Laserfiche WebLink
• 3.0 RESULTS <br />~ Results of the aforementioned sampling efforts are presented at the rear of this document on Table <br />OF (Observed Flora) and Tables 1 through 7 (raw and summary data), as well as on Charts 1 through 5. <br />Given an inspection of this most recent data, improvements can be noted with regard to diversity issues <br />since the collection of ground cover data by Savage and Savage Inc. in 1999. For example, the number <br />~ of perennial grass species that exceed the 3% composition success criterion has increased from 3 to 5 <br />from 1999 to 2001 for CRDA # 1. For CRDA # 2, the increase has been from 2 to 3 taxa. This is <br />obviously positive improvement. However, given a strict evaluation of the 2001 data specific to each <br />independent area, compliance with success standards is still inadequate despite the improvement. With <br />~ regard to the first diversity success criterion (1 perennial cool season grass species > 3% relative cover), <br />CRDA # 1 succeeds but CRDA # 2 fails (see Table 6). Similady, the second diversity success criterion <br />(total perennial warm season grass species > 3% relative cover) is met by CRDA # 1 but not by CRDA # <br />2. The third diversity success criterion (total perennial fort species > 3% relative cover) is failed by both <br />~ CRDA # 1 and # 2. And finally, the fourth diversity success criterion (no reclaimed area shall have a <br />single species that represents > 40% relative cover) is met by CRDA # 1 but not by CRDA # 2. This level <br />of failure given the revegetation efforts that have transpired suggests an error of logic at one or more <br />• points in antecedent planning and permitting. <br />In this regard, a CDMG approved alternative method of comparison involving acreage-weighted <br />values from the two revegetated units provides additional insight into the diversity evaluation. Since both <br />revegetated areas are approximately 12 acres each (see Map 1), the values exhibited on Table 7 were <br />developed. These values resulted from addition of the cover values for each individual taxon within each <br /> <br />of the two CRDAs with the sum simply divided by 2. Given these weighted data on Table 7, the first, <br />second, and fourth success criteria are met, however, the third criterion is still a failure. ~ Fi <br />At first inspection, these failures would seem absolute, leading to the conclusion that remedial <br />revegefation measures would be necessary. However, review of the reference area (RA) data suggests <br />that these success criteria may, in fact, be inappropriate for this site-specific application. This in turn <br />~ suggests that an error of judgment occurred during the initial development of these standards. <br />Application of the four diversity success criteria to each independent reference area results in the <br />following findings. With regard to the first diversity success criterion, both reference areas fail (Hila»a <br />jamesii is swarm-season species). The second diversity success comparison is met only by the <br />~ shadscale reference area. Finally, both the third and fourth diversity success comparisons are failed by <br />,. <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />