My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11234
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11234
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:37 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:18:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981039
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
1/4/1984
Doc Name
RESPONSES TO PERMIT REVIEW LETTER
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.
/
81
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
L <br />1 <br />' THE ROCKCASTLE COMPANY <br />Technical Adequacy Resopnse <br />' The following are responses to questions raised by the Division of Mined <br />Land Reclamation in their review of the P.ockcastle Company's permit ap- <br />placation for the Grassy Creek Mine. <br />The Division's questions are given, followed by Rockcastle's response. If <br />acceptable to the Division, these responses are intended to be incorporated <br />' as an addendum to the permit application. <br />' XII. Vegetation--Rules 2.09,10, 2.05.9(2Xe) and 4.15 <br />The following deficiencies have been identified with respect to vegetation <br />information and the revegetation plan as presented in the application. <br />1. In the statistical analyses, proposed reference areas were included in <br />the general population. Proposed reference areas were not compared to the <br />' baseline population. Reference area data should be removed from the affected <br />area data and ca mpared to the baseline dnta to determine equivalence. <br />~~i_ The vegetation composition of the mine lease area is shown in Tables <br />1, 2 and 3 of this addendum. They differ from Tables 1, 2 and 3 <br />of the original vegetation baseline inventory in that the reference <br />~~ ~~ ~ area data have been removed. These tables show the percent floristic <br />composition (relative species composition) for the aspen, mountain <br />y~ 3'IJ brush and sagebrush types, respectively. ('omparable tables for the <br />13 reference areas are shown in Tables 6, 7 and 8, respectively, of the <br />' ~ original vegetation baseline inventory. <br />°~ Similarly, Table 5 of this addendum presents relative percent foliage <br />' ~~ cover, grams biomass per meter square plot, and density of woody <br />species per plot (10 x 10 meters) for the three vegetation types, <br />~ exclusive of reference area sampling. Table 5a gives an analysis <br />of variance of these data. <br />' Table 6, 7 and 8 of this addendum show the species for each of the <br />vegetation types that make up approximately 5 percent or more of <br />' the total herbaceous cover. In most eases the dominant species- <br />and even the minor species-are comparable for the inventoried areas <br />and the reference cress. <br />' Information in Table 9 of this addendum shows information used to <br />compare cover, biomass and woody plant density for the three vege- <br />tation types inventoried on the mine lease, In this case the "t" values <br />' are calculated for each parameter for each of the two reference <br />areas in each of the three vegetation types. Of the "t" values cal- <br />culated, five may be considered somewhat high. Three of these are <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.