My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP47194
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP47194
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:50:42 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 11:42:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
7/10/1996
Doc Name
Sly Gulch Veg Sampling - DMG comment letter
From
DMG
To
SAVAGE AND SAVAGE
Permit Index Doc Type
REVEG MONITORING REPORT
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.
/
2
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
By the way, the West Elk permit (p.2.04-156} discusses the potential listing of Grand Mesa <br />penstemon as an endangered species. I was told by the US Fish and Wildlife Service that <br />this species and other category 2 candidates have been dropped from consideration as <br />endangered species. I would recommend that the USFWS and the US Forest Service be <br />consulted for input as to whether any threatened or endangered species occur in the <br />proposed disturbance area in Sylvester Gulch. <br />RELOCATION OF REFERENCE AREA <br />The plan for comparing the established reference area to a new reference area is <br />appropriate, as is the proposed sampling methodology. However, the statistical comparison <br />should be between the means of given parameters in the two areas, not between one mean <br />and 90% of the other mean. A suggested statistical comparison is included in the DMG <br />vegetation guideline. I did not look over the data for the existing reference are but, if there <br />is any significant component of shrubs in the area, their cover and numbers should be <br />quantitatively estimated. Stem counts could be estimated in belt transects adjacent to cover <br />transecu, and would not need to be done to 90% confidence levels. <br />ESTABLISHMENT OF HISTORIC RECORD TECHNICAL STANDARDS <br />The proposal for establishing historic records is generally in accord with our recent <br />discussions and seems appropriate to me with one exception. The DMG vegetation <br />guidelines recommend a minimum of seven years of data, rather than the three years in your <br />proposal. Four additional matters that would need to be evaluated are, 1.) the selection of <br />an appropriate area in the field, 2.) whether to use the mean or median of cover and <br />production values. (This would depend on the distribution of the data values), 3.) <br />characterization of climatic data during the sampling years which might account for <br />fluctuations in vegetative growth and, 4.) management of grazing and other uses of the <br />selected study during the study period. <br />Let me know if any have any questions. <br />Sincerely, <br />1~c.i <br />Larry P. Routten <br />Environmental Protection pecialist <br />cc: Mike Boulay ~ ~:~,.PSi~o~~o~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.