Laserfiche WebLink
the value of the wetland mitigation effort becomes more of a punitive action than an action <br />that can really improve the situation on a larger scale. Wetland mitigation is not intended to <br />be punitive. Its real purpose is, at the minimum, to replace, one for one, the value of that <br />which is lost. In reality though, wetland mitigation cannot be isolated from the surrounding <br />systems the mitigation effort is a part of. Simply fencing off an area and implementing certain <br />actions there is not very useful if the surrounding systems and the linkages of the specific <br />mitigation area to those systems are ignored. Thus, in this effort, ten acres were designated as <br />wetland mitigation sites, but in fact, those ten acres must be viewed as part of the entire <br />drainage upstream and downstream from those sites. <br />Following are the key points from the permit goals and a short discussion as to what <br />has been accomplished to meet those goals. <br />Goal 1- To establish a minimum of 8.5 acres of wetland. It appears this <br />was the specific purpose of the two small sites that total 10 acres. <br />These two sites were also to be protected from cattle grazing with <br />fences and thus forms an easy means to compare the effects of <br />grazing on the recovery of the streambed vegetation. <br />Achievements: Although only 7 to 8 acres of actual, well developed wetland <br />was produced in the specific mitigation areas, the total amount of wetlands produced in all <br />mining areas is about 55.15 acres, including the acreage in the specific mitigation areas. Also <br />in recently reclaimed land wetlands are developing. The amount there is less definite, but it <br />could be as much as 38 more acres. More likely it will be about 25 acres. Most of this <br />production of additional wetlands resulted from retention of the clay seam that existed under <br />the sand deposit. It is unlikely that this drainage has had so much wetland as it does now, at <br />least that has not been the case for a very long time. The fact that there was sufficient sand <br />present to be of interest for mining would indicate that was the case. The kinds of wetlands <br />now found in the drainage and also present in unmined areas simply cannot exist if the sand is <br />several feet deep. In effect, as a result of mining the sand and exposing the clay underneath, <br />the characteristics of the riparian vegetation has, in fact, been greatly improved. Sediment <br />discharge has undoubtedly been reduced to down stream lands and probably a more stable <br />water table created in the floodplain. <br />In conclusion, it is believed that the requirement to create 8.5 acres of wetland has been <br />more than achieved. Furthermore, the lesson learned from this is that stream channel <br />characteristics, where the deposits are structurally similar to these, can be improved by <br />removal of the sand. But indiscriminate removal of the sand is not supported by what has <br />occurred here. What has been shown is that where the physical characteristics can be shown <br />Coal Creek Wetlands and Wetland Mitigation DA Permit 198811488 August 2003 Page 17 of 23 <br />