My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2001-12-11_PERMIT FILE - C1981010A (7)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1981010
>
2001-12-11_PERMIT FILE - C1981010A (7)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2018 8:38:49 AM
Creation date
11/20/2007 10:20:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981010A
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Doc Name
VEGETATION
Section_Exhibit Name
APPENDIX D
Media Type
D
Archive
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
I. <br />I <br />© The reference area concept becomes especially difficult to apply where the <br />_ potential exists [o improve the vegetation of the area affected by mining. <br />•` This situation is common where sagebrush, mountain shrub, and pinyon-juniper <br />communities are found. For these areas, which are extremely common throughout <br />the west, a reduced representation of shrubs and trees is desirable in <br />conjunction with increased occurrence of grasses and forbs. In such instances, <br />the undisturbed vegetation or reference areas would not represent either the <br />woody or herbaceous revegetation standards. Obviously, in such cases, some <br />other procedure is needed for establishing standards of achievement. <br />Thia presents a significant challenge to operators and regulators alike <br />for while [he potential to improve a site may be obvious, it is less obvious <br />how to quantify thaC potential and to establish the appropriate revegetation <br />standard. For example, Co what extent would improved available forage resul[- <br />ing from a shift in species composition offset an overall decrease in total plant <br />cover or biomass? Similarly, how should a standard for reduced shrubs or trees <br />be set where dense mountain shrub, sagebrush,or pinyon-juniper occur prior to <br />,e*!~ mining? While the increased emphasis of other, more useful species may obviously <br />~• be desirable, the new numerical standard [hat would have to be met is far more <br />difficult to define. This same difficulty will occur if the standards of <br />achievement are based on historical data. <br />Parameters For Juds;in~ Success <br />Besides the difficulties encountered in establishing revegetation stan- <br />dards, [he paramenters Chemselves deserve [o be rescrutinized. AC present, regu- <br />latory authorities require testing for four separate parameters to determine suc- <br />cess of revegetation. These include cover, production, diversity and shrub and <br />tree density. The usefulness and need of some of these parameters are question- <br />able. Plant production, for example, can be an extremely elusive component to <br />measure and even more difficult to interpret. It should be recognized that pro- <br />duction data do not describe the total amount of useful herbage available over <br />the entire growing season. The clipping and weighing of herbage to determine <br />production (biomass) provides a single picture of what existed at [he time the <br />• <br />-4- <br />SG~ z ~sez <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.