Laserfiche WebLink
RULE 2 PERMITS <br /> 4. Digital 1.5 meter-resolution true color remote sensing imgery exposed in the summer of 2002; and <br /> 5. Digital 0.5-meter resolution color-infrared remote sensing imagery exposed in September of 2005 <br /> As indicated above, revision of the vegetation community mapping within the study area was deemed <br /> appropriate. In this regard, a digital copy of true color aerial imagery (exposed during the summer <br /> months of 2002) was obtained and utilized to refine previous community delineations. Stratification of <br /> communities was based on identifiable dominant floral species and / or land use-related characteristics. <br /> The delineated natural communities were 1) Mountain Shrub (both xeric and mesic subtypes), 2) <br /> Sagebrush (both xeric and mesic subtypes), 3) Aspen Woodland, 4) Juniper Scrub, 5) Grassland, and 6) <br /> Bottomland. Wetlands were not separately delineated due to their extremely small footprint and the fact <br /> that they are administered separately under the Clean Water Act by the Corps of Engineers. Identified <br /> wetlands areas that may be affected by mining activities will be delineated and mapped for Section 404 <br /> permitting prior to disturbance. The land use categories of cropland and stock tanks are also delineated <br /> but are not considered natural vegetation communities. Boundary interpretations were compared to aerial <br /> imagery. Photographic diagnostic information for each vegetation community or land use type (unique <br /> community signatures) was identified during field work at multiple ground verification points and then <br /> utilized to adjust final community boundary delineations. <br /> Sample Layout- The sample layout protocol for the 2005 grassland community evaluation is a procedure <br /> designed to better account for the heterogeneous expression of vegetation cover while precluding bias in <br /> the sample site selection process. By design, the procedure is initiated randomly, and thereafter, samples <br /> are located in a systematic manner, along grid coordinates spaced at fixed distances (Figure 2.04.10-2). <br /> In this manner, "representation" from across each delineation is "forced" rather than risking the chance <br /> that significant pockets are entirely missed, or overemphasized as often occurs with simple random <br /> sampling. <br /> The procedure for sample location within the grassland community and corresponding reference areas <br /> (two) occurred as follows. First, a systematic grid (40 ft. x 40 ft., 50 ft. x 50 ft., or 75 ft. x 75 ft.) was <br /> selected to provide at least 20 coordinate intersections that could be used for sample sites. Second, a <br /> scaled, computer-generated representation of the selected grid was overlain on a computer-generated map <br /> of the area. Third, utilizing a hand held surveying compass and hip-chain (or pacing techniques) all <br /> sample points were located in the field and flagged. Locations of all sample sites used in 2005 sampling <br /> efforts are indicated on Map 4. Sample layout was based on preliminary delineations; therefore, some <br /> inconsistencies can be noted in comparison to final delineations. <br /> Two reference areas are indicated for the grassland community because of substantial parametric <br /> differences between lower versus ridgetop expressions of this type. The only area that could be used for <br /> reference at lower elevation is immediately adjacent to an improved pasture that exhibits elevated cover <br /> and production values. Because of proximity to this pasture, many of the improved pasture grass species <br /> (e.g., intermediate wheatgrass) have heavily invaded thereby artificially increasing cover and production <br /> values of the area. These elevated values would preclude statistical validation of this single area as an <br /> appropriate revegetation performance target. The second reference location is just external and along the <br /> southernmost ridgeline of the study area. This expression of grassland provides more limited cover and <br /> especially production values, and would also preclude statistical validation of the singular area as an <br /> appropriate revegetation performance target because of depressed values. However, left with no other <br /> alternatives, it was the judgment of the field crew to sample both areas and utilize average values from <br /> these two sites for statistical comparison with the grassland community. <br /> Once a selected grid point was located in the field, ground cover sampling transects were always oriented <br /> in the direction of the next site to be physically sampled to further limit any potential bias while <br /> South Taylor/Lower Wilson—Rule 2,Page 49 Revision Date: 12/20/19 <br /> Revision No.: TR-135 <br />