My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP42008
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP42008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:43:49 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 9:10:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981028
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Doc Name
1990 AHR & ARR
Annual Report Year
1990
Permit Index Doc Type
HYDROLOGY 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.
/
43
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
X. INTERIM REVEGETATION MONITORING <br />• The 1990 revegetation monitoring completed 8/29/90 was done on <br />the 1987 reclamation area and the Osgood reference area. (See <br />attached summary sheets). <br />Cover and biomass productivity on the 1907 reclamation site <br />was considerably better khan in 1989 when compared to the reference <br />area. Whereas the 1987 area in 1989 was 78% of the reference areas <br />cover versus 87% this year, the biomass improved from 80% in 1989 <br />to 136% this year. Although early heavy rains in April and May <br />should have improved range conditions, no rainfall in June apparently <br />had detrimental effects on productivity and cover because the <br />reference area this year was 10% lower than last year on cover and <br />12% lower on productivity, whereas the reclamation area was 5% lower <br />on cover and 3% higher on productivity. This is apparently true of <br />all the local range as we understand hay and grass is in Short supply <br />in the area. <br />Mr. Eamon reports that the 1989 seeded areas look as though <br />they might be improving and may not need augmentation as was <br />anticipated last year. Coors feels this is only true on one part of <br />1989 but has decided not to augment at present. Even the sage seems <br />to be having a bad year. On the reference site it appears to be <br />dying out compared to the surrounding heavily grazed land. Although <br />lots of young sage plants, needle and thread and sand bluestem was <br />apparent on the reclamation areas, none fell within the guadrats <br />• sampled. <br />Since grass is in short supply, we have had inquiries about <br />grazing the reclamation. The SCS has determined that about <br />thirty-five animal units could be supported on two 60 acre tracts <br />that would have to be fenced for about one month. Mr. Ranney has <br />approved an MR on this reclamation plan change which was submitted in <br />October. The use of this MR will be implemented this spring. <br />It was disappointing not to find any sand bluestem in the <br />sampling. This is a native grass of the area and is a heavy part of <br />the seed mix as well as an important constituent of the reference <br />area. There is sand and, possibly, little bluestem growing on <br />reclamation. The fifteen random sampling sites simply did not fall <br />on any of this growth. Also, because of the rainfall patterns the <br />sand bluestem in old seedings did not head out until late September <br />this year whereas the sampling was done in August. The observed <br />specimens appear to be hardy, but seem to take more years to develop <br />than the other species. <br />• <br />Page 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.