British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposia

High elevation exploration : yesterday, today and tomorrow Lant, Jim 2010

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
1992 - Lant, Beranick - High Elevation Exploration.pdf [ 298.32kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0042213.json
JSON-LD: 1.0042213+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0042213.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0042213+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0042213+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0042213+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0042213.ris

Full Text

Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation HIGH ELEVATION EXPLORATION - YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW James Lant, Line Creek Resources Ltd. David Beranek, Line Creek Resources Ltd. Line Creek Resources Ltd. P.O. Box 2003 Sparwood, British Columbia V0B 2G0 34 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation HIGH ELEVATION EXPLORATION YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW It's nice to be back at the Symposium sharing thoughts and seeing familiar faces - and thank God for name tags, my memory has not improved with age. I recognize the face but name? my mind draws a blank. I am certain by the end of the Symposium most faces and names will be in sync and the dialogue will be open and friendly and as easy as has been the case for the previous Symposia. And with that I will begin our talk - High Elevation Exploration Reclamation - Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. I will do the Yesterday and Tomorrow part and Dave will review the Today section. (Dave always says you're never here you're always talking days of yesterday or tomorrow). With that theme I will begin. YESTERDAY Once upon a time in British Columbia and especially in the East Kootenay we had: (1) Mine exploration, (2) Mine developments planned, (3) Norm Ringstad was a Fish Biologist with a cause, (4) Ray Crook was Jake McDonald's drinking partner, (5) Roger Berdusco's hair was naturally curly and black, (6) Tony Milligan smoked two packages of cigarettes and still does, (7) Bob Heart was serving his sentence in the salt mines of Saskatchewan for his environmental practices, I'm sure he escaped and still has 20 years to serve, (8) Agrologists, Biologists and Foresters took care of environmental concerns not lawyers and special self interest groups, (9) The stature of Art O'Bryan ensured compliance and still does, (10) Reclamation research was active, in fact the faculty and students of the University of Victoria would move en mass to the Kootenays, (11) And last but not least you would see John Errington in the field following up on his research. In fact the research that we are going to talk about today, a portion of the vegetation plots were established by John and his summer students. In the late 70's and early 80's we started reclaiming exploration disturbances, some dating back to the early 1950's as well as the new trials. Some of the old disturbances were some "Real Disturbances":  - 8,000 feet,  - across prime winter range,  - no off the shelf techniques,  - seed mixes were in the experimental stages. A prime example of this is the exploration work done by Crows Nest Resources Ltd. (C.N.R.L.) in the Ewin Pass area in the late 1970's, early 1980's. Site Description The Ewin Pass area is located in the Central Block of Line Creek Resources Ltd.'s coal properties, approximately 30 kilometres north of Sparwood in southeastern British Columbia. Elevation ranges from 2300 metres to 2500 metres. The climate in the area is generally characterized by hot summers with dispersed rain shower activity and winters varying from mild to severe with varying amounts of snowfall. 35 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation The terrain in the area is steep (+/- 25° to 35°) and is susceptible to solifluction. The surface material varies in composition from till to mixtures of fine and coarse materials to colluvium with much interstitial fine sand, silt and clay. The permeability of the surface material varies from moderate to low. Ewin Pass is an area of high habitat diversity and is a transitional zone between subalpine and alpine. The area supports many animals including elk, sheep, mule deer, moose, black and grizzly bears and several predator species. By far the most abundant species found in the area are elk and sheep. (Schuerholz, 1982) Background In 1980 Crows Nest Resources Ltd. was granted approval for a continuation of its coal exploration program in the Ewin Pass area. At the end of the 1980 season, the total disturbance of the area amounted to 8.75 hectares of which approximately 7.25 hectares was road disturbance and the remaining area split between drill sites, trenches and adit sites. As part of this exploration project, a revegetation program was initiated that involved (a) recontouring, seeding and fertilizing of areas susceptible to high erodability, and (b) seeding and fertilizing of all remaining roads, trenches and drill pads. The seed mix used in the reclamation program was one which combined various perennial species of hardy grass and legumes capable of growing at high elevation. Listed below in Table A is the high elevation seed mix used in the revegetation program. As indicated, the main component of the seed mix used was that of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciaefolia) a tall leafy herbaceous legume that has good hardiness and is easy to establish. It also has a good palatability and can exist on 35 centimetres of moisture per year. Other seeds in the mix have similar qualities. Table A  High Elevation Seed Mix "*" % by Weight Sainfoin 50 Meadow Foxtail 10 Boreal Creeping Red Fescue 10 Alsike Clover 10 Hard Fescue 5 Sheep Fescue 5 Red Top 5 Timothy 5  100 The seed mix was determined through previous seeding experience in the Rocky Mounts, and through discussion with Mr. Roger Berdusco, Environmental Manager, Fording Coal Ltd. and Mr. Allan Lamb, Agronomist, Interior Reforestation Ltd. At the time, there were concerns with the use of agronomics for reclamation purposes on high elevation sites: (1) that agronomics would not establish under the severe growing conditions, (2) that the agronomics that did establish would not be productive and would simply be junk food, and (3) that they would not supply a suitable ground cover to be effective for erosion control, (4) that the agronomics would over-run the native range and choke out the natives. 