My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV10470
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV10470
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:16:06 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:12:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980003
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
2/27/1998
Doc Name
PH II/III BRA EXHIBIT 1
From
VEGETATION STUDY FOR FINAL BOND RELEASE
Type & Sequence
SL3
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.
/
100
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
• the Topsoil Pile B and C azeas while Big sagebrush was dominant on the primary <br />reclaimed area and the Sanitary Landfill area. It should be noted that Topsoil Pile B had <br />one shrub density sample site while Topsoil Pile C, Sanitary Landfill area and Explosives <br />Storage azea had two sample sites each. <br />5.5 Statistical Anal~es <br />1996 Data <br />All production and cover data collected during the original 1996 study met sample <br />adequacy as shown on Table 4a. Shrub density did not meet sample adequacy but the <br />assumption that the standard was met is still valid based on statistical tests performed in <br />accordance with CDMG direction, as discussed in Section 6.0. Table 4a was generated <br />• using the formulas and statistical values outlined in the 1995 CDMG Bond Release <br />Guideline. <br />1996 Revised Data <br />Table 46 shows the revised 1996 data in which all pazameters except reclamation <br />production and shrub density met sample adequacy. Given that the mean productivity <br />value for the reclaimed area far exceeds the productivity value for any of the reference <br />azeas, sample adequacy is of little concern for this pazameter. It is assumed that the shrub <br />density standard was met and is still valid based on statistical tests as discussed in Section <br />6.0. Statistical evaluations were not calculated for the small non-contiguous azeas due to <br />the low numbers of samples collected. <br />C 1 <br />28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.