Laserfiche WebLink
6 . Pages 26 through 28 of the application were revised in a submittal dated 3/9/10 to incorporate <br />discussion and a table ("Soil Correction Table ") regarding a soil factor adjustment procedure <br />allowed und the approved permit [approved in T -5], for comparison of Irrigated Pasture IP) <br />reclaimed area production to reference area production. The soil factor adjustments were not <br />applied and were not necessary to demonstrate success. The fact that no adjustment was <br />applied results in a more robust demonstration of success, because the adjustment factor would <br />have lowered the reference area production standard (making success demonstration less <br />stringent). <br />7. We have the following requests regarding the pages replaced in March 2010, pertaining to Post - <br />mine Revegetation Success: <br />a) Pages 2, 27, and 28 of the original application were replaced with 4 pages of revised <br />material. The replacement pages were erroneously numbered 27, 23, 2 , and 30. The <br />replacement pages should be numbered 26, 27,,28, 28a,. and 29. Please submit correctly <br />numbered and dated revision pages for insertion into the application. <br />b) Table 1 on the replacement pages is confusing and contains erroneous information. The <br />table would be easier to read if the information for each reference area sample were <br />immediately followed (ors the next row of the table) by the information for the relevant <br />reclaimed area sample. Second, the column at the far right side of the table with the <br />heading "Adequacy Demon trated" is confusing. The intent of the column appears to be <br />whether was der onstrated, rather than sample adequacy. The asterisked <br />footnote stating "adequacy demonstrated via ... t -test" contributes to the confusion, because <br />a t -test is used in demonstration of success, not demonstration of sample adequacy. Lastly, <br />it is not clear whether the ""Yes" statements and asterisk or lack of asterisk notations are <br />intended to apply to the cover factor or the production factor or both. Please revise the <br />table to present the reference area and corresponding reclaimed area sample information in <br />logical order. Further, please insert a column titled "' Success Demonstrated" within <br />the "Absolute Cover" block of the table, and retitle the "'Adequacy Demonstrated" column <br />on the far right side of the table "Production Success Demonstrated ". Please delete the <br />confusing "adequacy demonstrated..." footnote. <br />c] The Mean and 0% of Mean values listed in the Absolute Corer block of the table for various <br />categories are erroneous; IP Reference Area 2007 values should be 75.29 and 67.7% <br />respectively, DP Reference Area 2007vaIue s should be 30.3% and 27. o respectively, and <br />IP Reference Area 2008 values should be 57.8% and 52.090, respectively. Please revise the <br />table with the correct values. <br />d) The next to last narrative paragraph on revised page 2 8 (beginning with Irrigated Pasture <br />cover in the reclaimed area...) is confusing and contains inaccuracies; it should be deleted. <br />e] inclusion of the final narrative paragraph on the page, the subsequent t -test, and related <br />paragraphs on the following page is unnecessary, and merely repeats information than is <br />adequately covered in Appendix B. A simpler approach would be to asterisk the "'Yes" <br />notation for the 2007 Dryland Pasture Reclaimed Area Corer, with a footnote to ref the <br />reader to the t -test success demonstration in the applicable section of the Appendix B, Blo- <br />Logic Phase 3 Vegetation Report (Section 3.3, pages 14-16). The entire narrative after the <br />