REV93042 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 Meeker Mines Phase II Bond Release Meeting: June 30, 1993 release area, averaging of the three separate areas was questioned, sediment loads for the phased release must be submitted, and there exists problems with the facilities left in place. Greg Lewicki asked Steve Rathbun if there was a problem with the gap between the data collected by DMG and by the operator? DMG did not collect vegetation data to adequacy whereas the operator did. Bob Postle responded that the State can review the operator's submittal and is not required to perform duplicate sampling. Rathbun maintained that DMG did not evaluate all three areas. Larry Routten clarified that although two areas were sampled for vegetation the third one was visually inspected on the same date. Bernie Freeman interjected that it was not clear that DMG inspected the refuse area in the written record. • The DMG will locate verification of this inspection report and provide it to OSM:AFO. Bob Postle talked about the need to demonstrate that the three distinct areas do represent the same populations. The problem he sees with combining the three ares is each area may exhibit community differences and represent separate populations. Greg Lewicki, and Mike Savage said that they can demonstrate that the three areas do represent the same population. Mike Savage stated that he performed an analysis of variance prior to combining the results. The one area that did not have the same mean was excluded from the bond release request. Mike Savage will submit the proof of these "f" tests. Mike Walker also clarified that the same parameters were applied to all three ares at the time of reclamation; topsoil depth, seedmix, seedbed prep, planting technique....Steve Rathbun told Mike Savage that he needs to adhere to the June 4th letter policy yet Bob Postle said to address all the issues mentioned in the May 28th memo. • Mike Savage will submit "f" tests demonstrating homogeneity of the populations. Although earlier in the meeting it had been stated by Bob Postle that the Division may review and accept the operator's data here Steve Rathbun announced that DMG needs to "properly" document why the Division's results were not used. Larry Routten explained that the Division's veg. data was not collected to adequacy, two transects were collected in the locale that the operator later excluded from the request, and by result of t-tests DMG saw no reason not to accept the operator's data. • The DMG will provide OSM our statistical analysis The sediment loss issue arose at this point. Steve Rathbun feels the Division has not set a standard for acceptable sediment loss. the permit has approved losses determined from unmined adjacent