GENERAL31581 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

therefore disagree that Yellow sweetclover should be summarily invalidated as being counted toward reclamation standards. Finally, based on my (few) observations, it seems to me that Yellow sweetclover is grazed by domestic animals and wildlife. I would therefore submit that for reclaimed areas having a postmining land use of rangeland or wildlife habitat, this species would qualify toward the cover and production standards in accordance with the phrase "or species that support the approved postmining land use" (Rule 4.15.1(1)). While the Division may have a valid concern that Yellow sweetclover may exclude other species to the detriment of the overall health of the reclaimed area, similar concerns were noted regarding several perennial species on page 21 of the Division's Vegetation Guidelines. No mention is made of the Division disqualifying these species from applying toward the reclamation standards. It is simply recommended that they "be used cautiously, if at all,..." My feeling is that it would be consistent with the above policy that Yellow sweetclover be dealt with in a similar manner. I have discussed this matter with Steve, though I do not feel like we resolved this issue. At the risk of making a rather small issue (molehill) into a mountain, I would ask that the VTF consider this question again. I am not suggesting that all biennials can be validly applied toward reclamation standards. I am also not suggesting that yellow sweetclover should receive equal status as perennial species just because this species historically has been approved as a part of reclamation seed mixes. But I am not comfortable with the idea that Rule 4.15.1(1) by default eliminates biennial species from reclamation use. I would enjoy hearing you opinion on the matter as I recognize that you are better versed in both the law itself and its intent than I am. 2. Woody Plant Density - Sample Adequacy At North Thompson Creek (1992), I sampled woody plant density using both 50 and 100 square meter belt transects (see North Thompson Creek Mine Site, 1992 Vegetation Report - page 5 for methods, page 7 for results, page 8 for sample adequacy implications, and Tables 6, 7, and 8 for data). As we discussed on the phone, a simple increase in the plot size does not necessarily lead to a decrease in the sampling effort, or even in a decrease in the statistical adequacy calculation. Obviously 16 samples are not the basis for final conclusions even for this particular site. Even so, it is interesting to note that after 16 50 meter squared quadrats, the sample adequacy number was 287. After 16 100 meter squared quadrats, the sample adequacy number was 346.