My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV98943
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV98943
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:22:56 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 12:22:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981026
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/16/1990
Doc Name
REVIEW OF REVEGETATION DATA RECLAMATION DESCRIPTION PROVIDED AS PART OF MIDTERM RESPONSE
From
MLRD
To
CATHY BEGEJ
Type & Sequence
MT2
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.
/
5
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
Memo -Cathy Begej - 2 - May 16, 1990 <br />With the 1983 Canadian data, three transects (samples) were run. These <br />three samples consisted of 12, 11, and 12 subsamples (rather than the <br />typical 10). The transects were distributed in three different areas <br />(1979-1980 reclaimed area; Phase III area without rye; Phase III area <br />with rye). Only one sample was taken per area, which does not allow the <br />calculation of sample adequacy. While the data is of interest, an <br />adequate sample was not taken, and conclusions drawn from it are <br />suspect. While Rule 4.15.1(4) states that "monitoring need not meet <br />statistical adequacy, ...", it also requires that collected data <br />"represent the revegetated area." It is hard to argue that one sample <br />represents a distinct area. <br />B) Cover Data Collected October 22, 1988. <br />Nine cover transects were run probably by David Stout. The optical point <br />frame hits were segregated into the following categories: <br />1. Grass 4. Wood chips <br />2. Forb 5. Soil <br />3. Shrub 6. Rock <br />The data are not sorted by species as we generally require; they are not <br />even sorted by annuals and perennials. <br />The data consisted of nine transects from the 1987 seeded area. Table 4 <br />summarizes the data. If grass and forb data was of a perennial nature, <br />this would be excellent cover fora one year old stand. I would guess <br />much of the forb data is contributed by Russian thistle, which often <br />dominates young reclaimed areas. Noticeably missing were any hits on <br />shrubs. I am sure this is no surprise to you. <br />C) Cover Data Collected September 21 and 22, 1989. <br />I will review this data as part of the Bond Release request review <br />process. Note however, that the operator sampled 5 transects each on the <br />1981 area, 1987 area, and the reference area. This was certainly their <br />most comprehensive effort, and for obvious reasons. It should be pointed <br />out that Wyoming Fuel has yet to submit woody plant density data, a topic <br />which is of great interest to the Division. <br />/ern <br />7157E <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.