Laserfiche WebLink
the plant cover is principally valuable for forage." This definition clearly establishes that <br />"forage" related "species diversity" concepts are more important and should be considered <br />before, ecological concepts of "species diversity" involving plant composition comparison as <br />they might relate to "vegetation or cover ... " One of the major assumptions used in this <br />evaluation is that if one considers the requirement of "uses" as one of the major goals of <br />reclamation, and for the reclamation to have to "higher or better uses" this component must be <br />quantified with respect to forage quality, and that it must be demonstrated that forage quality <br />"uses" of the reclamation are "higher or better" than the corresponding forage quality "uses" of <br />the corresponding undisturbed reference areas. <br />Therefore, KCC proposes a "uses" related approach which quantifies how "plant cover" on the <br />reclaimed site can be quantified as to whether it is "valuable for forage," as required by Rule <br />1.04(71)c and specifically quantifies whether the vegetation growing on the reclaimed site <br />constitutes "higher or better uses" as required by Rule 4.16.1. This approach utilizes a concept <br />called a "Forage Quality Index." This index is calculated by taking the plant cover data of <br />perennial plants, excluding any listed noxious species and by assigning a "Forage Quality Class" <br />to each species. Utilizing the "Forage Quality Classes" of High, Medium, Fair and Low as found <br />in the USDA Plants Database and Welch's "A Utah Flora," a numeric ranking is made using the <br />site specific vegetation characteristics of each reference area and corresponding reclaimed area. <br />These four, "Forage Quality Classes" are assigned numeric values of 5, 4, 3 and 2, respectively. <br />For species where neither the USDA Plants Database nor Welch assign a "Forage Quality <br />Class," it is assumed that these species possess a value of 1. <br />As allowed by Rule 4.15.8(5), this comparison is made by taking the "relative plant cover" data <br />collected from each corresponding reference area and reclaimed site and multiplying this value <br />by the "Forage Quality Ranking," consisting of 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 and calculating a resultant species <br />"Forage Quality Value." The sum of the "Forage Quality Values" for all species encountered in <br />the vegetation sampling of each site is then used to calculate the "Forage Quality Index Value" <br />for that site. Examples of how this approach is used are shown on the enclosed tables, obtained <br />using the field sampling data collected in 2009 and 2010. <br />Using these data, it can be determined that the Forage Quality Index Value for the Alkali <br />Sagebrush Reference Area from the 2009 revegetation monitoring period equals 193.34 and for <br />2010 equals 199.38. For the Tipple Reference Area, the values are 210.18 and 189.23, <br />respectively. Therefore, for the Alkali Sagebrush Reference Area data collected in 2009, the <br />"species diversity" Forage Quality Index would be 193.34 and for 2010 the value would be <br />199.38 and the corresponding values for the Tipple Reference Area the values are 210.18 and <br />189.23, respectively. These calculations mean that from a "Forage Quality" stand point, the <br />reclaimed areas for each of these respective years and sites would have to exceed these <br />thresholds for the species diversity requirement to be satisfied. <br />Accordingly, KCC proposes that the current "species diversity" standards found on pages 780 - <br />84a and 780 -84b, specifically the last full paragraph found on page 780 -84a and the last partial <br />paragraph found on this same page and which ends on the next page, be deleted and the <br />following language inserted in their place. <br />