Laserfiche WebLink
Mike Boulay -15- April 11, 2011 <br />"Vegetation Information", narrative indicates that the vegetation boundaries of all <br />lands within one half mile of the proposed permit area are shown on Map 4, <br />"Adjacent Area Vegetation Map". However, this is not the case; Map 4 is a large <br />scale (1" = 300) map, which includes very limited areas to the north and west of <br />the main body of the permit area. Please include a map of an appropriate scale <br />(perhaps 1:12000) that depicts the regional vegetation communities within mile of the main body of the permit area (as referenced in Exhibit 5). <br />CAM: Revised Map-04 is attached showing vegetation boundaries within one half <br />mile of the permit area. <br />27. On page 2 and 3 of Exhibit 5, the procedure for ensuring random location <br />coordinates for each sample transect is described. Based on the approach <br />described, our assumption is that transects would be numbered in accordance with <br />the sequence selected, and, if 30 transects were run for a particular parameter <br />within a delineated sampling unit, transects 1 through 30 would be sampled, to <br />maintain the random selection. This was not the case for cover and woody plant <br />density sampling within the Greasewood Reference Area, in which data was <br />recorded for a total of 36 transects, including Transects 1 through 24, 29, 33, 37, <br />39, 40, 42, 44, and 46 through 50. Please provide an explanation for inclusion <br />within the appropriate section of Exhibit 5, demonstrating that the transect <br />selection process was unbiased, and explaining why cover data was not <br />obtained from sequentially numbered transects to meet sample adequacy. <br />CAM: In the sampling of the vegetation transects, the sampling effort was <br />divided into three phases. Phase I sampling always consisted of 15 transects. <br />Where the sample adequacy was determined to be just a few transects more <br />than 15 transects, additional transects were usually sampled sequentially until <br />sample adequacy had been achieved. For example, on the Greasewood <br />Predisturbance Area, after 15 cover transects, sample adequacy was determined <br />to equal 21.6 transects. Three additional transects were collected and sample <br />adequacy was calculated to equal 32.7 transects. After a total of 25 cover <br />transects had been sampled, sample adequacy was determined to equal 24.8 <br />transects and sampling stopped. In this situation, since only a few additional <br />transects were required, the transects were sampled in sequence. <br />For the Greasewood Reference Area, after 13 cover transects had been <br />sampled, sample adequacy was calculated to equal 26.2 transects. After 19 <br />transects had been sampled, sample adequacy was determined to equal 50.8 <br />transects. Since sample adequacy was increasing with each additional number <br />of samples collected, evidence suggested that it would be necessary to sample <br />to the maximum number of transects (50) and there would be not need to <br />reevaluate the data and determine whether sample adequacy had been <br />achieved. However, after 35 random transects had been sampled, sample <br />adequacy was calculated and found to equal 32.4 transects. Since sample