Laserfiche WebLink
A couple changes are suggested for consideration in the 2005 annual revegetation <br />report. Methods of deriving the applicable cover success standard and the woody <br />plant density standard are being, or have recently been amended. In next year's <br />report, the comparisons should be based on the revised standards (i.e. "all-hit" <br />herbaceous cover with no "ratio adjustment" and a woody plant density standard of <br />200 stems per acre over-all; 2000 stems per acre within concentrated establishment <br />areas). <br />The supplemental report addressing woody plant density within concentrated <br />establishment areas of the original II-W permit area was encouraging from the <br />standpoint that over-all average density exceeds 90% of the 2000 stem per acre <br />standard for the concentrated establishment areas. However there was a wide <br />range of densities within individual establishment areas, and the relatively high <br />average was due to high numbers of big sagebrush in several of the areas, and high <br />numbers of Woods rose in one area. There had been a drastic reduction in the <br />numbers of the tall shrub species serviceberry and chokecherry in the one area <br />(Block G) where there had been good initial establishment. Successful <br />establishment and survival of significant numbers of the tall shrub species on <br />reclaimed areas at Seneca II-W (and other mines in the region) may be dependent on <br />protection from browsing and possibly other factors. Encouraging results have been <br />observed in elk fenced plantings in test plots at Seneca II Mine and at the Hayden <br />Gulch Mine. Such fencing is specified for tall shrub and aspen plantings in the <br />South Extension Area, and should be considered for future tall shrub plantings in the <br />original permit area. <br />Issues related to number, location, and management of shrub establishment areas in <br />the original permit area las depicted on permit Exhibit 22-1) will be addressed in the <br />Division's forthcoming permit renewal adequacy review letter. <br />11 <br />