My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP39344
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP39344
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:25:43 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 8:21:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1994082
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
3/29/2004
Doc Name
2003 Revegetation Monitoring Report
From
SCC
To
DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
Reveg Monitoring 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.
/
67
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
Introduced perennial (orbs contributed 0.7 percent while introduced perennial cool season <br />• grasses accounted for 0.5, moss accounted for 0.3 and native annual and biennial (orbs <br />accounted for 0.2 percent of total vegetation cover. <br />Total vegetation cover was 52.2 percent. Standing dead, litter, bare soil, and rock cover values <br />were 8.1, 22.6, 16.8 and 0.3 percent, respectively. Total species density averaged 25.5 species <br />per 100 sq. m. <br />HERBACEOUS PRODUCTION (TABLE 9i <br />Total. herbaceous production was 389.5 pounds per acre. <br />DISCUSSION <br />Climatic Conditions <br />The dry growing season of 2002 was followed by anear-average fall 2002 and a generally above- <br />average spring 2003 (Figures 6a and 6b). Although June and especially July were below <br />average, the average for the 12 months preceding late July sampling was slightly above average <br />(Figures 7a and 7b). Considering the previous six-months only (Figures 8a and 8b) the 2003 <br />figures are quite noticeably above average with the effects of the wet spring weighing heavily. <br />From a perspective of the previous four months only (Figures 9a and 9b) the effects of the dry <br />early summer brought the 2003 values down to average. As regards heat from January through <br />June, the year was very near average (Figure 10). <br />Cover <br />• <br />Observed cover values and derivation of the 2003 herbaceous cover standard are <br />compiled/documented in the table below: <br />Yoast 2003 <br />Using the Seneca II-W 2003 <br />Phase III Cover Performance Standard <br />Vegetation Type Mean Cover` 1sUall Ratio*" Adj. Mean % of Aff. Area <br />Sagebrush/Snowberrye 22.9 38.1/41.0 21.3 38.0 <br />Mountain Brush° 26.8 21.8/29.9 19.5 37.3 <br />Aspen Woodland° 52.1 32.8/43.7 39.1 7.0 <br />Steep Mountain Brush 44.1 25.3/37.4 30.2 13.9 <br />Alkali Sage.IWest. Whtgrs. 61.4 89.8/90.4 61.0 3.8 <br />YOAST 2001 Reclamation 26.4 93.1/93.2 20.8 NA <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.