Laserfiche WebLink
', 1 III III III III IIII III <br />~r`°~R STATE OF COLORADO <br />Roy Romer, Gove <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />FRED R. BANTA, Dlreetor ~:. ~ - <br />DATE: March 24, 1989 <br />T0: Jeff Clapton Sus/a'/n1 Mowry <br />FROM: Carl Mount ~ ~. _ (/ <br />RE: 1988 Revegetation Monitoring Report, Sun Coal Company, Meadows No. 1, <br />Permit C-B1-029 - <br />I have reviewed the 1988 Re vegetation Monitoring submittal (in consultation <br />with Mike Savage, MLRD) from Sun Coal Company (Sun) as you requested. MLRD <br />also monitored vegetation at the Meadows Mine in 1988. Sun sampled the pit <br />area from September 5 through September 7, 1988; MLRD sampling for vegetative <br />cover took place on August 12, 1988. Please refer to the memorandum from me <br />to Susan Mowry and Jeff Clapton dated IAarch 21, 1989 for a discussion of the <br />results from MLRD sampling. <br />There are several concerns with the submittal that I have identified below: <br />1. There is no raw data with the submittal, therefore the Division cannot <br />verify tables, graphs, results, statistics, or conclusions. <br />2. The vegetation study sampling was conducted across all four seeded areas. <br />This presented problems in achieving sample adequacy for cover and pro- <br />duction; sample adequacy (at the 804 confidence limit) for production alas <br />not reached after 45 samples. In the futurE, it is recommended that <br />samples be stratified according to plant community (seeded area). Result; <br />could then be weighted and averaged later for total revegetated area co~~~- <br />parisons with the Seneca II Mountain 3rush reference area. This type of <br />sampling strategy is the one that MLRD used and has the benefit of making <br />sample adeouacy easiEr to reach and illustrating possible problems in <br />individual plant communities. Sun would know which areas to concentrate <br />on if other re vegetation work was needed. <br />3. Sample adeouacy calculations were performed at the 80n confide r e limit, <br />not the 9Cs limit required by h1LRD. <br />4. blear (averaee) and standard deviation figures and calculations for total <br />vegetation cover and production are not provided and, as mentioned above, <br />the raW data 1S nOt availablE SO t~ne ~iViSiOn could nOt independently <br />perform the calculations. <br />~. there Wd5 n0 comparison Of 1988 data and re sul t5 t0 ddtd Coll?CtEd (2) <br />tW0 VEa rS dgG. SUCK a comparison and trE nd anal; S15 YlOU~d pro VE USEfiI~. <br />