Laserfiche WebLink
(CDRMS) suggested that, in lieu of such a weighted assessment, comparison could be made to only the <br />"strongest" of the three reference areas. Though potentially viable, this procedure has two downsides. <br />First, comparison to only one reference area would require a Technical Revision to the permit. Second, <br />and more important, review of the expressed vegetation in the field by Cedar Creek personnel suggested <br />that such a comparison would present elevated potential for failure for Mine Area No. 3. Given these <br />circumstances, Cedar Creek determined it most prudent to sample each area independently and compare <br />each mine area to its original set of reference areas (currently permitted procedure). In this regard, Mine <br />Area No. 1 compares with Sagebrush Reference Area A (89% weight) and the Grassland Reference Area <br />(11% weight). Weighted values are based on pre- disturbance community acreages. Mine Area No. 3 <br />compares with Sagebrush Reference Area A (50% weight) and Sagebrush Reference Area B (50% <br />weight). No data or methodology could be found within permitting documentation to suggest any other <br />weighting scenario. Furthermore, the pre- disturbance footprint of Mine Area No. 3 was overwhelmingly <br />dominated by the sagebrush community. No grassland was present. <br />Field sampling for the directly measurable variables of ground cover, current annual production, and <br />woody plant density was systematically conducted from July 17 through July 21, 2010. Sampling <br />occurred immediately following the peak of growth in early July, and was conducted by, or directly under <br />the supervision of, Cedar Creek's Senior Range Ecologist, Mr. Steven R. Viert. Mr. Viert was assisted by <br />Mr. Jesse H. Dillon, Cedar Creek Range Ecologist, and a summer technician. Mine Areas 1 and 3 each <br />received 25 ground cover transects and woody plant density belts, and 50 production quadrats. All three <br />reference areas were sampled with 15 ground cover transects and 45 production quadrats. The <br />grassland reference area was split into two segments by the original baseline investigators (north and <br />south). Therefore, the north portion received approximately 1/3 of the samples whereas the south <br />portion received approximately 2/3 (in approximate proportion to their respective acreages). In addition <br />to the sampling effort, current conditions existing at the time of fieldwork were documented by photos of <br />each segregate area to provide a visual demonstration of site- conditions. Nomenclature for plant taxa <br />follows Weber and Whitman (1996) and lifeform classification regarding sub - shrubs follows Colorado <br />Regulations and Wyoming DEQ (1999). <br />* Digitizing an overlay of the baseline vegetation map against the disturbance footprint revealed 11% of the <br />disturbance acreage to have been originally mapped as grassland and 89% mapped as sagebrush or Pinon- Juniper <br />Woodland. At the time of permit development, P -J Woodland acreage was combined with the Sagebrush Community <br />for reclamation plan development as P -J was determined unnecessary/inappropriate for the post- mining land use. <br />CEDAR CREEK ASSOCIATES, Inc. Page 2 Hamilton Mine - Phase III Bond Release <br />Year 1 of 2 <br />