My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-11-10_PERMIT FILE - C1991078
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1991078
>
2009-11-10_PERMIT FILE - C1991078
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:56:53 PM
Creation date
12/18/2009 3:00:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1991078
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
11/10/2009
Doc Name
Revegetation Evaluation - Oct 2009
Section_Exhibit Name
Exhibit 05 Vegetation Information
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.
/
23
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
3.0 RESULTS • <br />Tabular results of collected (and transformed) data for the aforementioned sampling efforts are <br />presented at the rear of this document on Tables 1 through 11. Charts 1 through 4 present both <br />summaries of pertinent data as well as an indication of how well the revegetation fairs with regard to <br />bond release comparisons. This latter evaluation is especially evident on Charts 3 (ground cover) and 4 <br />(diversity) whereby the resulting data from the reclaimed area is directly compared to reference area <br />derived success values and /or those standards indicated in permitting documents. Because of the <br />importance of these demonstrations, these two charts are presented on the following two pages. <br />3.1 General Observations and Success Comparisons <br />With the exception of some remnant Russian knapweed (Acropti /on repens), the reclaimed areas <br />look to be in reasonably good condition and are ready to be evaluated for final release (Phase III) of <br />bonds and liability. Knapweed was not sufficiently dense or distributed to have been detected by ground <br />cover sampling. In addition, it is Cedar Creek's understanding that an active program of knapweed <br />control has been initiated, and given expectation, should reduce the existing population to zero or near <br />zero values within the next year or two. Once eradicated from the reclaimed surface, a program of <br />continued maintenance will be necessary for an additional three years to address seed remaining in the <br />soil that can remain viable for that period of time. Remaining reclamation shows a very good mosaic of <br />shrubs including Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. wyomingensis), four -wing saltbush <br />(Atrip /ex canescens), and winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) in the overstory with mixed patches of <br />blue grama (Souteloua gracilis), needle and thread (Stipa comata), Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis <br />hymenoides), and scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea) in the understory. <br />As indicated on Chart 3, an estimated success threshold value for total plant cover would be 18.7% <br />(90% of the average reference area cover). The reclaimed area showed a value of 38.6% total plant <br />cover of which 30.15% was due to perennials. Therefore, the reclaimed area shows a total plant cover <br />that is 206% of the success criterion for 2009. (Permit documents do not indicate that separation of <br />annual cover is necessary for this comparison. Regardless, perennial cover is far more than adequate.) <br />Because the variable of plant cover appears to be adequate for bond release comparison, it can be <br />reasonably hypothesized that current annual production (highly correlated to plant cover) will be as well. <br />Permitting documents indicate that a standard has been set for diversity that indicates the need for <br />2 warm - season perennial grass species, 1 cool- season perennial grass species, and 1 perennial forb <br />contributing between 3% and 40% of the composition (relative cover) of the reclaimed area. In this <br />regard, Chart 4 indicates that the success criterion for diversity has also been met (narrowly for warm- <br />CEDAR CREEK ASSOCIATES, Inc. Page 5 Hamilton Mine - Revegetation Evaluation - 2009 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.