My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE58849
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE58849
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:01:07 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 6:02:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Doc Name
1990 VEGETATION BASELINE REPORT SENECA II-W MINE & EXPANSION AREAS
Section_Exhibit Name
TAB 10 APPENDIX 10-9
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.
/
99
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
• Sagebrush where the maximum sample size of fifty was taken, and in the diminuitive Mesic Drainage <br />type, where sample size was restricted to five for all parameters. <br />Floral ComposRion <br />Table 27 lists all plant species observed during the course of field studies on the Seneca II-W Mine <br />Expansion Area. <br />Vegetation of Pond 009 Aree <br />Cover data collected in the vicinity of Pond 009 (not included in the sample universe of the other <br />Expansion Area sampling) are presented in Tables 21, 22, and 23 for the Aspen Woodland, Mesic <br />Drainage, and Mixed Brush vegetation types, respectively. These areas were sampled in late <br />September, 1990. At that time, leaves had begun to fall, so that vegetation cover by woody plants was <br />less than it would have been during the middle of the growing season. Nonetheless, the species <br />composition of these sites compared to the main expansion area seemed qualitatively to be very similar <br />even though loss of foliage had rendered quantitative comparison difficult. <br />In the Aspen Woodland type (Table 21, Figure 8), the total vegetation cover was 80.4 percent; this <br />• compares to 87.9 percent in the main Expansion Area. In the distribution of cover among <br />lifetorms, as shown in relative cover data (see Table 25), it can be seen that there was proportionately <br />more native perennial graminoid cover in the Pond 009 Aspen Woodland samples than in either the main <br />Expansion Area or the Permit Area. Conversely, native perennial (orb cover was substantially less in <br />the Pond 009 area. It is likely that the observed withering of such common aspen understory torbs as <br />nettleleai giant hyssop, Porter's lovage, the anise roots (Osmorhiza spp.), common yampa, and <br />American vetch contributed to the lower torb cover. <br />The Mesic Drainage stands in the vicinity of Pond 009 have experienced the very heavy livestock use <br />typical of the type in the region, but which was not the case in the Mesic Drainage area present in the <br />main Expansion Area where cattle were mostly fenced out. Steep valley sides within the Pond 009 area <br />tend to intensify the normal tendency of grazing livestock to concentrate in valley bottom sites, leading <br />to the excessive utilization very evident at this site. Consequently, introduced annual, biennial, and <br />perennial (orbs were much abundant in the Pond 009 area Mesic Drainage vegetation than in that of the <br />main Expansion Area (Table 22, Figure 9). Of these introduced weedy species, bull thistle (Cirsium <br />vulgare), houndstongue, tarweed (Media glomerate), pennycress, devil's shoestrings (Polygonum <br />. a I ), and common dandelion were particularly abundant. Total vegetation cover in the Pond 009 <br />21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.