GENERAL38712 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

is believed that the impact of any minor limitations associated with the sampling period are minimized by the fact that environmental conditions at the time sampling occurred were the same for both reclaimed areas and the reference area. In reviewing the 1990 sampling data and comparing it with 1989 sampling results, it is evident that both plant cover and production are less than the values reported by IMS for the 1989 monitoring. As an example, comparison of the production values presented in Table 9, Summary of Mean Herbaceous Production for Pit 2 and the Sagebrush Reference Area, indicates that, for the reference area, measured herbaceous production in 1990 was only 49 percent of that reported for 1989 sampling. Similarly, production for the Pit 2 area as measured in 1990 was 67 percent of that obtained in 1989 for the same area. Comparison of total herbaceous cover as summarized by Table 8, Summary of Mean Percent Herbaceous Cover for the Grassy Creek Mine, suggests that cover values between the two years are significantly more consistent. This is probably partially due to the fact that basal cover, which is more consistent than aerial cover, dominated on the sites sampled because sampling occurred so late in the year. Observations during the 1990 monitoring indicate that livestock and wildlife grazing resuked in considerably greater forage utilization than the estimated 10 percent utilization rate reported in the 1989 IMS report. Based upon visual observations, available evidence from the 1990 monitoring effort suggests average utilization for the Pit 2 reclaimed area ranging from approximately 30 to upwards of 70 percent in some areas. Average utilization of reclaimed areas in the Pit 2 area was estimated at approximately 50 percent. On the reference area, forage utilization was estimated to be less averaging approximately 35 percent. 17