche WebLink
TRAPPER MINING INC. <br /> P.O. Box 187 Craig,Colorado 81626 (970)824-4401 <br /> February 3, 2020 <br /> Ms. Robin Reilley <br /> Environmental Protection Specialist RECE. �., <br /> "4 E <br /> Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety <br /> 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 FEB 0 7 2020 <br /> Denver, CO 80203 <br /> DIVISION OF RECLAMATION <br /> Dear Ms. Reilley: MININGAND SAFETY <br /> Re: Trapper Mining Inc., Permit No. C-1981-010 <br /> Phase III Bond Release Application (SL-20) Response to DRMS Comments <br /> Please consider this correspondence as Trapper's response to the SL-20 adequacy <br /> comments given in your letter of January 10, 2020. Our response to your questions is <br /> given below. <br /> DRMS Comment <br /> 2017 Dataset <br /> o Table 3: the allowable cover totals in transects 1, 3, 9, 15 and <br /> 18 are inconsistent with the data provided. Adding a column <br /> yields a whole number where the data shows a decimal. <br /> o differing shrub density sample means recorded in in Table 2 <br /> (24.42) and Table 5 (26.42). <br /> o inconsistencies in the species diversity discussion on page 7 of <br /> Attachment 1 and Table 3. <br /> Trapper Response <br /> o As we discussed, the allowable cover numbers are correct in Table 3. Decimals <br /> are possible when relative annual cover is greater than 10%. The Table 3 Excel <br /> spreadsheet file that I emailed to you shows the formula for allowable cover and <br /> demonstrates how a decimal is possible. <br /> o The incorrect sample mean in Table 2 has been corrected and a revised Table 2 <br /> is attached. <br /> o I assume you are referring to the discussion where Trapper considers a relative <br /> cover value of 2.9% to represent a species counted as having 3% relative cover. <br /> We have previously rounded up to 3% in Phase III bond release applications <br /> when applying the 3% standard for grasses and forbs/shrubs and feel it is <br /> appropriate to continue to do so. <br /> DMRS Comment <br /> 2018 Dataset <br /> o Table 3: the total perennial cover and allowable cover values <br /> were inconsistent with the data provided. <br /> o the shrub density discussion on page 6 uses units: <br /> 2 2. <br /> shrubs/100mwhereas Table utilizes units: shrubs/20m <br />