My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE102369
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE102369
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:56:17 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 8:45:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981011
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
RULE 2.05.4 RECLAMATION PLAN
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
<br />contribute 36.6% estimated relative cover in the Hillside plots while the nine species in <br />the Valley Bottom plots contribute only 15.7% relative cover. As the reclaimed areas <br />mature, the relative cover and diversity of annual biennial species are expected to <br />decrease. <br />In the Hillside plots, total absolute cover and total perennial absolute cover were <br />• <br />• <br />only estimated at 23.7% and 15.0% respectively. The perennial species value was <br />40.7% of the final community success target of 36.9% (90% of the standard). The <br />Valley Bottom plot perennial value of 30.4% was only 48.3% of the success target. <br />Both cover values are expected to increase in coming years barring extreme weather <br />conditions. <br />If plot cover values were close to actual community values, both reclaimed <br />areas would be considered in good shape with regard to meeting the species diversity <br />success standard. The top four perennial species in both areas were grasses, combining <br />for 62.6% and 77.8% relative cover in the Hillside and Valley Bottom plots <br />respectively. No species contributed greater than 40% relative cover in the Hillside <br />community; Dacrylis glomtrata contributed 42.4% relative cover in the Valley Bottom <br />plots. Therefore, while Hillside plot values would demonstrate compliance, Valley <br />Bottom values would not, though the latter were very close to being acceptable. <br />Although, plot values do not necessarily represent community values, they do seem to <br />indicate that diverse communities are taking root in each reclaimed area. <br />7 <br />~i%3~'etl ~/~o/~y /~'y' -3l <br />SEC 2 1 1998 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.