My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP44174
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP44174
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:46:32 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 10:10:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980005
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
4/15/1998
Doc Name
1997 REVEGETATION MONITORING REPORT
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.
/
41
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
• reference area as sampled for 1992 had been adjusted to reflect the originally identified <br />reference area limits more correctly, and included less of the very heavy oak and serviceberry <br />stands on the steep east-facing slopes; this is responsible for at least some of the decline in <br />cover since experience has shown the dense overhead canopy of these species generally <br />corresponds to higher total plant cover than any other type of vegetation in the area. In 1993, <br />with the same sample area boundaries used in 1992, the total cover increased by 7.3 percent. In <br />1994, the Mountain Brush Reference Area was subject not only to the severe drought conditions, <br />but was inadvertently affected by herbicide drift as a local rancher attempted to remove shrub <br />cover from nearby grazing areas. Between the drought and herbicide accident, the result was a <br />decrease in cover to 66.8 percent; the previous lowest observed cover in the area since 1987 was <br />74.9 percent in 1992. What part of this decrease was attributable to drought and what part was <br />due to herbicide effects is not known. In the only reclaimed area measured every year (Wadge <br />Pasture), there was a 16.5 percent drop in cover in 1994, suggesting that the drought effect may <br />be substantial. Mountain Brush Reference cover in 1995 recovered to 79.0 percent, well within <br />the previously observed range of values. The delayed reaction of the Mountain Brush Reference <br />Area was again shown in 1996 as cover rose following the very favorable 1995 season while all <br />• other areas declined. In 1997, the Mountain Brush Reference Area rose by an additional 3.8 <br />percent cover. <br />Herbaceous Production <br />Only the herbaceous component was sampled for annual production in both the reclaimed and <br />reference areas. Because the reference areas are both dominated by woody plants, the <br />herbaceous component of production is small and is greatly exceeded by the production of the <br />reclaimed areas where woody plants comprise only a small amount of total vegetation <br />composition (Figures 2 and 5). Whether or not the large annual herbaceous production of the <br />reclaimed areas equals or exceeds the total (woody plus herbaceous) annual production of the <br />reference areas is unknown. <br />Over the period of 1987 to 1997, the levels of herbaceous production observed have varied as <br />follows: <br />• <br />14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.