REV89818 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(19.8$, 7.6$, and 10.6$ relative cover, respectively). The Division's noxious weed guideline states that if the relative cover of noxious weeds in a revegetated stand exceeds 30, a possible infestation is indicated. The Division's bond release guideline states, on page 7, that "Phase II bond release will be denied if the reclaimed area has not been managed in compliance with the Division's Guideline for the Management of Noxious Weeds on Coal Mine Permit Areas." In order for bond release to be approved for the specified areas, the application will need to demonstrate that the apparent bindweed infestations are being managed in compliance with the referenced guideline. 4. The apparently inappropriate numeric average comparisons of the entire dryland reclaimed area and combined AVF areas to the applicable reference areas were deleted from the narrative on amended page A-6. A T-Test comparison was included in the response letter which demonstrates that the 1991 AVF reclaimed area cover was not less than 90% of the reference area cover standard, with an alpha error probability of .10. The demonstration should be included in the amended application. 5. Based on the data submitted, we still have concerns regarding lack of warm seasong grasses and approved perennial forbs, and excessive noxious weeds on the various East Pit reclamation parcels, and the 1991 AVF area. Final recommendation will be made following review of responses to remaining adequacy concerns, and review of the bond release inspection report. 6. The requested AVF quadrat sampling production data was provided. The data summaries indicate that sample adequacy was not achieved for either of the reclaimed AVF areas, although the reference area mean was exceeded. This deficiency should be addressed. It is possible that a reverse null T-Test approach could be used to demonstrate that the reclaimed area means exceed the standard, with an alpha error probability of .10. Certain additional information should be provided regarding the quadrat sampling. How many quadrats were clipped per transect and how were they located along the transect? Were only ^approved species^ included in the production data? 7. An explanation for the discrepancy between quadrat sample data and field harvest data was provided. Given the incomplete field harvest due to the small area and other factors mentioned, the Division will place primary emphasis on the quadrat sample data for the purposes of bond release demonstration. 8. The requested corrections were made.