36 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation It is these concerns that will be addressed in the following discussion paper. TODAY In 1982 the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (M.E.M.P.R.) established and assessed 10 sample plots on the Ewin Ridge reclaim areas. In 1985 the plots were reassessed by Crows Nest Resources Ltd. (C.N.R.L.) personnel with the following objectives: (1) to catalogue species present in 1982 and 1985 and summarize the results, (2) to explain any trends that are found in the data, such as changes in percentage cover, changes in native diversity and changes in species composition over time, (3) to identify major pioneer species, and (4) to collect soil fertility information to test for possible correlations between cover and fertility. Summarization of the results indicate that native volunteers increased in both number of species and percentage cover, while agronomics originally seeded decreased in number of species and percentage cover. No tree seedlings were found in any of the plots. Several native species reputed to be pioneers invaded the sites, increased, or held their own since. (Fitzpatrick, 1985) In 1988, Crows Nest Resources Ltd. contracted JMJ Holdings Inc. to reassess the plots on Ewin Ridge and to establish more permanent plots, in natural areas adjacent to the reclamation plots. By establishing the plots in adjacent natural areas, the following objective was achieved. To measure the vegetation, forage production and forage quality on permanent sample plots of reclaimed and natural areas on Ewin Ridge and to compare the data with previous year's data. JMJ Holdings Inc. was again used in 1990 to complete the same study. Results of the 1988 and 1990 studies will be the focus of the discussion paper with references to the 1982 and 1985 results. Methods Plot Location Established reclamation plots on Ewin Ridge were relocated with the assistance of air photos and an extensive ground search.  Plot corners and plot centre were marked with wooden stakes in a 4 x 4 metre square around the original plot centres. Samples in natural areas on Ewin Ridge were located adjacent to the reclamation plots in an undisturbed area that had the same slope, aspect and terrain features as the reclamation plot. Four metre x four metre plot corners and plot centre were marked with wooden stakes. Vegetation Assessment The 4 x 4  metre plots were assessed for the following: percent vegetation cover by species, vegetation height by species (cm), percentage seed heads, species vigour percentage bare soil, wildlife utilization. Forage Production Forage was sampled by clipping to within three centimetres of the ground surface over four .25 x .25 37 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation centimetre squares located within the centres of each quadrant of the sample plot. These samples were air dried at 40° Celsius for 24 hours and weighed. This gave an estimate of forage production over one square metre. Forage Quality Eight forage samples representative of the major types of reclaimed and natural plots were subjected to Van Soest series feed analysis by Norwest Laboratories of Lethbridge, Alberta. The following attributes were reported on a percentage basis for each sample.  -  dry weight  -   crude protein -   ADIN  -   acid detergent fibre  -   calcium  -   phosphorus  -   salt  -   potassium  - magnesium (Ketcheson, 1988) Results - Effect of Reclamation It is important to note that permanent sample sites in reclaimed areas represent a variety of alpine ecosystems and the response of these areas to seeding vary. They do, however, represent the heterogeneity of an alpine environment common to the Line Creek area. We will investigate the overall response of this heterogenous alpine environment to the seed mixes used for reclamation in the original study. Appendix A-l and A-2 present vegetation cover data from each reclaimed and adjacent natural plot. Cover of seeded species alone on both reclaimed sites 1 and 2 is reported in Table 1. Cover of seeded species is generally lower on site 2 plots. Cover of site 2 plots has levelled off over the past three observations at between 40 and 47%. Cover of site 1 plots has been steadily increasing over the past three periods of observation. Cover of all species growing on reclaimed sites together with the overall proportion of total cover due to seeded species is reported in Table 2. In 1990 total vegetation cover on site 1 is lower than it was in 1988, and is proportionally higher with seeded species than with native species. Table 3 presents the change in cover of some individual seeded agronomic species between 1982 and 1990. On site 1 meadow foxtail and creeping red fescue are the species with the highest cover. They have been maintaining a steady state over the past eight years. Alsike clover is increasing slightly. On site 2 timothy and creeping red fescue have the highest cover and have been in a steady state over the period of observation. The cover of meadow foxtail is dropping off with time, while alsike clover is increasing in cover. There is a steady invasion of reclaimed sites by native species. Appendix A-2 presents a summary of native species found on these sites. Species such as fireweed, shrubby penstemon, yarrow, wild strawberry, silky phacelia, rough fescue, smooth brome, subalpine daisy, pussytoes, silky locoweed, cushion buckwheat, spike trisetum, arctic sandwort and lichens appears, usually with low cover. In 1990 the ratio of seeded agronomic to native species is lower than in previous years of observation. (Ketcheson, 1991) 38 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation Table 1 Total percent cover of seeded agronomic species on Ewin Ridge reclaimed sites.   1982 1985 1988 1990 Site 1 51 37 52 62 Site 2 28 47 40 47 Entire Area 40 42 46 55  Table 2  Total percent cover of all species on reclaimed sites on Ewin Ridge   1982 1985 1988 1990 Site 1 52 67 72 63 Site 2 47 71 51 53 Entire Area 50 69 62 58 Proportion of total cover from seeded species 80% 61% 74% 95%  Table 3  Percent cover of some seeded agronomic species on reclaimed sites of Ewin Ridge.  