2012-05-04_REVISION - C1980006

• Permit No: C1980006
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 5/4/2012
• Doc Name: Response to DRMS Adequacy Review
• From: Energy Fuels Coal Inc
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: TR25
• Email Name: RDZ
• Email Name: DIH
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

PHLHOO
% PLANT COVER
% RELATIVE COVER
FORAGE QUALITY*
VALUE **
AGRSPI
3.20
9.43
HIGH
47.15
AGRSMI
2.67
7.86
MEDIUM
31.44
KOEMAC
0.93
2.75
HIGH
13.75
BOUGRA
0.20
0.59
HIGH
2.95
ORYHYM
0.13
0.39
HIGH
1.95
STICOM
0.07
0.20
NOT GIVEN
0.20
SITHYS
0.07
0.20
FAIR
0.60
PESOVI
0.07
0.20
MEDIUM
0.80
Subtotal
7.33
21.61
10.81
51.69
PHLHOO
6.67
19.64
NOT GIVEN
19.64
ANAMAR
1.47
4.32
LOW
8.64
ANTMIC
0.93
2.75
LOW
5.50
UNKPF2
0.20
0.59
NOT GIVEN
0.59
ERIOVA
0.13
0.39
NOT GIVEN
0.39
UNKPF1
0.07
0.20
NOT GIVEN
0.20
Subtotal
9.47
27.90
34.96
Shrubs & Subshrubs
ARTTRI\A
6.87
20.24
LOW
40.48
CHRVIS
4.67
13.75
LOW
27.50
CHRNAU
3.67
10.81
NOT GIVEN
10.81
ARTFRI
0.93
2.75
HIGH
13.75
TETCAN
0.53
1.57
LOW
3.14
CERLAN
0.47
1.38
HIGH
6.90
Subtotal
17.13
50.49
102.58
TOTAL
33.93
100.00
189.23 * **
* Forage quality rankings are from the USDA Plants Database and from Welch's
Grasses & Grasslikes
Table 7,
2010 TIPPLE REFERENCE AREA
FORAGE QUALITY INDEX CALCUATIONS
Forbs
A Utah Flora
** Forage Quality Values are obtained by multiplying the Forage Quality Ranking Class
by the Percent Relative Cover Values. Forage Quality Classes of High, Medium.
Fair and Low. Numeric values of 5, 4, 3 and 2, respectively were assigned to these forage
quality classes. Where neither the USDA nor Welch listed s a forage class a value of 1
was assumed.
* ** The Forage Quality Index Value was calculated by adding the forage quality values
for all species