Laserfiche WebLink
valley floor have not revealed any significant impacts resulting <br />• from subsiding the sections of the creek. The hydrologic data <br />presented on tables 1 through 10 does not reflect a degradation in <br />water quality due to subsidence. <br />Fish Creek cross-sections A through F show the baseline survey <br />versus the first half of 1994 surveys. Cross-sections A, B and F <br />are located outside the subsided area and show the natural changes <br />in the stream channel. As noted on these cross-sections very <br />little change has occurred except for some minor movement of <br />sandbars or gravel bars within the specific sections. <br />Cross-sections C and D show the most subsidence impact, although <br />the there is very little difference between the pre and post <br />subsidence. The general channel geometry is similar between the <br />pre and post subsidence surveys. <br />Cross-section E exhibited the least amount of impact due to <br />subsidence, and it is difficult to determine if the impact is due <br />to subsidence or the natural channel changes. Given the relatively <br />minor change in elevation difference between the pre and post <br />subsidence survey it does not appear any significant changes <br />occurred on this section. <br />5.0 VEGETATION STUDY <br />• The 1994 vegetation survey fo= Fish Creek AVF was conducted during <br />the first half of June, and the data reflects the rather dry spring <br />and early summer. There was no significant difference between the <br />subsided portion and the unsubsided portion as shown on the <br />attached table. The table presents all of the data collected since <br />1992 within the Fish Creek study area. <br />The comparison between the subsided ground (A) and the <br />nonsubsided ground (B), shows no significant difference between the <br />subsided and unsubsided areas. As shown, the subsided area has <br />higher production and cover values than the unsubsided area. <br />Therefore, it would be safe to assume that mining has had no major <br />affect on the vegetation on the AVF. <br />Table A, Average Number of Species per Transect, shows that there <br />is no significant difference between the area that was subsided and <br />the area not subsided. The average number of total species between <br />the two areas did not differ by more than l species. The data does <br />show that Area A has fewer desirable species than Area B, but this <br />occurred both pre and post subsidence. Therefore, it does not <br />appear that the difference can be attributed to subsidence. <br />Table B, Production Summary, provides the production data summary <br />for site A, subsided area, within the Fish Creek AVF study area. <br />Table C, Production Summary, provides the production data summary <br />for site B, non-subsided area, within the Fish Creek AVF. The <br />production data demonstrates that the subsided area had greater <br />• total production, both of desirable and undesirable species, than <br />