Wambo Coal AEMR 2010-2011 - Peabody Energy

• Understorey characteristics;• Ground cover characteristics;• Introduced species presence;• Feral animal activity;• Surface Stability;• Riparian microhabitat presence; and• Disturbance levels.» Visual assessment field sheets were updated in 2010 to remove inconsistenciesin the weighting of scores. Negative attributes were given negative scores in2010.» Due to the change in the weighting of scores in 2010, comparison between 2010results and previous results cannot be made.Field Sheet Scoring SystemTransects and sections are awarded different colours according to their total scorecondition rating. Sites ranked as poor are colour coded red, moderate as yellow, good asgreen, and excellent as blue. The maximum possible score is 54 and the minimumpossible score is -51. Total score categories are as follows:• Greater than 33 – Excellent condition (blue);• 28 to 33 – Good condition (green);• 14 to 27 – Moderate condition (yellow);• Less than 14 – Poor condition (red).The above condition rating score ranges are not equally weighted and were determinedby an assessment of the maximum possible score for each assessed component at eachcondition level.Poor condition sites are likely highly degraded and/or missing significant vegetationstructural components. Active management would likely be required to improve the scoresof poor condition sites. Moderate condition sites are considered relatively satisfactory andrequire varying degrees of land management (to be considered on a site by site basis).Good condition sites are considered in relatively good health and may only requiremaintenance works such as weed control. Excellent condition sites are consideredunlikely to require any maintenance.4.2 ResultsFigures 4-1 and 4-2 show the results of the riparian condition assessments along SouthWambo Creek, North Wambo Creek and Stoney Creek. Appendix H lists the individualtransect and section scores for each creek line. Appendix I shows the 2010 photographsof each transect site.2010 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report, Draft Report, January 2011 Page 25