Site 1 1982 1985 1988 1990 Meadow Foxtail 11 5 16 15 Creeping Red Fescue 28 24 28 28 Timothy 8 5 4 5 Alsike Clover + + 2 2 Site 2 Meadow Foxtail 5 9 5 3 Creeping Red Fescue 4 20 18 15 Timothy 16 14 11 17 Alsike Clover 2 3 1 9 (Ketcheson, 1991) Forage Production Forage production on reclaimed sites on Ewin Ridge has been measured in 1985, 1988 and 1990. Table 4 presents the mean production of forage for wildlife over the period of observation. Forage production differed greatly between individual plots within each site. The range of values is at least as high as the mean in all sites during every year of observation. Generally, forage production was lower in 1990 on both reclaimed sites. Variation in production within a sampling year can be partially attributed to differences in ecological characteristics of sampling sites that relate directly to the potential of that site to produce forage.  39 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation Forage Quality Forage samples from reclaimed sites on Ewin Ridge were analyzed for forage quality in 1988 and 1990. Table 5 presents the results of that analysis. Means only are reported in this table. The quality of the forage appears to have increased between 1988 and 1990. Crude and available protein are higher in 1990 when compared to 1988, there is also less fibre, and more phosphorus. These results should be interpreted with caution, however, as the degree of variability within forage samples is not well known for this area. Utilization by Wildlife Utilization by ungulates was generally light on reclaimed sites. Individual species exhibited moderate use. Sainfoin and fireweed appeared to be preferred, while timothy and alsike clover were lightly grazed. (Ketcheson, 1991) Table 4 Mean forage production on reclaimed sites of Ewin Ridge.  Grams/sq.m. 1985 1988 1990 Site 1 Mean 22.1 20.7 16.3 Range 21.3 33.2 20.6 Standard deviation 6.9 12.1 7.5 Site 2 Mean 26.3 25.6 9.8 Range 42.7 32.7 11.1 Standard deviation 16.4 12.0 4.4  Table 5  Forage quality of reclaimed sites on Ewin Ridge.   % crude protein % available protein % acid fibre % calcium % phosphorus 1988 7.60 6.57 37.00 0.89 0.22 1990 10.70 8.80 36.50 0.77 0.26 (Ketcheson, 1991) Natural Sites on Ewin Ridge Ewin Ridge is located in the Dry Southern Cordilleran Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir parkland (ESSFap) and the Dry Southern Cordilleran Alpine Tundra (ATf).  (Utzig et.al. 1983) Forage production and quality on undisturbed natural sites immediately adjacent to reclaimed sites is reported in Tables 6 and 7. In 1988 forage production was lower on undisturbed sites adjacent to site 1 and site 2 reclamation plots. 40 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation In 1990 production was still less on undisturbed site 1 areas. Site 2 undisturbed areas had higher forage production than reclaimed areas. Forage quality is generally poorer on undisturbed natural areas. The species composition of undisturbed sites adjacent to reclaimed sites is presented in Appendix A-2. There is very little invasion of native sites by agronomic species. Meadow foxtail and sainfoin appear in a single plot with very low cover. It is important to note that undisturbed natural sites immediately adjacent to reclaimed sites vary between north facing parkland, south facing rough fescue grasslands and south facing alpine ridge tops. Table 8 summarized the ecological classification of each undisturbed natural sample. Table 9 presents total vegetation cover and forage production of both natural and reclaimed areas organized by ecological unit. Even when sample plots are grouped by an ecological classification, forage production and vegetation still varies. (Ketcheson, 1991) Table 6 Forage production on natural undisturbed sites on Ewin Ridge.  Grams/sq.m. 1988 1990 Site 1 Mean 15.1 7.0 Range 69.4 5.5 Standard deviation 27.2 4.0 Site 2 Mean 11.9 18.9 Range 26.3 28.2 Standard deviation 9.4 11.0  Table 7  Forage quality of natural sites on Ewin Ridge.   % crude protein % available protein % acid fibre % calcium % phosphorus 1988 6.63 5.70 36.50 0.57 0.17 1990 7.60 5.20 44.10 0.83 0.26 (Ketcheson, 1991) 41 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation Table 8 Natural plot groupings of undisturbed sites on Ewin Ridge. Biophysical habitat units. (Demarchi et.al. 1988)  Plot # Biogeoclimatic Subzone Habitat Type Nl-1 ESSFcp Alpine larch - woolly pussytoes northern exposure (AW) Nl-2 ESSFcp Whitebark pine - grouseberry parkland (WG) Nl-3 ESSFcp Whitebark pine - grouseberry parkland (WG) N2-5 ESSFcp Whitebark pine - grouseberry parkland (WG) Nl-4 ESSFcp Rough fescue - wood forget-me-not grassland south to southeast facing (RWr) N2-1 ESSFcp Rough fescue - wood forget-me-not grassland south to southeast facing (RWr) N2-3 ATf White mountain avens - alpine smelowksia south facing ridge tops Nl-5b ATf White mountain avens - alpine smelowksia south face ridge tops Nl-5a ATf White mountain avens - alpine smelowksia south facing ridge tops N2-2 ATf White mountain avens - alpine smelowksia south face ridge tops (Ketcheson, 1991) 42 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation Table 9 Vegetation cover and forage production on reclaimed and adjacent undisturbed areas of Ewin Ridge.  Reclaimed Areas Plot Habitat Unit Aspect Slope 1988 For. G/Sq.M. 1988 Veg. % Cov. 1990 For. G/Sq.M. 1990 Veg. % Cov. R2-3* AT(WA) NW 11 8 49 7 30 R1-5A AT (WA) NW 40 23 42 - - R1-5B AT(WA) NW 35 7 60 7 55 R2-2 AT (WA) W 40 22 42 11 55 Rl-2 ESSFcp (WG) WSW 15 33 87 28 90 Rl-3 ESSFcp (WG) S 40 37 85 17 40 R2-5 ESSFcp (WG) ENE 65 31 57 16 70 R2-1 ESSFcp (RWr) SE 45 41 54 5 55 Rl-4 ESSFcp (RWr) SE 65 21 87 14 65 Rl-1 ESSFcp (AW) NNW 25 4 29 - -  Adjacent Undisturbed Natural Areas Plot Habitat Unit Aspect Slope 1988 For. G/Sq.M. 1988 Veg. % Cov. 1990 For. G/Sq.M. 1990 Veg. % Cov. N2-3 AT (WA) NW 15 2 48 19 40 Nl-5 AT (WA) NW 30 3 56 10 75 Nl-1 AT (WA) W 35 4 99 11 85 Nl-2 ESSFcp (WG) WSW 15 0 99 11 35 Nl-3 ESSFcp (WG) S 40 1 77 8 85 N2-5 ESSFcp (WG) ENE 65 16 60 9 50 N2-1 ESSFcp (RWr) SE 60 25 84 37 80 Nl-4 ESSFcp (RWr) SE 65 2 40 6 55 Nl-1 ESSFcp (AW) NNW 40 69 95 - - * the first digit in the plot number refers to the site, i.e. R2-3 is reclaimed site 2 plot 3. (Ketcheson, 1991) 43 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation Discussion As one looks at the results of the continuing study of "Reclamation Sample Plots on Ewin Ridge", it is difficult to come up with any scientific conclusions. High variability within the plots and/or variability in the results indicate that the study must continue before definite conclusions can be made. However, even if scientific conclusions cannot be obtained from the study, early results, previous studies and general observation do indicate the following: (a) That agronomics do establish on high elevation sites quite effectively and will sustain growth. (b) That agronomics will provide similar ground cover as to the surround native vegetation. (c) That forage production on reclaimed areas tends to be higher than that of undisturbed sites. (d) That forage quality is as high in agronomics as in the native vegetation.   