2010-05-26_REVISION - C1981008 (2)

Home Browse Search

C- 1981 -008 - SL -12 26 May 2010 Preliminary Adequacy Review Page 5 of 7 demonstrate success. The fact that no adjustment was applied results in a more robust demonstration of success, because the adjustment factor would have lowered the reference area production standard (making success demonstration less stringent). 8. We have the following requests regarding the pages replaced in March 2010, pertaining to Post -mine Revegetation Success: a) Pages 26, 27, and 28 of the original application were replaced with 4 pages of revised material. The replacement pages were erroneously numbered 27, 28, 29, and 30. The replacement pages should be numbered 26, 27, 28, 28a, and 29. Please submit correctly numbered and dated revision pages for insertion into the application. b) Table 1 on the replacement pages is confusing and contains erroneous information. The table would be easier to read if the information for each reference area sample were immediately followed (on the next row of the table) by the information for the relevant reclaimed area sample. Second, the column at the far right side of the table with the heading "Adequacy Demonstrated" is confusing. The intent of the column appears to be whether "Success" was demonstrated, rather than sample adequacy. The asterisked footnote stating "adequacy demonstrated via ... West" contributes to the confusion, because a t -test is used in demonstration of success, not demonstration of sample adequacy. Lastly, it is not clear whether the "Yes" statements and asterisk or lack of asterisk notations are intended to apply to the cover factor or the production factor or both. Please revise the table to present the reference area and corresponding reclaimed area sample information in logical order. Further, please insert a column titled "Cover Success Demonstrated" within the "Absolute Cover" block of the table, and re -title the "Adequacy Demonstrated" column on the far right side of the table "Production Success Demonstrated ". Please delete the confusing "adequacy demonstrated..." footnote. c) The Mean and 90% of Mean values listed in the Absolute Cover block of the table for various categories are erroneous; IP Reference Area 2007 values should be 75.2% and 67.7% respectively, DP Reference Area 2007 values should be 30.3% and 27.3% respectively, and IP Reference Area 2008 values should be 57.8% and 52.0 %, respectively. Please revise the table with the correct values. d) The next to last narrative paragraph on revised page 28 (beginning with Irrigated Pasture cover in the reclaimed area...) is confusing and contains inaccuracies; it should be deleted. e) Inclusion of the final narrative paragraph on the page, the subsequent t -test, and related paragraphs on the following page is unnecessary, and merely repeats information that is adequately covered in Appendix B. A simpler approach would be to asterisk the "Yes" notation for the 2007 Dryland Pasture Reclaimed Area Cover, with a footnote to refer the reader to the t -test success demonstration in the applicable section of the Appendix B, BIO -Logic Phase 3 Vegetation Report (Section 3.3, pages 14 -16). The entire narrative after the initial paragraph below Table 1 could be replaced with a statement referring the reader to the BIO- Logic, Inc. report in Appendix B, "2007 -2008 Vegetation Studies for Phase 3 Bond Release... ", for a