Laserfiche WebLink
• yellow sweetclover, and cheatgrass. The ditch area also contains fairly high amounts of <br />sweet pea and goatgrass (Cylindropyrum cylindrica), while western wheatgrass was more <br />important in the pond area as it stretched south away from the old highway. While the <br />ditch may have averaged about 70% total vegetative cover, the pond area probably <br />contained more like 50 to 60%. In both cases, a large proportion of this cover was <br />contributed by annual, biennial, or noxious plant species as was the case in 1995 in the <br />Lower Meadow. This is very consistent with the exposure to disturbance from both the <br />highway and the buildings that are gone now, but are evident from the extant foundations. <br />The area proposed for disturbance is very similar to my memory of the Lower Meadow <br />vegetation and to the small extent of undisturbed vegetation that remains undisturbed east <br />of the mine access road (which I examined in September). In fact, it seems to be of an <br />even lower quality than the vegetation I examined in 1995. <br />No rare species were encountered in September. No wetlands will be affected by <br />the disturbance. The drainage to the west of the pond does not contain wetland <br />vegetation; in fact, the portion that will be impacted is presently the repository for a lazge <br />pile ofjunk. This material will be removed and hauled to the local landfill. The area has a <br />history of disturbance and will be improved as a result of the reclamation process. Had <br />the azea been included in the original survey, it would have received one or two cover <br />samples and three to four production samples in proportion to its relative size. Because of <br />how similar the areas appear to the Disturbed Meadow, these samples would not be <br />expected to have had a significant affect on the final results, and in fact would probably <br />have slightly lowered them. Therefore, because of the size of the disturbance and the <br />similarity in the vegetation to a much lazger area that has already be numerically described <br />• as part of the baseline study, it is recommended that no additional sampling be carved out <br />to incorporate the proposed disturbance into the approved permit azea. The standards that <br />apply to the disturbed meadow community should be applied to the proposed disturbance. <br />The vegetation map should be edited to identify the proposed disturbed area as containing <br />disturbed meadow vegetation. <br />If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. <br />Sincerely, <br />Matthew S. es <br />President <br /> <br /> <br />