However, the high calcium to phosphorous ratios may be of concern for wildlife forage. (e) That native invasion into reclaimed areas is taking place and over time, the disturbed site will return to its natural state. (f) Utilization of the agronomics by wildlife does occur especially in the winter months. A reassessment of the plots is scheduled for 1992. TOMORROW As you know, anybody that tries to peer closely into the crystal ball usually ends up with a cut eye as a result of the broken glass, but today even at a distance some interesting yet disturbing happenings are being increasingly evident. Let me go back to my introduction - "Once upon a time": (1) there was exploration, (2) there were many mines in the planning stage, (3) there was reclamation research happening, (4) Biologists, Foresters and Agronomists controlled environmental issues, not lawyers and special interest groups. Did we do a good job? In actual fact not as bad as is made out to be. Yes there are problems; technically O.K., publicly terrible. Only dirty pictures are shown and talked about, we never share our successes. As you can see things have changed and are continuing to change and not for the betterment of the mining community. The big question is "what can I do"? Market wise not very much but on the home front there is a great deal that we can do and must do. 1. We must stand up as professionals and work to regain our credibility with the public as managers of the environment.  - The company environmental personnel were the first to lose their credibility with the   public.  - The consulting family was next.  - Now, lastly, the government environmental personnel have gone down the same road.  - Not all but generally true. 44 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation 2. We must challenge technical biases and work to have fact come forth. 3. If publics want more involvement in our business, we welcome it, as long as they are honest, up front and not there simply as obstructionists. We need to have our review processes ensure public accountability. 4. Our professional associations must enforce our Professional Code of Ethics and severely reprimand deviations from the code. 5. Last but not least we must conduct ourselves in an honest open truly "professional manner" and work very closely with the key publics and keep them informed.    Hence, develop a trust relationship. If not it will continue to deteriorate and we will expend our limited resources killing paper tigers until the point of "Once upon a time" in the total province of British Columbia (1) there was exploration, (2) there were mines planned, (3) there was reclamation research, (4) there was a Reclamation Symposium. But fear not tomorrow Tony Milligan will still smoke two packages of cigarettes per day. 45 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation REFERENCES Fitzpatrick, J., 1985 An Assessment of Ewin Ridge M.E.M.P.R. Reclamation Plots, C.N.R.L., (unpublished) Ketcheson, M.V., 1988     An Assessment    of Permanent Reclamation Sample Plots on Crows Nest Resources Limited's Ewin Ridge Properties and Coal Plant Facility 1988, JMJ Holdings Ltd., (unpublished) Ketcheson, M.V., 1991    An Assessment    of Permanent Reclamation Sample Plots on Crows Nest Resources Limited's Ewin Ridge Properties and Coal Plant Facility 1990, JMJ Holdings Ltd., (unpublished) Schuerholz, G., 1982        An Ecological Survey of the Ewin Sheep Population Based on a One Year Field Program Between December 1980 and December 1981, Taesco, (unpublished) 46 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-1 SITE R1-1 EWIN RIDGE RECLAIMED PERCENT COVER COMMON NAME LATIN NAME 1982    1985    1988    1990 creeping red fescue Festuca rubra 35      10      15    N/S bluegrass Poa grayana  8  2 meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 4  7 2 spiked woodrush Luzula spicata  5 Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis  4 sheep fescue Festuca ovina van brevifolia  3 2 moss  2  0.5 spike trisetum Trisetum spicatum  0.5 timber oatgrass Danthonia intermedia   1 draba Draba sp.  0.5 variably-leaved cinquefoil Potentilla diversifolia        0.5     0.5     0.5 field chickweed Cerastium arvense  0.5 fireweed Epilobium angustifolium  0.5 pussytoes Antennaria sp.  0.5  2 sedge Carex practicola 0.5     0.5 alpine bluegrass Poa alpina  0.5 artic sandwort Arenaria obtusiloba  0.5    0.5 Drummond's rock cress Arabis drummondii  0.5    0.5 hard fescue Festuca cinerea 4 Canada bluegrass Poa compressa 2 Timothy Phleum pratense 2 red top Agrostis alba 1 Eriogonium Eriogonium sp. 0.5  1 willow Salix sp.   0.5 sedge Carex #1   4 sedge Carex #2   0.5 small yellow comp Asteraceae   0.5 wheatgrass Agropyron caninum   0.5 garden sorrel Rumex acetosa   0.5 yarrow Achillea millefolium sandwort (grasslike) Arenaria aculeata   0.5 sandwort (black capsules) Arenaria rubella (?)   