Laserfiche WebLink
F. Description of animal impacts on revegetation: No significant animal impacts <br />were noted. Pronghorn do graze the older revegetation, but the pronghorn population is <br />small relative to the amount of land that produces food for them. Therefore, any <br />impacts are negligible. Rodents, mainly prairie dogs, are not a problem in any of the <br />revegetation areas. Recent cattle grazing has had no apparent impact. <br />WEED STATUS: <br />longer be covered by bond and now fall under the purview of the lease requirements <br />only. As of this writing, the formal release has not been received. A new bond amount <br />will be calculated based on the amount of disturbed acreage and including a sufficient <br />amount of undisturbed land to allow for operation expansion in the foreseeable future. <br />Individual Reclamation Areas: This new section which was added last year <br />will not be used this year. As there are no new reclamation areas and the older ones <br />were released upon approval by DRMS, this section will return to use in future annual <br />reports as new reclamation is implemented. <br />1. General overview of weed status on site: Weeds remain a problem throughout this site <br />and that is not expected to change anytime soon. Many of the weed populations are deeply <br />entrenched on this land and have become that way simply because of the long life they have <br />had here and the continued presence of suitable habitat to enhance their persistence. However, <br />due to control efforts and increased vegetation density, the weed problem is declining. <br />A. Status of species that have been present in the past: Spurge density has continued <br />to decrease in the past few years due to robust expansion of grasses and the <br />competition they provide. However, they are still a serious problem in many areas and <br />have been found to be very difficult to control where they are living in a favorable <br />habitat. Interestingly, spurge is not a common problem on mining or reclamation areas. <br />Individuals can be found, but they seem to rarely increase in cover. <br />Tamarix control, begun six years ago, appears to have reached its goal of eradication. <br />That conclusion cannot be drawn though until it is shown that no more have appeared. <br />But it can be concluded that the control has reached the point where it is unlikely to <br />ever become a problem, even if there are a few still out there lurking in the shadows of <br />willows or cottonwoods. That is the case because this site is a bit far north for robust <br />Tamarix development. Also and more importantly, because the removal of the cattle <br />has allowed the stream channel vegetation to become so thick and robust that even <br />Tamarix has a difficult time getting established. The habitat here for willows and <br />cottonwoods is simply more favorable than it is for Tamarix and that too will help <br />limit Tamarix development. Nevertheless, because it was there and may still be there it <br />needs to be watched for in the future for at least another 10 years. Some Tamarix seeds <br />can remain dormant for a long time and then suddenly spring up "when nobody is <br />looking." <br />Status report for 2012 due July 15, 2012 Page 6 of 8 <br />