Laserfiche WebLink
Corey Heaps <br />CAM Colorado LLC <br />June 21, 2011 Page 18 <br />were run for a particular parameter within a delineated sampling unit, transects 1 through <br />30 would be sampled, to maintain the random selection. This was not the case for cover <br />and woody plant density sampling within the Greasewood Reference Area, in which data <br />was recorded for a total of 36 transects, including Transects 1 through 24, 29, 33, 37, 39, <br />40, 42, 44, and 46 through 50. Please provide an explanation for inclusion within the <br />appropriate section of Exhibit 5, demonstrating that the transect selection process was <br />unbiased, and explaining why cover data was not obtained from sequentially numbered <br />transects to meet sample adequacy. <br />CAM Response: In the sampling of the vegetation transects, the sampling effort was <br />divided into three phases. Phase I sampling always consisted of 15 transects. Where <br />the sample adequacy was determined to be just a few transects more than 15 transects, <br />additional transects were usually sampled sequentially until sample adequacy had been <br />achieved. For example, on the Greasewood Predisturbance Area, after 15 cover transects, <br />sample adequacy was determined to equal 21.6 transects. Three additional transects were <br />collected and sample adequacy was calculated to equal 32.7 transects. After a total of 25 <br />cover transects had been sampled, sample adequacy was determined to equal 24.8 transects <br />and sampling stopped. In this situation, since only a few additional transects were <br />required, the transects were sampled in sequence. <br />For the Greasewood Reference Area, after 13 cover transects had been sampled, sample <br />adequacy was calculated to equal 26.2 transects. After 19 transects had been sampled, <br />sample adequacy was determined to equal 50.8 transects. Since sample adequacy was <br />increasing with each additional number of samples collected, evidence suggested that it <br />would be necessary to sample to the maximum number of transects (50) and there would be <br />not need to reevaluate the data and determine whether sample adequacy had been achieved. <br />However, after 35 random transects had been sampled, sample adequacy was calculated <br />and found to equal 32.4 transects. Since sample adequacy was achieved, cover sampling <br />stopped. On this site, the subsequent transects were sampled based upon which transect <br />was located closest to the end of the transect being sampled. Given the fact that the <br />transect location and bearing was randomized the location of the closest transect to this <br />point would also have to be considered as being random. Examination of Map 2.04.10.3, <br />Rhino Energy LLC, Fruita Unit Train Loadout - Greasewood Reference Area, clearly <br />documents that the transect locations were randomly located and sampled on this site. <br />Therefore, there was no bias, due to sample transect location. <br />The DRMS appears to take exception with this approach by saying that their "assumption <br />is that the tr ansects would be numbered in accordance with the sequence selected" and <br />requests that documentation be submitted explaining how "transect selection was unbiased, <br />and explaining why cover data was not obtained from sequentially numbered transects . . ." <br />Rule Section 4.15.1 1(1) states that "all aspects of the vegetation sampling program must be <br />conducted to ensure a reasonable, unbiased estimate of the appropriate population <br />parameter. Consistency in sampling shall be required in comparison between the reclaimed <br />