0.5 Litter cover 3  13     7 Total cover 45      48     30 Number of volunteer spp. 3 13     14 Number of 1982 agronomic spp. 5  3 3 Number of other agronomic species 1       1 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES 9      17     18 Biomass production g/sq metre  15.7  3.5 47 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-1 SITE R1-2 EUIN RIDGE RECLAIMED PERCENT COVER COMMON NAME LATIN NAME 1982    1985    1988    1990 meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 20      20      45      45 creeping red fescue Festuca rubra 30      12      20 20 Timothy Phleum pratense 5      10      10      15 alsike clover Trifolium hybridum 0.5      2      8 3 sainfoin Onobrychis viciaefolia 0.5     0.5 fireweed Epilobium angustifolium  0.5  2     0.5 moss  0.5 ragwort Senecio sp.  0.5 rock cress Oraba sp.  0.5 wheatgrass Agropyron caninum  0.5  1  2 rough fescue Festuca scabrella  0.5 hard fescue Festuca cinerea 4     0.5 red top Agrostis alba 1 red willow-weed Epilobium latifoliun 0.5   0.5 yarrow Achillea millefolium 0.5 strawberry Fragaria virginiana 0.5 daisy-1ike vegetative Asteraceae   1 Litter cover 3 35      30     30 Total cover 60 90      87     90 Number of volunteer spp. 3 6 3 0 Number of 1982 agronomic spp. 7 5 4 4 Number of other agronomic species 0 0 0 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES 10 11      7      7 Biomass production g/square metre  29.2    41.3 48 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-1 SITE R1-3 EUIN RIDGE RECLAIMED PERCENT COVER COMMON NAME LATIN NAME 1982 1985 1988    1990 creeping red fescue Festuca rubra 25 30 15      5 meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 25 20 40      25 Timothy Phleum pratense 7 2 5 wheatgrass Agropyron caninum  1 2 smooth brome Bromus inermis  0.5 5 2 fireweed Epilobium angustifoilum 0.5 0.5 5       4 yarrow Achitlea mitlefoliun 0.5 0.5 5      2 tansy mustard Descurainia richardsonii  0.5 silky phacelia Phacelia sericea  0.5 2 hard fescue Festuca cinerea 3  60 red top Agrostis alba 1 foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum 0.5 sheep fescue Festuca ovina var ovina 0.5 dockweed Rumex acetosella 0.5 draba Draba incerta 0.5 sulfur buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum   3 1 yellow penstemon Penstemon confertus    1 Litter cover  5 30 30 20 Total cover  60 80 85 40 Number of volunteer spp.  5 6 7 4 Number of 1982 agronomic spp.  6 3 3 3 Number of other agronomic species 0 0 0 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES  11 9 10 7 Biomass production g/square metre  18.4 36.7   16.7 49 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-1 SITE R1-4 EWIN RIDGE RECLAIMED PERCENT COVER COMMON NAME LATIN NAME 1982    1985    1988    1990 creeping red fescue Festuca rubra 25      30      30      45 timothy Phleum pratense 7      10      10 2 meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 5        3     7 3 alsike clover Trifoliun hybridum 1        2 1     0.5 yarrow Achillea millefolium 0.5     2 7 5 red top Agrostis alba 1 2 1 sainfoin Onobrychis viciaefolia 0.5    0.5  1  1 native smooth brocne Bromus inermis var pumpellianus 0.5    15 1 strawberry Fragaria virginiana 0.5     0.5 2 5 roundleaf alumroot Heuchera cylindrica  0.5  0.5 0.5 firewed Epilobiun angustifolium 0.5     0.5   1  0.5 bluegrass Poa grayana  0.5 silky phacelia Phacelia sericea  0.5   1     0.5 unknown herb hard fescue Festuca cinerea 2 white-leaved phacelia Phacelia hastate 1 penstemon Penstemon sp. 1 heart-leaved arnica Arnica cordata 0.5     0.5   0.5 wheatgrass Agropyron canium 0.5         1     0.5 Drummond's rockcress Arabis drummondii 0.5 sticky willowherb Epilobium glandulosum 0.5 Rough fescue Festuca scabrella    0.5 Litter cover  3 15 12 10 Total cover  45 70      77      65 Number of volunteer spp.  9 8 8 7 Number of 1982 agronomic spp.  7 6 5 5 Number of other agronomic species 0 0 0 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES  16 14      13      14 Biomass production g/sq m.   32.6 21    13.55 50 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-1 SITE R1-5 EWIN RIDGE RECLAIMED PERCENT COVER R1-5A   R1-5A   R1-5A   R1-5B COMMON NAME LATIN NAME 1982    1985    1988    1985 creeping red fescue Festuca rubra 25      35      35      45 Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis  8   15 brome Bromus sp. 1      12    5       3 timothy Phleum pratense 20      5     0.5 5 lance-leaved stonecrop Sedum lanceolatum  0.5  0.5 Jacob's ladder Polemonium pulcherrimum  0.5 silky phacelia Phacelia sericea  0.5     0.5     0.5 yarrow Acillea millefolium  0.5 crested uheatgrass Agropyron cristatum  0.5 silky locoweed Oxytropus sericea  0.5 bluegrass Poa sp.   0.5  5 spike trisetum Trisetum spicatum    0.5 Canada bluegrass Poa compressa 2   0.5     0.5 diverse-leaved cinquefoil Potent ilia diversifolia    0.5   0.5 artic sandwort Arenaria obtusiloba    0.5 moss     0.5 unknown herb   0.5 unknown aster Asteraceae    0.5 red top Agrostis alba 0.5 sainfoin Onobrychis viciaefolia      0.5 sheep fescue Festuca ovina var. ovina     0.5  1 eriogonum Eriogonum sp. 0.5 northern fairy candelabra Androsace 0.5 cinquefoil         - Potent ilia sp. 0.5 spike trisetum Trisetum spicatum   0.5   0.5 Jacob's ladder Polemonium pulcherrinum   0.5 lance-leaved stonecrop Sedum lanceolatum   0.5 timothy Phleum pratense yellow hedysarum Hedysarum sulphurescens smooth brome Bromus inermus Litter cover  3      17   5      20 Total cover  48      70     44      90 Number of volunteer spp.  5  7 6 9 Number of 1982 agronomic spp.  5  2 2 2 Number of other agronomic species 1  2 2  2 TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES  11      11      10      13 Biomass production g/sq.m.   25.4  23    11.3 51 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-1 SITE R2-1 EWIN RIDGE RECLAIMED PERCENT COVER COMMON NAME LATIN NAME 1982    1985    1988    1990 timothy Phleum pratense 2      20      12 9 creeping red fescue Festuca rubra 2      20      15       5 meadow foxtail Atopecuris pratensis  3     0.5     0.5 orchard grass Dactyl is glomerata  2      1       2 silky phacelia Phacelia sericea  2     0.5 white-leaved phacelia Phacelia hastata  2   2 red top Agrostis alba 0.5 1 alsilce clover Trifolium hybridum 1       1      15      30 Canada bluegrass Poa compressa 0.5     0.5 pubescent uheatgrass Agropyron trichophorum  0.5 sainfoin Onobrychis viciaefolia 0.5     0.5     0.5   1 Kentucky bluebrass Poa pratensis  0.5 spike trisetum Trisetum spicatum  0.5 fireweed Epilobium angustifolium  0.5   1 penstemon Penstemon rydbergii 0.5     0.5  0.5 golden draba Draba aurea  0.5 oval-leaved eriogonum Eriogonum ovalifolium 0.5     0.5 unknown herb yarrow Achillea millefolium 0.5   0.5 hard fescue Festuca cinerea 0.5  2 Califonia brome Bromus carinatus 0.5 sedge Carex sp. 0.5 cinquefoil PotentiI la sp. 0.5 willowherb Epilobium alpinum 0.5 white mountain-avens Dryas octopetala 0.5 showy aster Aster conspicuus 0.5 alpine bluegrass Poa alpina   0.5 vegetative penstemon Penstemon sp.   3 shrubby penstemon Penstemon confertus   0.5 subalpine daisy Erigeron peregrinus   0.5 wheatgrass Agropyron caninum   0.5 LITTER COVER  0.5  15 10 TOTAL COVER  7      65      54  50 Number of volunteer