My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE115039
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE115039
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:11:07 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 12:25:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
X198316908
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
7/6/1982
Doc Name
PROPOSED P AND M FISH CREEK MINE Memo
From
MLR
To
FILE
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii hi <br />STATE OF COLORADO HIC HAFO D. IAMM. Govcin a~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />D. Monte Pascoe, Executive Director <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION <br />423 Centennial Building,1313Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 <br />David C. Shelton <br />July 6, 1982 DifeCtof <br />TO: File <br />FROM: Carol Russell <br />RE: Proposed P 6 M Fish Creek Mine <br />The purpose of the meeting on June 24, 1982 was to discuss needed vegetation <br />information for an alluvial valley floor determination. Don Manning, <br />plant ecologist for P & M, presented the existing vegetative data to <br />Dave Craig, Sandy Emrich and Carol Russell of the Division. The existing <br />information was collected by the consulting firm of CDM. The study by <br />CDM in 1979 covered Sections lO,lI,14 ,15 and the E'ri of Section 16, TSN, <br />R86W. Communities of importance to the RVF study were identified as B1 <br />sage, cinquefoil (Mountain Meadow) and H) small grain fields. Sample <br />adequacy can be confirmed for most areas. <br />However, two problems exist as to the extent of the study. First, all of <br />Section 16 is included within the proposed permit area, but was not sampled. <br />Productivity data collection for the remainder of Section 16 during this <br />summer would be ill advised. Information obtained would be unreliable <br />because the area has been grazed since May. <br />Secondly, vegetation samples were not taken on the hydrologically adjacent <br />areas. Don Manning asked if information collected by Colorado Yampa down- <br />stream of the mine in hydrologically adjacent areas could be used. The <br />Division's response was positive, contingent upon Colorado Yampa's approval <br />and the adequacy of the information. <br />Dave Craig clarified the vegetation information needed for the AVF deter- <br />mination as follows: <br />1. Species identification, <br />2. Production, and <br />3. Reason for water availability, i.e. subirrigation or flood irrigation. <br />We also discussed the meaning of "significance" as it relates to the amount <br />of production from a single operation. <br />/mt <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.