Laserfiche WebLink
v <br />Limitations imposed by apparent grazing utilization are purely academic in <br />nature when the palatability preferences of the herbivores which utilize this area <br />are considered. Review of the plant species identified in the reference area in <br />both 1989 and 1990 document that this site is dominated by herbaceous plant <br />species which can be characterized as relatively low forage producers with <br />lower palatability when compared to the speces found on reclaimed sites. If <br />utilization baskets had been established to provide a control reference the data <br />results might have been slightly different. However, the overall conclusions <br />would not have changed. The fact is, that due to the increased potential for <br />biomass production and the palatability of species growing on the reclaimed <br />sites, grazing results in a definite bias against the reclaimed areas. Relative to <br />objective evaluation of revegetation monitoring data, this bias results in a <br />disproportionate emphasis on the less palatable species growing on the <br />reference area. Therefore, it can be concluded that grazing has resulted in a <br />situation where the revegetation monitoring data indicates that the herbaceous <br />forage production values of the Pit 2 reclaimed area and the undisturbed <br />reference area are closer than they actually are. <br />BOND RELEASE CONSIDERATIONS <br />The major purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether or not the <br />revegetation on reclaimed areas at the Grassy Creek Mine is sufficiently well <br />established and vigorous to justify release of all or portions of the existing <br />reclamation bond under applicable regulatory crteria for bond release. This <br />question can best be answered by examining Table 8, Summary of Mean <br />Percent Herbaceous Cover for the Grassy Creek Mine. This comparison, using <br />the 1989 and 1990 herbaceous cover data, suggests that virtually all reclaimed <br />areas sampled have sufficient cover to justify bond release. This conclusion is <br />not totally consistent with the conclusions presented in the 1989 IMS report <br />wherein it was reported that only the Pit 3 reclaimed area satisfied the <br />revegetation success criteria with respect to cover. It is recognized that the <br />18 <br />