spp.  9  8 8 4 Number of 1982 agronomic spp.  8  7 6 5 Number of other agronomic species 0  3 0 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES  17      18    14  9 BIOMASS PRODUCTION G/SQ.M.   46.6    41.3    5.34 52 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-1 SITE R2-2 RECLAIMED PERCENT COVER COMMON NAME LATIN NAME 1982    1985    1988    1990 creeping red fescue Festuca rubra 3      20      20      20 timothy Phleum pratense 10      10      10      15 meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 4       7     0.5  5 bluegrass Poa sp.  6       5 wheatgrass Agropyron caninum  5 1 1 moss   4 bluegrass Poa grayana  4            0.5 silky phacelia Phacelia sericea  2     0.5 Canada bluegrass Poa compressa 2      2     0.5 fireueed Epilobium angustifolfum  1    2     0.5 silky locoueed Oxytropus sericea  0.5   5 diverse-leaved cinquefoil Potentilla diversifolia  0.5 draba Draba ventosa  0.5 wood forget-me-not Hyosotis sylvatica  0.5 lance-leaved stonecrop Sedum lanceolotum  0.5  0.5  0.2 spike uoodrush Luzula spicata  0.5 field chickweed Cerastium arvense  0.5   0.5 red top Agrostis alba 1     0.5 hard fescue Festuca cinerea 1  0.5 alsike colver Trifolium hybridum 1 sainfoin Onobrychis viciaefolia 0.5                  0.5 yarrow Achillea millefolium 0.5             1     0.5 pussytoes Antennaria sp. 0.5            0.5     0.5 Jacob's ladder Polemonium pulcherrinum   0.5     0.5 snow cinqufoil Potentilla nivea   0.5 subalpine daisy Erigeron peregrinus   0.5     0.5 , .   alpine bluegrass Poa alpina   0.5 LITTER COVER  0.5 22  12    10 TOTAL COVER  28 73      42      55 i ' Number of volunteer spp.  2 14      12      10 Number of 1982 agronomic spp. 8 4 4 5 Number of other agronomic species 0 0 0 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES  10 18 16 15 BIOMASS PRODUCTION G/SQ.M.   18.4 21.8 11.1 53 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-1 SITE R2-3 EWIN RIDGE RECLAIMED PERCENT COVER COMMON NAME LATIN NAME 1982    1985    1988    1990 creeping red fescue Fest rub 8      30      20      20 bluegrass Poa sp.  15     5 timothy Phieuro pratense 20 7  0.5 meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 6       6      10   3 sheep fescue Festuca ovina var ovina 3 6 1 moss Rhacomitrium/Polytrichum  3       1 spike trisetum Trisetum spicatum  2             1 artic sandwort Arenaria obtusiloba  1 2 2 Canada bluegrass Poa compressa 3     0.5 diverse-leaved cinqufoil Potent ilia diversifolia 0.5     0.5 lichen  1 0.5 oval-leaved eriogonum Eriogonum ovalifolium 0.5     0.5 3 2 silky phacelia Phacelia sericea  0.5   0.5 yarrow Achi Uea millefolium  0.5 alpine bluegrass Poa alpina  0.5   0.5 red top Agrostis alba  0.5 snow cinqufoil Potentilla nivea  0.5   0.5  0.5 lance-leaved stonecrop Sedun lanceolatum  0.5 alsike clover Trifolium hybridum 1 sainfoin Onybrychis viciaefolia 0.5 wood forget-me-not Myosotis sylvatica 0.5 penstemon Penstemon sp. 0.5 penstemon Penstemon rydbergii 0.5 fireweed Epilobium angustifolium 0.5 fairy candelabra Androsace sp. 0.5 sandwort Arenaria aculeata 0.5 vegetative locoweed Astragalus sp.   0.5 lichen Cetraria sp.   0.5     0.5 Care spp.     0.5 LITTER COVER  2 20 8 5 TOTAL COVER  39 60      49      30 Number of volunteer spp. 9 13 8  8 Number of 1982 agronomic spp. 6 5 3 3 Number of other agronomic species 0 0 0 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES  15 18      11       11 BIOMASS PRODUCTION G/SQ.M.   3.9 8.6      6.5 54 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-1 SITE R2-5 EUIN RIDGED RECLAIMED PERCENT COVER COMMON NAME LATIN NAME 1982    1985    1988    1990 timothy Phi euro pratense 30      20      20      45 meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 5      20      10      2 creeping red fescue Festuca rubra 4      10      15      15 alsike clover Trifolium hybridum 3      10   5    5 moss Rhacocnitrium  10      2 red top Agrostis alba  2 fireweed Epilobium angustifolium        0.5 2 1 1 yarrow Achillea millefoliun 0.5     0.5  3  0.5 Canada bluegrass Poa compressa 0.5     0.5     0.5 bluegrass Poa interior  0.5  0.5 silky phacelia Phacelia sericea  0.5 lance-leaved stonecrop Sedum lanceolatum  0.5  0.5 hair bentgrass Agrostis scrabra  0.5 orchardgrass Dactyl is glomerata  0.5 sainfoin Onybrychis viciaefolia 1 white mountain avens Dryas octopetela 0.5 hard fescue Festuca cinerea 0.5 alpine willowherb Epilobium atpinum 0.5 white-leaved phacelia Phacelia hastata 0.5 desert parsley Lomatium sp. 0.5 few-seeded draba Draba oligosperma 0.5 wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana    0.5 slender hawksbeard Crepis atrabarba    0.5 yellow penstemon Penstemon confertus    0.5 fleabane Erigeron spp.    0.5 sedge Carex spp    0.5 LITTER COVER  4      25      15   20 TOTAL COVER  43      85      57      70 Number of volunteer spp.  7  7 4 4 Number of 1982 agronomic spp.  7  6 4 9 Number of other agronomic species 0  1 0 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES  14      14    8  13 BIOMASS PRODUCTION G/SQ.M.   36.4  30.8    16.14 55 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-2 EWIN RIDGE NATURAL VS. RECLAIMED PLOTS PLOT NAME LOCATION 1-1                  downslope from reel 1-1 NNU facing bearing 336 for 24.7 m. slope 25X heather dominated snow pocket  1988  1988  1990  1990 COMMON NAME              LATIN NAME NAT. PLOT RECL.PLOT NAT. PLOT RECL.PLOT  %COVER   %COVER   %COVER   %COVER 4-angled mountain heather Cassiope tetragons 20 0   N/S      N/S bluegrass              Poa grayana 20 0 willow                Salix sp. 20 0 buckwheat              Eriogonum sp. 15 1 yellow mountain avens     Dryas drummondii 5 0 vegetative composite     Asteraceae 5 0 reticulate-leafed willow  Salix reticulata 3 0 spike trisetum          Trisetum spicatum 2 1 sheep fescue           Festuca ovina 1 15 Jacob's ladder          Poleroonium pulcherrimum 0.5 0 snow cinqufoil          Potent!I la nivea 0.5 0 vegetative sedge        Carex sp.