My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP12625
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP12625
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:43:16 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 12:57:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
3/25/2004
Doc Name
2003 AHR & ARR Section 9
Permit Index Doc Type
Annual Reclamation Report
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.
/
73
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
• 2.0 RESULTS <br />2.1 Overall Summa <br />Overall, a total of 85 plant spades were observed within the 20 units evaluated in 2003. These <br />consisted of 28 grass taxa, 42 forts, and 15 shrubs (see Table 19). Table 19 indicates all taxa observed <br />during fieldwork and is the only table that indicates 1) common names, 2) historic scientific <br />nomendature, and 3) most current taxonomic nomendature. Remaining tables do not indicate this latter <br />category. On average, 34 unique plant species are observable in any given revegetation unit. Among <br />these taxa was an occasional noxious or invasive weed such as musk thistle or Japanese brome, with the <br />latter occasionally existing as more notable patches. <br />Although Colowyo reference areas were not sampled in 2003, success testing for the variables of <br />cover and production in comparison to reference area data is typically not problematic. This general <br />observation appears to be especially true for Colowyo's current annual herbaceous production that is <br />typically two to three times greater than found in the reference areas. Therefore, it is Cedar Creek's <br />recommendation that production monitoring continue as manifested in 2003 (dipping of a modest 5 <br />• quadrats in older units) to primarily track varying wpadty development and provide managerial level <br />information. On occasion comparison can be made to reference area data when such data and <br />comparisons are deemed necessary (e.g., bond release testing). To the wntrary, there are situations at <br />Colowyo where ground cover testing is not so "automatic". These situations typically indude at least two <br />different circumstances, the first of which concerns those areas that are purposefully planted to a <br />predominance of shrubs at the expense of grass cover. In these areas, ground cover values are <br />substantially reduced plating the unit at modest risk for failure of the ground cover variable. The second <br />situation involves those units that exhibit patches or infestations of annual grasses (e.g., EP034 and <br />EP035 -see Charts 1 and 2). Until the revegetated community is suffidently strong and mature to force <br />these populations of annuals to minimal levels, there is risk that the perennial herbaceous ground wver <br />component may be insufficient to pass success testing. Therefore, it is Cedar Creek's recommendation <br />that reference areas at Colowyo be evaluated for ground cover on an annual basis to provide comparison <br />data for at least the two potential situations that may occur during any given year's monitoring program. <br />With regard to diversity, Colowyo's revegetation efforts are atypically strong as indicated on Table 3 <br />and Charts 6 and 7. As observable on these exhibits, diversity tends to increase with the age of <br />reclamation and in most cases should be sufficient for bond release testing by the time they are of <br />• suffident age for such testing (years 9 and 10 of the bond responsibility period). As indicated on Chart 7, <br />Kenneeott Energy Co. / Colowyo Mine Page 5 Revegetegon Nbnkoring -2003 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.