My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE46507
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE46507
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:48:40 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 12:48:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981025
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Doc Name
Phase II & III Bond Release Revegetation Success Sampling Jan 2002
Section_Exhibit Name
3.0 APPENDIX 3-Y
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.
/
40
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
i• <br />3.5 Utility <br />Although a determination of utility is not mandated by permitting requirements, little argument can be <br />generated regarding the revegetated area's utility for the primary intended post-mining land use (livestock <br />grazing) as well as the incidental use by wildlife. The increased utility of these revegetated areas is <br />evident from an analysis of the various data collected for cover, production, and diversity. <br />With regard to the measured variables, the increase in utility of the reclaimed area is self-evident. <br />The overall average perennial herbaceous cover of the reclaimed area exhibited 154% and 179% of that <br />found on the extended reference area in 2000 and 2001, respectively. Average perennial production of <br />the reclaimed area exhibited 6109'° and 7039'° of that found on the extended reference area in 2000 and <br />2001, respectively. Therefore, measured ground cover has been increased by over one and a half times <br />that of the reference area while measured production has been increased over six fold. <br />With regard to carrying capacity, assuming fifty percent utilization of usable forage species and a <br />consumption rate of 1000 pounds of forage per animal unit per month, the reference area averaged <br />approximately 0.121 AUMs (Animal Unit Months) per acre in 2000 and 0.077 AUMs per acre in 2001. <br />Similarly, the revegetated area averaged a carrying capacty of 0.738 AUMs per acre in 2000 and 0.545 <br />AUMs per acre in 2001. These values are over six times the capacity of the surrounding Mountain Brush <br />-dry phase, and pinon-juniper woodland. <br />Overall, these numbers would translate to an average of about 28 Animal Units for one month across <br />the main reclaimed area (44.1 acres). Indivitlual elk, steers, or a cow /calf pair are each considered an <br />Animal Unit. Therefore, the project area could support about 2.4 Animal Units (e.g., elk) yearlong, or <br />nearly 5 Animal Units (e.g., steers) for six months, or 9 Animal Units (e.g., cow /calf pairs) for 3 months <br />under proper grazing management. 6cceedances of these stocking rates will lead to degradation over <br />time of the reclaimed communities until they approximate the surrounding landscape. Adherence to these <br />stocking rates along with other proper range management activities such as pasture rotation, etc. will <br />likely lead to a continuation of optimum animal production. <br />y.s~as 2~3a ty;~~sa~a, -nc Page 15 NorM Thanpean Cr°ek ui~. Pham o a w eond R°besa evaluatlon <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.