Laserfiche WebLink
From: Talvitie, Marcia <br />Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 8:35 AM <br />To: Mathews, Dan; Brown, Sandy <br />Subject: RE: Honeywood Veg Study <br />Thank you, Dan — I will contact Jim Stover later today, to discuss the submittal of their proposed sampling plan. <br />One thing that is not yet clear to me is the issue of the sagebrush reference areas. At the landowner's request, no sage <br />was included in the approved seed mix. Is there a purpose for sampling the SREF areas? What would be compared to <br />the results obtained? Would it make sense to revise the permit to exclude those two areas from consideration? <br />Marcia <br />From: Mathews, Dan <br />Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 5:17 PM <br />To: Talvitie, Marcia; Brown, Sandy <br />Subject: RE: Honeywood Veg Study <br />Marcia and Sandy, <br />There are a couple issues that need to be clarified and agreement reached as to how they will be handled before the <br />sampling gets underway. One issue relates to the pattern of vegetation observable from aerial photos, in which there <br />appear to be bands of alternating higher and lower vegetative cover oriented north /south across Mining Area #1. The <br />sample design and transect orientation will need to take this pattern into account, to ensure that sample results are not <br />biased due to inadvertent alignment of the systematically placed transects and quadrats with the underlying pattern <br />present in the vegetation. The simplest solution might be to revise the sample grid and primary transect orientation <br />from that employed during the 2009 sediment demonstration sampling, so that it does not align with the north /south <br />banding pattern that appears to be present in the vegetation. Marcia and I discussed this concern with the operator <br />representatives during the SL -2 inspection on June 3, 2010, and the concern has been included in the SL -2 inspection <br />report. <br />A second concern is that the details of the area weighting procedure and associated statistics for reference <br />area /reclaimed area comparison need to be clarified. There is some uncertainty regarding these details, relating to the <br />fact that Sagebrush Reference Area A (SREF -A) was established one year and Sagebrush Reference Area B (SREF -B) was <br />established the following year. SREF -A was used for baseline comparison to both Mine Area 1 and Mine Area 3, while <br />SREF -B was used for baseline comparison only to Mine Area 3. As such, SREF -A values would logically be weighted more <br />heavily than SREF -B values. The two sagebrush reference areas would need to be sampled separately to adequacy <br />(minimum 15 sample observations each area). Conversely, the two separate Grassland Reference Area locations are <br />actually viewed as two units of a single reference area, and should be sampled collectively as a single reference area to <br />adequacy (minimum of 15 sample observations). The number of sample observations within each of the two GREF units <br />should correspond to the relative acreage of the two units. The concern regarding the need for clarification of reference <br />area weighting percentages (with justification) was addressed more fully in our May 27, 2010 SL -2 adequacy letter. <br />I would suggest that HCC submit a sampling plan to clarify these matters as soon as possible, to ensure that they can be <br />resolved prior to initiation of sampling. A minor revision would probably be the appropriate format, but I would leave <br />that determination to you. <br />Let me know what your thoughts are. <br />Thanks <br />