My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-05-26_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088 (2)
>
Day Forward
>
Application Correspondence
>
Coal
>
C2010088
>
2011-05-26_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:33:49 PM
Creation date
5/27/2011 7:30:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C2010088
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
5/26/2011
Doc Name
Preliminary Adequacy Review
From
Brock Bowles
To
Mike Boulay
Email Name
MPB
SB1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
Page 2 of 4 <br />25a. Map 3, Permit Area Vegetation Map - The entire permit area is not included on the map. The <br />borrow pit area on the south side of the permit boundary and the haul road have been cut off. <br />Please submit a new map that includes the entire permit area including the entire haul road. <br />26. Item Resolved. <br />27. On page 4-6 of Exhibit 5, the procedure for ensuring randomly located sample locations is <br />described. The sampling sequence in the pre-disturbance area is sequential. Therefore, our <br />assumption is that transects in the reference area would also be sequential to maintain random <br />selection. This was not the case for cover and woody plant density sampling within the <br />Greasewood Reference Area where transects 1-24, 29, 33, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44, and 46-50 were <br />measured. By looking at these sampled transects, it appears that sampling started out <br />sequentially but became selective after #24, yet, in the predisturbance areas, transects were <br />sampled for cover and shrub density sequentially, 1 through 25. The Division does accept "both <br />random and systematic (selective) sampling designs" as per Rule 4.15.11(1), but also requires <br />"consistency in sampling." The explanation given in the last adequacy response does not clarify <br />the issue as to whether the transect selection was unbiased. Please provide an explanation within <br />the appropriate section of Exhibit 5, explaining why cover data was collected sequentially in the <br />predisturbance area and sequentially/selectively in the reference area to meet sample adequacy. <br />27a. The legal applicant for the Fruita Unit Train Loadout is CAM-Colorado LLC as listed on page <br />2.03-1. Rhino Energy is referred to in Exhibit 5 on Page 5 and tables 10-3, 10-9 and 10-10. <br />Please amend the text to refer to CAM - Colorado LLC for clarity and to prevent confusion. <br />27b. The transect lines on Map 5 of Exhibit 5 are difficult to see. Please submit a new version of Map <br />5 that has clearly visible transect lines against the background photo. <br />27c. Transect LGRRA-34 on Map 5 is not completely in the reference area. The east end of the <br />transect crosses the stream and continues into a riparian area. Is this accurate or is it a mapping <br />error? <br />27d. The column and/or row headings in tables 10-4,10-5, 10-6 and 10-13 were cut-off. Please <br />correct the tables so the headings are legible. <br />28. Item Resolved. <br />29. Item Resolved. <br />30. A thorough and detailed description of Alkali seepweed and Gray Molly was included in the <br />adequacy response. Many reliable sources were quoted giving credibility to the fact that the <br />plant in question could be Gray Molly. What lacked in the adequacy response was a detailed <br />description, photograph or a dried specimen of the plant species in question from the Fruita <br />Loadout site. Without knowing what the species in question actually looks like, the Division
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.