Laserfiche WebLink
w <br />D <br />Mo .51 .31 .52 .25 <br />• (2) The supplemental report referred to tests of soil <br />toxicity. This was accomplished by taking material <br />which had been removed from the mine placing it in <br />pots and growing peas and corn. The peas and corn <br />grew successfully without showing toxicity symptoms. <br />Ten samples were taken. <br />(3) No horizon appears to suppress ~ oath. The soils <br />tests included a b horizon sample. 'wherever 5 horizons <br />are earosed, unsuppressed growth is evident. _ <br />( See repcrts by Hanson (Exhibit 5) and Ferchau (Exhibit 4) <br />2.04.10 ~:e~etation <br />(1) The vegetation surrounding the area is saTebrush. <br />Sampling adequacy: <br />Herbaceous cover n= 1.28 2 24.9? = 1.3 plots <br />55 (.1 L <br />Sampling adequacy: <br />~~ Herbaceous Productivity = Insufficient Data <br />• Shrub Density n= (1.2C 2 67 <br />10 , 2~ 11 plots <br />5 Flots were studied for herbaceous information <br />' 12 plots were studied for shrub data <br />St,annon-ldeiner Diversity Index: <br />7~ of the diversity is associated with 8 species. <br />1. The area is exceedingly homoeenous. <br />a. The slope is overall southeast-facing <br />b. The soil (Cochetopa and Nutras) are similar. <br />Nutras has a slightly lower ph. <br />c. The slope ranged between near level at the top <br />of the slope to 15° at the loner slopes. <br />d. Soil moisture analysis was not done. However, <br />the vegetation was studied during the course <br />of two of the driest sumrt~ers we have had. gone <br />of the major species appeared to be restricted <br />- by a lack of moisture. <br />e. P.11 of the area has been previously grazed. <br />f. Frimary limitations fcr revegetation will be <br />associa'ed with soil moisture will provide a <br />forest habitat. <br />• 2.G:.11 Fish and Y:ildlife Resources Information <br />See report by Division of hildlife (Ext,ibit 15) <br />-- -10- <br />