Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A CRITCC4L A~'ALYS ii OF RF. :'ESE?.aT IO`7 SL'4{.°,$Sa <br />STA\T1A.4D5 F0.'. CJAL 4IYE7 La:;JSC n ~4a,~;_.'I ,., .. _' <br />Wayne E. SovacdsT and Dennis H. Hunrer3 <br />MAY 2 5 i983 <br />'~'+'I IIC L~ LAILI~ f1LCLAl1'J i 1 ~J 1~~ <br />Abst tact.-Cxistiag and alce rnati ve con r(e ~ wf fsett ~.~; <br />revege[a[lon stands rd a- for coal mined lands ~ereLltr~vi~~~d:`Uf2J kC$OW CP' <br />She reference and rant rol area approaches as pea: Lnvalld. <br />the his co tic rxord rnnceo[ is conslde red qu2s clones Le and <br />may 6o cure errs ensive cn a sec present value basis than a <br />comparison area pro;ram. A new comparison arua approach is <br />discussed that say h2 valid. <br />INTRODUCT LON <br />She Federal Surface Mining Control and <br />Reclamation Act nE 1977 !n[ensii ied [he need to <br />develop trite ria for evaluating success of <br />revege[a[fon of coal wined lands. .°.egularory <br />agencies van[ an objective and repea[a61e measure <br />of success [ha[ can be equitably applied a[ <br />dlf Eaten[ sires (Pehlke, 1990). Coal mine <br />operator.; need [o know re vegetation requirements <br />in advance so [hey can plan and imn leaent <br />reclama[ton programs that will 6e successful and <br />athle ve bond release. <br />Three general coke, [s are nest comaon ly~used for <br />Betting re ve ge Cation success standards. They are <br />the [omparl son area concept, the historic record <br />concept and technical ~uida nee documents. the <br />eooparls on aria and historic record concepts <br />result Sn standards [ha[ are in[end_d [o <br />tepre sent what the wage [a[i on would have been <br />like if [he area vas not mined. These are the <br />most frequently used costa p[s la :he 4.esc, <br />although n2 Cher has been proven valid. <br />They inhc tinily 3aanr:2 that; I) [he pre mining <br />land use is app ropria[e and should Se ref r,s stied, <br />and 2) [hc prenlni ng vm~2ca[lon vii 11 bas[ se tie <br />the poseur lning land use and should be imitated <br />on [hc rec la imcd areas. <br />These assunn[tons may no[ a~vays be torte c[ <br />(Humphries and ;teeker, 199?). Nhen they are <br />incorrect, an alternative means of es tablishing .s <br />re vegetation success standard is necessary. <br />We reviewed [he concepts cu rre n[Ly used in <br />Colorado, Sew Flex Lco, U[ah and ~y onl ng. Ne also <br />analyzed the validity of [he comparison area <br />concept using three years of actual data from a <br />coal surface mine fn nortliwes[ Colorado. The <br />historic record concept is evaluated and [he cos[ <br />[o use 1[ Ss cozpa red aoains[ the costs fnr using <br />a eompa rf son area concept. 4e [hen inventoried <br />alternatives to the cu rren[ly used concepts and <br />tons idered their approp ri etc uses. <br />DISCUSSION <br />Comparison Area Concept <br />The comparison area concept relies on select- <br />ing areas that are ton pa ra ble to the lands to ha <br />ml ne d. These areas must n~main undis:urb2d tar <br />[hc life of the mt ne and must be ma Waged to <br />a chf eve and maintain an acceptable land cond tt!on. <br />In any particular year when re vege[a[ion success <br />1s tes to d, `.oth the reclaiced area and [he cun- <br />parlson areas cu=_[ be sampled. If [he reclaimed <br />e rre compares favorably co [he con pa rison area, <br />eu cc ass 15 Scdic2 [ed. <br />1Paper presented a[ [he Reclamation of <br />Lands in rh2 Snut haves[ Syr..a os lum.l Albuquc rque, <br />Ncv 9y~•x[cn, Oc robe: ?0-.?, 1992) <br />k'a yr.c .. Sowards 1.^, Assi scan[ [o [he <br />Y.inc yanurc r, Tra ppcr .`lining Inc., Cray„ CJ. <br />Dennis H. Hunter is Envi roncental ri~;na- <br />gcr,"Irv Fie xlcn Opt rations, U[ah Intcrwtlor,al <br />Inc., Fruitland, 4. ?fc x. <br /> <br />4Humphrics, H.B. and D.O. 4cckrr, 198_' <br />Al[e rna[tvc sy ;tams fnr de tc rli ni ng pos[mLniny <br />la rd use. Un;:u hlf shed paper presented at r. lie <br />Western Recl.ica[inu Croup Vork.s ho p. JDe over, <br />Colo., .1p r11 ^_3-.9, 198?J. <br />_. T: <br />