Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />L~ <br />2.0 METHODS <br />2.1 YEOETATION MAPPING <br />A vegetation map of the Cypress Area (Study Area) provided try Peabody delineated five <br />vegetation types, Aspen,Coniter, Mountain Brush, Meadow, and Sagebrush. These mapping <br />units were examined in the field and minor adjustments to the mapping were made prior to <br />location of randomly selected sample points. <br />2.2 LOCATION OF SAMPLES <br />Sampling intensity by vegetation type was determined prior to project initiation in consultation <br />with end approved by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division (CMLRD)(Renner 1987). <br />Sample points were located randomly in each of the five vegetation types according to the <br />following distribution: <br />Aspen -20 samples <br />Conifer - 15 samples <br />Mountain Brush - 50 samples <br />Meadow - 20 samples <br />Sagebrush - 50 samples <br />Pairs of random numbers were selected from a statistical te61e and used as Cartesian coordinates <br />to establish the required number of samples in each type, with the exception of the Conifer end <br />Meadow types. The Conifer vegetation type was wmprised of a single small stand in which it was <br />deemed sensible to place the prescribed number of samples uniformly (i.e., systematically), <br />covering the entire extent of the vegetation type evenly. The Meadow type in the study area had <br />experienced substantial disturbance prior to sampling in pert due to livestock use end in pert <br />the result of disturbance by heavy equipment constructing sediment pond 008. To make sure <br />that baseline date reflected natural conditions, sampling of this vegetation type was confined to <br />an area of meadow contiguous with the study area meadows but located across a fence in the <br />existing Seneca II Mine permit area (see Mep 1). This area had not been grazed by livestock or <br />otherwise disturbed; the vegetational composition represented the wettest extreme of the <br />meadow variation within the study area. As such, production end cover data ere certain to be no <br />lower and probably ere higher than those that would have come from sampling of undisturbed <br />study area meadows. <br />-2- <br />