_INSPECTION - C1982057 ‎(73)‎

• Permit No: C1982057
• IBM Index Class Name: INSPECTION
• Doc Name: Inspection Report
• Inspection Date: 7/28/2010
• Email Name: DTM
• Email Name: SB1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

V
Y
July 28, 2010 C-1982-057/Seneca 1I-W Mine DTM
outside. The plot is weedy,with patches of Canada thistle,musk thistle,and yellow toadflax present, along with
numerous annual weeds.
Fenced Planting Lower PM-I Drainage
High density of annual weeds,with not much evidence of shrub establishment from seed. Some survival of aspen
and chokecherry from initial planting,but poor growth. All of the"aspen farm"transplants from a couple years
ago apparently died shortly after planting(or maybe in transit from the source site to the planting site?).
Small Ridgeline Fenced Riparian Area
This site looks quite good this year,with robust willows along the edges of the shallow pool, numerous surviving
aspen further upslope from the willows and high sagebrush densities in the upland portions of the fenced area.
The larger ridgeline fenced planting area was closely viewed in 2009,and it was noted to support high densities of
a wide variety of seeded and planted shrubs,as well as aspen in the lower swale portion of the site.
Fenced Planting Upper PM-2D, Near Stock Pond T-26
This site has relatively high densities of woody plants from the original planting, including aspen, serviceberry,
and chokecherry,but there is also heavy competition from perennial herbaceous species that have volunteered.
The herbaceous competition appears to have suppressed growth of the aspen and tall shrubs and may limit
survival. Big sagebrush and snowberry that were established from seed are also present at relatively high
densities. There are two USFS/SCC test plots within the fenced planting area, installed as part of a larger study at
the 11-W and Yoast mines,to assess the effects of weedguard fabric strips on survival and growth of planted aspen
and serviceberry. Within the lower plot area, aspen within the treatment rows are robust and have made excellent
growth; aspen in the control rows(no weedguard)have almost all died. Effects of the weedguard on serviceberry
are not as pronounced,but growth and vigor of the treatment serviceberry is noticeably better than control. The
upper test plots show the same basic results as the lower plots. Although there are more surviving control aspen
than in the lower plots,the control aspen exhibit much less growth and markedly lower vigor than the treatment
aspen. In the upper plot serviceberry treatment rows, it was noted that in several locations,there was competition
from weeds growing up through the planting slit in the fabric,which appeared to have reduced growth and even
caused mortality of serviceberry plants. The primary weedy plant in this instance was Lactuca.
Fenced Planting Area Lower PM-2A (Above Pond 016A)
In this area,thick topsoil(3'+)was placed in the west half of the site,and a thin layer of topsoil was placed in the
east half of the site. Woody plant growth and survival appears to have been significantly enhanced on the western
(thick soil)portion of the site. On the thick soils,there is good survival and fair growth of aspen,with high
densities of robust Woods rose and currant, and good representation of healthy serviceberry,boxelder, and some
narrowleaf cottonwood. In the shallow soil zone,the over-all density and vigor of woody plants appears to be
lower. Currant is the dominant shrub,with some boxelder and scattered gambel oak(very low growing). There
are several patches of Canada thistle in the shallow soil portion of the site.
Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 0
Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 1
Page 11 of 19