Laserfiche WebLink
more qualitative impression than quantitative adequacy. A subsequent inspection on July 10, 2002, actually showed <br />the site was in somewhat better condition than it was when the sampling was done (see photographs), but is <br />nevertheless less developed than the North Reclamation Area. <br />Further to the west from this site is another reclamation area, but it cleazly cannot be considered for <br />release, based on statistical values or even qualitative standards. The vegetation there is simply too immature to <br />allow for release. However, inspection on July 10, 2002, showed considerable development had occurred on that <br />site since the original inspection when other areas were sampled. Nevertheless, this vegetation is cleazly too <br />immature to be considered for possible release. Cover is still much lower than the estimated minimum that would be <br />needed to say it is consistent with natural growth. Furthermore, the vegetation in this area, although showing signs <br />of slow but steady development, has not revealed the developmental pathways ii will follow. Presumably it will be <br />like the other two, but at this point no confirmation of that can be provided. <br />For the graphs that demonstrate adequacy of sampling, please refer to Appendix A. <br />Bottomland Revegetation: Wetland Mitigation Areas <br />The wetand mitigation areas were established in accordance with a 404 permit issued by the U. S. Army <br />Corps of Engineers. This permit required the implementation of wetland mitigation to replace wetlands that were <br />lost as a result of the mining. Tree planting, protection from grazing by fencing, and monitoring were required as <br />part of the wetland mitigation. The wetland vegetation (primarily hydrophytes) were, for the most part, assumed to <br />be replaced by invasion. There are two areas of actual mitigation work. They enclose a total azea slightly lazger <br />than 10 acres. <br />The condition of these wetland mitigation areas today is outstanding. In locations were full wetland <br />development has occurred the vegetation cover is only slightly below 100%. Tree survival was also very high with <br />the loss of only one tree. Although a very lazge number of cottonwood whips were planted, it is difficult today to <br />determine what was planted and what invaded at about the same time. The total number of small cottonwood trees <br />is so high, attempting to count them all would be very difficult. In addition, two species of willow have invaded the <br />site in high abundance. <br />The herbaceous component of the vegetation exhibits a very high diversity, mostly of obligate wetland <br />species. Small depressions have developed into typical wetland pond forms with an abundance of emergent species, <br />several oxygenators, and, in the larger ponds, a small population offish. Furthermore, the positive effects of <br />controlling grazing in wetland and riparian habitats is very apparent with several times more growth and a higher <br />species diversity within the fenced areas than outside the fenced areas. These two sites aze testimony to why cattle <br />grazing in riparian habitats needs to be intensively managed and only allowed to occur during the time when <br />damage to the habitat will be minimal. <br />On July 18, 2002, Terry McKee of the Army Corps of Engineers inspected the entire bottomland area. This <br />was a part of the yeazly inspection required to monitor progress in complying with the wetland mitigation <br />requirements of the 404 permit. At the conclusion of the inspection, Mr. McKee requested a complete analysis of <br />Reclamation Status -Coal Creek Resources M-1988-044 August 2002 Page 6 of 10 <br />