My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-12-21_REVISION - C1981013
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981013
>
2007-12-21_REVISION - C1981013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:20:01 PM
Creation date
2/27/2009 11:22:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
12/21/2007
Doc Name
Adequacy Review
From
DRMS
To
Peak Project Management
Type & Sequence
SL6
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.
/
6
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
r • <br />production exceeds reference area production, the Division could accept the <br />data as a valid demonstration of success (recognizing that the regulations <br />specifying specific sample size requirements and treatment of transect <br />quadrats as subsamples were not in effect at the time of sampling). <br />3. Text from the approved permit reads "Shrub density will not be used to <br />evaluate revegetation success, since the post mining land use is rangeland <br />and pastureland. Rather, the shrub component will comprise up to 5% of the <br />species composition or 2-4 shrubs per meter squared." No mention of the <br />shrubs or shrub component on the reclaimed area was noted in the report. <br />Please include some discussion in the report regarding success in achieving <br />this shrub standard or goal. <br />4. Tables A-4 and A-5, list the production mean field "wet" weights. However, it <br />appears that sample adequacy was calculated using the dry weights as <br />required by the regulations. The dry weights are calculated and recorded on <br />the data sheets in Tables A-9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19. For review purposes, it <br />would have been helpful to have a similar table using the dry weights <br />summarized for each of the reclaimed and reference areas. <br />5. The statistical methods and formulas used for the 2006 production <br />demonstrations appear to be appropriate and correct, except the undesirable <br />perennial forb component does not appear to have been defined or removed <br />from the data sets prior to calculation of sample statistics. From the data, it <br />appears that the undesirable forb component was more prevalent in the AVF <br />reference area than the AVF reclaimed area, and was a relatively minor <br />component of the rangeland reclaimed area. The undesirable perennial forbs <br />should be defined. If they are classified as "noxious weeds" on the Las <br />Animas County list, those species need to be removed from each sample <br />observation prior to calculation of sample statistics (mean, standard deviation, <br />variance). This would be the case for cover as well as production, in cases <br />where statistical testing is required to demonstrate success. <br />If you have questions or comments, please call me. <br />Since <br />Kent A Gorham <br />Environmental Protection Specialist 11
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.