Laserfiche WebLink
Bob Liddle -4- March 13ti 1981 <br />(Brower and Zar, 1977, Whittaker, 1.975). <br />3. Relative to Snowmass' comments on agency coordination it is pointed out <br />that regardless of what commitments were made by agency personnel in past <br />correspondence Snowmass is responsible for satisfying the requirements of CRS <br />34-33-101 et. sec. and rules and regulations promulgated thereto. <br />9. The utilization of one square meter plots for sampling production in the <br />mountain shrubland (dry phase) community is not an appropriate technique as is <br />evidenced by the number of samples containing no vegetation. The presence of <br />no vegetation in a large number of the samples increases variance greatly, <br />consequently increasing minimum sample size required for sample adequacy. <br />Snowmass must either resample this coininunity type utilizing an appropriate <br />sampling methodology, or demonstrate to the Division that the sampling presented <br />adequately describes the on ground production of the mountain shrubland (dry <br />phase) vegetation type. <br />10. According to my calculations, the reference area for mountain shrubland <br />(dry phase) is significantly different from the affected area at a confidence <br />level of 80~~, for the cover parameter. Snowmass should provide their calcula- <br />tions for this comparison. <br />11. Which plant species are present in the mountain shrubland affected area but <br />absent in the mountain shrubland reference area. <br />12. Snowmass needs to provide the Division with tree densitites for the mountain <br />shrubland (dry phase) affected area and reference area in order to evaluate <br />comparability of woody plant desities. <br />Loadout <br />1. None of the figures listed in the Appendix H or 2-H are present. Snowmass <br />should provide these. <br />2. My calculations indicate that the Pinyon-Juniper Woodland affected area and <br />reference area are significantly different at 80Y confidence level, for produc- <br />tion. <br />3. The mean shrub density for the Pinyon-Juniper Woodland reference area is <br />much less than that of the affected area. Snowmass needs to address this <br />difference. <br />4. What are the species which are present in the affected area for Pinyon- <br />Juniper Woodland which are not present in the reference area? <br />Revegetation Plan 2.05.4(e) <br />1. Is the "trial basis" Snowmass refers to under the revegetation plan to be <br />construed to mean field trials as defined in Rule 4.15.6? Snowmass needs to <br />clarify this point. <br />2. In Tables 4.4.2-3 and 4.4.2-4 Sno~~mass has summarized different treatments <br />utilized in reestablishing vegetation at the mine but has provided no data by <br />which to evaluate the success of these treatments. If the Division is to <br />utilize this as either evidence for reclaimability of the mine site or as <br />field trial designs, additional information relative to the success of each <br />