#1 0.5 4 acute-leafed sandwort     Arennaria aculeata 0.5 0.5 spike woodrush           Luzula parviflora 0.5 0 bare soil 10 70 TOTAL COVER 93.5 29 FORAGE G/SQ M 69.44 3.54 56 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  APPENDIX A-2 EUIN RIDGE NATURAL VS. RECLAIMED PLOTS PLOT NAME LOCATION 1-2 upslope from reel 1-2       SW facing approx 30 m. slope 15X Krumholtz forest  1988     1988   1990  1990 COMMON NAME LATIN NAME NAT. PLOT RECL.PLOT NAT.PLOT RECL.PLOT  %COVER   %COVER   %COVER  %COVER grouseberry Vaccinium scoparium 70       0      12 subalpine fir Abies lasiocarpa 50       0 locoweed Oxytropus sp. 25       0 Lyall's goldenueed Haplopappus lyallii 20       0 engelmann spruce Picea engelmannii 8       0 mountain bells Stenanthium occidental is 5       0 whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis 5       0 bluegrass Poa grayana 4       0 alpine larch Larix lyallii 3  0 1 fireweed Epilobium angustifolium 1       2  0.5 wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana 1       0 umber pussytoes Antennaria umbrinella 1  0 2 chickweed Stellaria sp. 1       0 sedge Carex sp. 1       0 rough fescue Fescue scabrella 1  0 1 cinqufoil Potent ilia sp. 1        0 dryland goldenrod Solidago spathulata   7 white mountain avens Druas octopetalc   2 net-leaved willow Salix nival is   2 sandwort Arenaria capilaris   2 sainfoin Onybrychus viciaefolia   0.5 alsike clover Trifolium hybridum    3 meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis    45 red fescue Festuca rubra    20 wheatgrass Agropyron caninum    2 timothy Phleum pratense    15 red willowherb Epilobium latifolium    0.5 bare soil  0   13  65  15 TOTAL COVER  99       87       35       85 FORAGE G/SQ M  0     32.54    11.35     27.7 57 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-2 EWIN RIDGE NATURAL VS. RECLAIMED PLOTS PLOT NAME LOCATION 1-3 directly upslope from   S facing  reel 1-3 25 m  slope 40%  grassy alpine   1988     1988     1990     1990 COMMON NAME LATIN NAME                 NAT. PLOT RECL.PLOT NAT.PLOT RECL.PLOT   %COVER   %COVER   %COVER   %COVER timber oatgrass Danthonia intermedia          20       0      20 grouseberry Vaccinium scoparium            20       0      20 moss Rhacomitrium sp.         10       0      18 low pussytoes Antennaria dimorpha         10       0       15 round-leaved alumroot Heuchera cylindrica        5       0      10 shrubby penstemon Penstemon confertus        4 0 5 1 sedge Carex sp.                    2 0 3 common juniper Juniperus communis            2 0 2 yarrow Achillea millefolium         1 5 2 2 fireweed Epilobium angustifolium       1 5              4 rough fescue Festuca scabrella           1       0 chickueed Stellaria sp.                 1       0 smooth brome Bromus inermis                                         2 meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis                                    25 subalpine daisy Erigeron peregrinus    1 red fescue Festuca rubra                                         5 sandwort Arenaria capilaris   2 larkspur Delphinium spp.                               0.5 bare soil  10       15       15   60 TOTAL COVER  77       85       85  40 FORAGE G/SQ M  1.12     36.7   8     16.7 58 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-2 EWIM RIDGE NATURAL VS. RECLAIMED PLOTS PLOT NAME LOCATION 1-4 located 30 rn at a SE facing bearing of 210 from         slope 65X reel 1-4 plot centre herb rich alpine   1988 1988 1990   1990 COMMON NAME LATIN NAME NAT. PLOT RECL.PLOT NAT.PLOT RECL.PLOT   %COVER   %COVER   %COVER   %COVER shrubby penstemon Penstemon confertus 7       0      0.5 sulphur buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum 7 0 8 pussytoes Antemaria sp. 5 0 5 grouseberry Vaccinium scoparium 4       0 sandwort Areneria capillaris 3 whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis 3 0 8 wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana 3 2 8 5 rough fescue Festuca scabrella 2       0      15      0.5 meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 1       7      0.5       3 yarrow Achillea millefolium 1       7      10       5 rockcress Arabis sp. 0.5       0      0.5 lance-leaved stonecrop Sedum lanceolatum 0.5       0      0.5 chickweed Stellaria sp. 0.5       0       2 round-leaved alumroot Heuchera cylindrica 0.5      0.5   0.5 vegetative aster Aster sp. 0.5       0 saxifrage Saxifraga sp. 0.5       0       3 smooth brome Bromus inermis 0.5      15        8        1 timber oatgrass Danthonia intermedia 0.5      0      0.5 grouseberry Vaccim'um scoparium   10 crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum   0.5 heart-leaved arnica Arnica cordata   0.5      0.5 sedge Carex spp.   0.5 red fescue Festuca rubra    45 sainfoin Onobrychus viciaefolia    1 timothy Phleum pratense    2 silky phacelia Phacelia sercea    0.5 fireweed Epilobium angustifolium    0.5 wheatgrass agropyron caninum    0.5 alsike clover trifolium hybridura    0.5 bare soil  35       5      45      35 TOTAL COVER  40       77       55       65 FORAGE G/SQ M  1.98    20.99  5.9    13.55                  59 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-2 EWIN RIDGE NATURAL VS. RECLAIMED PLOTS PLOT NAME LOCATION 1-5 located 39 m at a NU facing bearing of 218 from        slope 30X reel 1-5B plot centre Dryas dom alpine tundra   1988     1988 1990 1990 COMMON NAME LATIN NAME NAT. PLOT RECL.PLOT NAT.PLOT RECL.PLOT   %COVER   %COVER %COVER  %COVER white mountain avens Dryas octopetala 30       0      75 fireueed Epilobium angustifolium 5 0 1 smooth brome Bromis inermis 4 0               10 net-leaved willow Salix nival is 3 0 3 vegetative Asteraceae 3      0.5 whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis 3       0    0.5 bluegrass Poa grayana 1       1 1 snow cinquefoil Potentilla nivalis 1       0 bright green lichen Cetraria sp. 1       0 spotted saxifrage Saxifrage bronchial is 1 0 7 white lichen Cladonia sp. 1       0 buckwheat Eriogonum sp. 0.5      0 net-leaved willow Salix nivalis 0.5      0 lance-leaved stonecrop Sedum lanceolatum 0.5      0 lumpy white lichen Stereocaulon sp. 0.5      0 sheep fescue Festuca ovina 0.5      1       3 gray leafy lichen Peltigera sp. 0.5      0 spike trisetum Trisetum spicatum   0.5 red fescue Festuca rubra    40 kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis    5 silky phacelia Phacelia sericea    0.5 crested wheatgrass agropyron cristatum    2 bare soil  35 62      25      45 TOTAL COVER  56      90      75      55 FORAGE G/SQ M  3.3      7.3      9.9   7.1 60 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-2 EWIN RIDGE NATURAL VS. RECLAIMED PLOTS PLOT NAME LOCATION 2-1 located appro. 