Laserfiche WebLink
latifolia, Carex aquatilis, Cirsium arvense, Agrostis a/ba, and Scirpus pungens, as well as several <br />additional sub-dominant taxa. <br />These larger streamside wetlands are represented by Sample Point No. 7. Soils usually exhibited <br />faint mottling (when it existed) and moderately dark matrix colors typically in the range of 10YR 3/2 in the <br />surface horizons. Hydrology was provided by lateral saturation from stream flow. Wetland soils in these <br />areas are poorly developed due in large part to the periodic scouring and relaying of streamside deposits. <br />As indicated on Table 5 a total of 49 stock tanks occupying 5.54 acres were identified within the <br />vegetation study area. As exhibited on Table 8, only 13 (1.37 acres) of these exist within the probable <br />footprint of the coal extraction area. These stock tanks are man-made facilities designed as surface <br />water catchments and/or water holding areas with the intended use of providing water for livestock. <br />Because of the presence of water, and typically nearby seed sources, these stock tanks occasionally <br />develop perimeters of wetland vegetation over time. However, only the oldest stock tanks (several <br />decades in age) exhibit wetland soil development. <br />Because of the potential for "artificial" wetland development, these facilities have been identified and <br />mapped (see Maps 1 - 5). However, the question of whether or not they fall under the jurisdiction of the <br />COE is a matter of interpretation best left to the COE. Several of these stock tanks exist in upland <br />circumstances and are charged with water through one of two means: 1) pumped or gravity-fed well <br />water, and 2) catchment of sheet flow, typically from snow melt in areas that exhibit deep snow drift <br />development. The majority of stock tanks are charged with water by catchment of surface water runoff <br />down a drainage channel or from groundwater discharge at a seep or spring. However, many of these <br />stock tanks do not exhibit wetland characteristics as yet given a combination of several factors including, <br />young age, poor water holding and/or charging capability, excessive trampling by livestock and wildlife' or <br />other factors. In these instances, it is difficult to determine whether or not wetland vegetation would <br />develop given an absence of the perturbation. <br />Because there is a question regarding the jurisdictional nature of these features, Cedar Creek has <br />simply identified them at this time. It is suspected that jurisdiction will need to be determined on a case- <br />by-case basis once project permitting is initiated. An initial analysis can be implemented by close <br />interpretation of the September, 2005 CIR aerial imagery. Following such an analysis, the few <br />questionable stock tanks that remain can be visited directly in the field for a determination of <br />"jurisdictionality". <br />.k A majority of the natural watering sources (seeps and springs) located throughout the study area exhibit this same <br />phenomenon of trampled vegetation. The indigenous wildlife populations, especially the elk herds, have devastated <br />the surficial vegetation, usually to the point that only barren soil remains. This is especially common where the elk <br />have converted seeps, springs, and high elevation stock tanks into wallows. <br />CCzDAIP3Q;RI zKAssoaL&Tus, INC. Page 13 Colowyo Coal Co. - Collom Project Wetlands