Laserfiche WebLink
in the reference area, reverse null tes#ing would employ atterthwaite <br />corrected tvvv sample t-testing. <br />1 S. DLR noted that the mid summer tir?cfrana.e far sampling specified in the application <br />aright be overly restrictive, given the growth patterns of the introduced caul seasan pasture <br />grasses and legumes utilised in the New Hariznn Reclamation. The section was properly <br />t?vised. Item Resolved. <br />New Review omrnents <br />l9. The Tab ?? Table of contents does not correspond to the page numbers of the amended <br />Tab ?2 narrative, tables, and appendices. please amend the Table of contents section as <br />appropriate. <br />?a. Table ?2-5 indicates that the production standard for NH-1 dryland pasture reclamation is <br />to be based an comparison to ? technical standard of 50? pounds per acre. For the same <br />bas1c reason discussed above under arnment 13, use of a teclirrical standard for <br />production is problematic. A dryland pasture reference area has been established for <br />den?ot?stratian of successful cover establishment, acrd we believe it would be appropriate to <br />designate the same reference area to be used a,s the method far derzranstratian of dryland <br />pasture production success comparison. Please amend Table ??- to specify use of the <br />dryland pasture reference area far NH-? production success demonstration. <br />? l .There currently are no species diversity success criteria applicable to the pastureland ar <br />cropla.rrd t?p?es within the ??- l or NH-2 mine areas. Diversity requtrerr2ents had been <br />waived in the past, due to the focus an establishment of a relativel?r small number of <br />improved pasture grasses and legumes. MLR believes ?t is true that tradlt?anal dlverslty <br />criteria applied to rangeland and wildlife habitat reclamation areas are not appropriate for <br />New ?ari?on agricultural lands. ?awever, as discussed at the mine site meeting on 1VIay <br />?, 2??, lrrvalvln ??, 1VILR, and wF representatives, criteria to ensure that <br />rec?armed area vegetation rs ofacceptable quality ?r,e. primarily composed of desirable <br />species} is v?rarranted. Air ea?arriple of the type of criteria that might be appropriate would <br />be; "At least 75°I? of the relative cover ar relative praductiarr will be comprised of seeded <br />species or species of comparable quality as livestock forage, and no mare than 3??a relative <br />cover ar relative production will be cainprised of aunty listed noxious species". Because <br />cropland areas might otherwise be harvested and not sampled, sa?rplit? of cropland. areas <br />to rrrake the relevant demonstration would be necessary. Far the purposes of the "quality" <br />derxronstration, species carxrposition percentages based on a statistically adequate cover ar <br />production sample, ar minimum of 3a abservatians, would be acceptable. Finally, because <br />?iII? Boyd afNRC brought up this concern at the gay rrieeting, please contact him in <br />regard to develaprnent of appropriate "quality" standard ar standards. <br />Please amend the revegetation success demonstration success sections of the <br />application to inicude species composition ?ua?zty criteria fnr N?-?. and Nl?-? <br />dryiand pasture irrigated pasture, and irrigated cropland vegetation types. <br />9