10 m         SE facing at a bearing of approx      slope 60% ten degrees from reel 2-1 rough fescue dom alpine 1988     1988     1990     1990 COMMON NAME LATIN NAME NAT. PLOT RECL.PLOT NAT. PLOT RECL.PLOT  %COVER %COVER  %COVER  %COVER rough fescue Festuca scabrella 60      0      60 sulphur buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum  5       0      10 wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana  4   0  3 fireweed Epilobiun angustifolium  4       0      0.5 pussytoes Antennaria sp.  4       0 cushion buckwheat Eriogonum ovalifolium  3       0 shrubby penstemon Penstemon confertus  0.5      0.5  0.5 sandwort Arennaria sp.  0.5       0      0.5 sedge Carex sp.  0.5       0      0.5 yarrow Achillea millefolium  0.5       0       2      0.5 silky phacelia Phacelia sericea  0.5      0.5   0.5 wheatgrass Agropyron caninun  0.5      0.5  0.5 bluegrass Poa grayana  0.5       1      0.5 round-leaved alumroot Heuchera cylindrica  0.5       0      0.5 alsike cover Trifoliura hybridum        30 thimothy Phleum pratense        9 red fescue Festuca rubra        5 orchard grass Dactylis glomerate        2 meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis        0.5 silverleaf phacelia Phacelia hastate        2 sainfoin Onobrychis viciaefolia        1 Rydber's penstemon Penstemon rydbergii        0.5 bare soil  13       50   20      50 TOTAL COVER  84       54      80      50 FORAGE G/SQ M  25      41.3    36.75     5.34  61 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-2 EWIN RIDGE NATURAL VS. RECLAIMED PLOTS PLOT NAME LOCATION 2-2 located 22 m upslope       WSW facing from reel 2-2 at a        slope 35% bearing of 23 degrees dryas dom alpine   1988 1988 1990 1990 COMMON NAME LATIN NAME NAT. PLOT RECL.PLOT NAT. PLOT RECL.PLOT   %COVER   %COVER   %COVER   %COVER white mountain avens Dryas octopetala 80       0      70 moss Rhacomitrium 30       0 white tubular lichen Cladonia sp. 5       0 pumpelly brome Bromis inermis var pumpellianus 5 0 5 fireweed Epilobium angustifolium 2  2 1      0.5 bluegrass Poa grayana 1       5      0.5      0.5 whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis 1       0      0.5 Drummond's rockcress Arabis drumnondii 0.5       0 dryland goldenrod Solidago spathulata 0.5       0      0.5 snow cinquefoil Potentilla nivalis 0.5      0.5 sheep fescue Festuca ovina 0.5 bright green lichen Cetraria sp. 0.5       0 vegetative composite Asteraceae 0.5      0.5 yellow hedysarun Hedysarun sulphurescens 0.5       0       5 Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta   1 Rough fescue Festuca scabrella   2 Huckleberry Vaccinium spp   0.5 Net-leaved willow Salix nivalis   0.5 red fescue Festuca rubra    20 timothy Phleum pratense    15 meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis    5 Canada bluegrass Poa compressa .    0.5 subalpine daisy Erigeron peregrinus    0.5 pussytoes Antennaria spp    0.5 yarrow Achillia millefolium    0.5 silky locoweed Oxytropic sericea    0.5 field chickweed Cerastium arvense lance-leaved stonecrop Sedum lanceolatum wheatgrass Agropyron caninum Jacob's ladder Polemonium pulcherrimum sainfoin Onybrychis viciaefolia bare soil  0      60      15      45 TOTAL COVER  99      42      85      55 FORAGE G/SQ M  4.38    21.84 11.3     11.1 62 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-2 EWIN RIDGE NATURAL VS. RECLAIMED PLOTS PLOT NAME LOCATION 2-3 located 39 m at a NW facing bearing of 247 degrees     slope 15% from reel 2-3 plot centre dryas dom ridgetop alpine   1988 1988 1990 1990 COMMON NAME LATIN NAME NAT. PLOT RECL.PLOT NAT. PLOT RECL.PLOT   %COVER %COVER %COVER %COVER white mountain avens Dryas integrifolia 35       0       30 btuegrass Poa grayana 3       5      0.5 sandwort Arennaria sp. 3  2 2 sheep fescue Festuca ovina 2       5 0.5 spotted saxifrage Saxifraga bronchialis 1       0 Lyall's goldenweed Haplopappus lyallii 0.5  0   0.5 brown ciliate lichen Cetraria ciliaris 0.5       0 yellow lichen Cetraria sp. 0.5       0       2      0.5 rockcress Arabis sp. 0.5       0 pussytoes Antennaria sp. 0.5       0       2 snow cinquefoil Potent ilia nival is 0.5      0.5      0.5      0.5 leafy lichen Peltigera sp. 0.5       0 white clumpy lichen Stereocaulon sp. 0.5      0 lace-leaved stonecrop Sedum lanceleolatum   0.5 sedge Carex spp.   1      0.5 red fescue Festuca rubra    20 meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis    3 cushion buckwheat Eriogonum ovalifolium    2 silky phacelia Phacelia sericea    0.5 arctic sandwort Arenaria obtusiloba    2 spike trisetum Trisetum spicatum    1 bare soil  60       50       60       60 TOTAL COVER  48       49       40       30 FORAGE G/SQ M  1.67     8.64      19.1      6.5 63 Proceedings of the 16th Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Smithers, BC, 1992. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation APPENDIX A-2 EWIN RIDGE NATURAL VS.  RECLAIMED PLOTS PLOT NAME LOCATION 2-5 located directly upslope  NE facing  approximately 20 m slope 65% from reel 2-5 plot centre grouseberry/fescue alpine   1988 1988 1990     1990 COMMON NAME LATIN NAME                 NAT. PLOT RECL.PLOT NAT. PLOT RECL.PLOT   %COVER %COVER %COVER %COVER grouseberry Vaccinium scoparium 25 0      30 subalpine fir Abies lasiocarpa 10 0       10 fireueed Epilobium angustifolium 7 1       10        1 rough fescue Festuca scabrella 5 0 5 meadow foxtail Alopecuris pratensis ' 3 10      0.5       2 shrubby penstemon Penstemon confertus 1 0      0.5 pussytoes Antennaria sp. 1 0 1 uhitebark pine Pinus albicaulis 1 0 1 sedge Carex albo-nigra 0.5 0      0.5 mountainbells Stenanthiun occidentale 0.5 0 subalpine daisy Erigeron peregrinus 0.5 0       5 wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana 0.5 0.5      0.5      0.5 spotted saxifrage Saxifraga bronchialis 0.5 0 yarrow Achillea millefolium 0.5 3      0.5 round-leaved alumroot Heuchera cylindrica 0.5 0      0.5 mountain valerian Valeriana sitchensis 0.5 0 bracted louseuort Pedicularis bracteosa 0.5 0       3 heart-leaved arnica Arnica cordifolia 0.5 0      0.5 chickweed Stellaria sp. 0.5 0      0.5 violet Viola sp.0.5 0.5 0 snow cinquefoil Potentilla nivea 0.5 0 leafy lichen Peltigera sp. 0.5 0      0.5 inland bluegrass Poa interior   0.5 0.5 bare soil  50 45 50  10 TOTAL COVER  60 57 50  70 FORAGE G/SQ M  16.49 30.84 8.53     16.14 64

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 7 14
United States 4 0
Netherlands 2 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 7 0
Unknown 2 16
Amsterdam 2 0
Kansas City 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items