| Revegetation Plan continued: |
| Project Goals Revegetation goals for mitigation in the EIR varied between "achieve[ing] as full a vegetation cover as is feasible, but at a minimum a vegetation cover sufficient to avoid blowing dust" and replacing "native vegetation of the type that has died off." However, the goals in the MOU, which supersedes the EIR, are, in order of preference, to restore the vegetation type that previously existed, to establish perennial vegetation comparable to nearby areas, or to revegetate with other native Owens Valley species. The EIR also states that "successful revegetation of these lands could take a decade or longer." Included with each site description is a stated goal. For the majority of sites, the goal is to restore vegetation cover and composition to that of surrounding plant communities or to that which existed prior to impact. For this project, the site will be considered rehabilitated when cover is 90% and composition is 75% of the site specific stated goal with an 80% confidence limit. At least 25% of vegetation cover must include recruits at least three years old that appear to have germinated without human intervention. This would give assurance that the site has become self-sustaining. For example, if the site goal is 15% live cover composed of 13 species, then the goal will be met when live cover reaches 13.5%, consists of at least10 species, and 3.5% of the plants are approximately 3 years old. It is expected that these are long-term goals, possibly taking over 15 to 20 years to achieve, especially if revegetation activities are ongoing. Density criteria will not be included because there are no baseline data for comparison. After seven years, these overall goals should be reexamined to assess whether they are realistic or need revision. Assessment will include the level of effort expended on the project and a statistical evaluation of the status of the cover and composition of desirable and weedy species. Site Priority To assist in planning, sites were prioritized according to: (1) whether they are continuing to degrade (e.g. site continues to lose topsoil) or (2) if they impose a high degree of difficulty for revegetation (e.g. the absence of topsoil or large size). Sites that were impacted more recently or are continuing to degrade, were rated as high priority because immediate action may minimize the effort necessary to revegetate the site. Difficult sites will require experimentation and several years at a minimum to evaluate results before applying the methods on a larger scale. Therefore, they would also benefit from early implementation and were rated as high priority. The order that sites will be fenced was based on site priority. However, because fencing crews are assigned to work in either the northern or southern portion of the valley and because the majority of sites are located in the south, some of the lower priority sites in the north will be fenced before higher priority sites in the south. Continued on next page |