Laserfiche WebLink
Cover <br />Observed cover values and derivation of the 2006 herbaceous cover standard are <br />compiled/documented in the table below: <br />Yoast2006 <br /> <br />Vegetation Type Mean <br />Cover` % of Affected ~ <br />Area° <br />SagebrushlSnowberry ° 33.7 24.0 <br />Mountain Brush a 36.8 48.9 <br />Aspen Woodland ° 44.8 24.4 <br />Steep Mountain Brush a 17.3 2.7 <br />Alkali Sage./West. Whtgrs. a 39.0 0.0 <br />Phase II Reclamation Area 28.3 NA <br />2002 Reclamation Area 30.0 NA <br />2004 Reclamation Area 27.9 NA <br />I • <br />J <br />"All-hiY' ref. area cover standard for 2006 (Adj. Means weighted by % of Affected Area) = 41.5% <br />90 percent of 2006 ref. area cover standard = 0.9 x 41.5 = 37.4 <br />`Percent "all-hit" cover (absolute) by herbaceous species as corrected for "allowable" annual and <br />biennial cover (i.e. no more than 10 percent relative cover allowed, See CDMG 1995, 1.IV.A.). <br />Cover by noxious weed species, if any, also subtracted. <br />a Yoast extended reference area values from data collected in 2006 <br />As can be seen in Figure 1, the mean allowable total "alt hit" herbaceous cover observed in the <br />2002 reclaimed areas was lower than the standard but the confidence limit did exceed the <br />standard. The very young (two-year old) 2004 reclamation fell short of the standard of allowable <br />cover entirely. Experience at nearby Seneca IIW has shown that very young reclamation that still <br />has substantial cover by annual and biennial species and a large deduction for "excess "cover by <br />those species, is likely to continue to develop the necessary predominance of perennial desirable <br />species. <br />Inasmuch as the 2002 reclaimed areas at the Yoast Mine were also sampled in 2004, a year that <br />was slightly below average in moisture, it is interesting to observe the changes in cover values <br />between 2004 and 2006, which was a year that was much below average in moisture (Figures <br />14 <br />