My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE46519
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE46519
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:48:40 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 12:48:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988044
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/26/2003
Doc Name
Wetland Study
From
Schmidt Construction Company
To
DMG
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.
/
92
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
In the mining areas, an amazingly large amount of the mined land (about 55 acres) is <br />now occupied by wetland vegetation that often exhibits 100% cover over large areas. These <br />locations may be separated by somewhat less dense wetland growths or nothing but sand with <br />very little growth. In the specific mitigation sites that have been protected from grazing, the <br />very richest wetland vegetation has become established and is spectacular in its growth <br />intensity. <br />Three broad units of wetlands are present in this study area. The first unit is the <br />natural wetlands. These are primarily present in their best form just downstream from the <br />Elbert County line. There axe other less well developed examples in unmined areas elsewhere <br />along the stream channel. <br />The second unit includes the recovered wetlands within the mining area, but exclusive <br />of the wetlands in the specific wetland mitigation areas. These often have a visual character <br />similar to the natural wetlands. These locations have been impacted to various degrees by <br />grazing. The natural wetlands have been affected by grazing as well. The natural wetlands <br />between the two mining areas have been most severely impacted by grazing. <br />The third, and last unit, are the wetlands in the mitigation areas that have been <br />protected from grazing. These rich, diverse units with a large variety of woody and herbaceous <br />species and high microenvrionmental diversity demonstrate what can occur in this stream <br />channel, even after mining. But this kind of growth apparently can only occur if it is protected <br />from grazing. <br />Wetland Presence in Relation to Groundwater Presence <br />Throughout the study area, one pattern always holds true. Where the groundwater is <br />present close to the surface of the streambed, the wetland vegetation is well established. <br />Where considerable sand and sediment is above the water table the wetland growth is <br />markedly less or totally absent. Although no excavations were made to determine what depth <br />was the minimum for any kind of growth or to establish specific kinds of growth, it is clear <br />that it does not take very much sediment (perhaps one to two feet) to virtually eliminate the <br />establishment of significant wetland vegetation. Even woody vegetation is sparse in these <br />locations. If there is any growth present where the sand is deep, it is usually woody species. <br />This observation is extremely important to understanding the distribution of the recovered <br />wetlands in the mined areas, as well as understanding why the natural wetland vegetation is <br />rich in some places and not in others. <br />Previously it was mentioned that clay seams often exist in the ephemeral stream bed <br />deposits. Often these clay seams are thin and more of a nuisance than anything else. But <br />where the clay seams are thicker, as is the case in this area, they appear to be critical to the <br />development of the wetland vegetation. <br />Coal Creek Wetlands and Wetland Mitigation DA Permit 198811488 August 2003 Page 6 of 23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.