My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-09-21_PERMIT FILE - C1981010A (44)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1981010
>
2009-09-21_PERMIT FILE - C1981010A (44)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:55:40 PM
Creation date
11/24/2009 12:55:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981010A
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
9/21/2009
Doc Name
Rangeland, Cropland, Wildlife Mitigation & Air Pollution Control Plan
From
pages 4-101 to 4-171
Section_Exhibit Name
4.4 through 4.7
Media Type
D
Archive
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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
1) That within the sample all species in the parent population are represented. <br />2) That the parent population exists as a homogeneous entity. <br />3) That the parent population or collection consists of no more than two species. <br />Pielou (1966) altered the Shannon-Weiner (Weaver) formula to mitigate assumption number 3. His <br />modification is described as follows: <br />H' (s) _ -I i pilogspi; where s =the number of species. <br />However, as such, H'(s) no longer measures diversity as typically defined. Instead, it provides a measure <br />of evenness, or how individuals are portioned among the species in the entire community. <br />Finally, and most importantly, one must be aware that to compare a portion of an undisturbed, natural <br />and relatively stable community (permanent reference site) against what will be a changing community (at <br />least for most of the liability period) by a standard which is subjective in design and intent, is extremely <br />statistically and legally questionable. As it now exists, the diversity index obtained is simply a number <br />that is largely meaningless since it cannot be compared to any known standard for management <br />purposes. <br />It is important at this point to state what we feel is common ground on the issue of diversity between <br />Trapper Mine and the regulatory agencies. <br />• 1. Diversity is ill defined mathematically and controversial. <br />2. The importance of species or life forms should be considered in terms of the end land use. <br />3. A meaningful, acceptable, reproducible standard should be used. <br />4. The standard must be based upon easily obtainable data such as cover, production or density. <br />In light of the described problems, a technique based on more traditional range analysis methods will be <br />used to determine if a diverse plant community is reestablished. Tables 2.3-3 and 2.3-5 list the <br />percentage that each species contributed to the herbaceous aerial cover on range sites A and B in 1980. <br />On range site A, 6 species (4 grasses and 2 (orbs) each comprised greater than 3.0% of that cover (see <br />Table 2.3-3). On range site B, 5 species (4 grasses and 1 forb) each comprised greater than 3.0% of <br />that cover (see Table 2.3-5). Based on the historical predominance of at least 4 grass species and at <br />least 1 forb species on each site as shown in Tables 2.3-3 and 2.3-5, an appropriate diversity standard <br />for evaluating success would be 4 grass species and 1 fort species. <br />n <br />U <br />4-121 <br />Revision: -Te - - <br />Z/ <br />Approved: i8?98
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.