i~~~-:::.J(±.A~c J(~~::::::::::=:::::::::::==----

Form No. F-23

COMPLIANCE REPORT

Date: January 31, 2008

Compliance Report CR-VEG-I Page 1 of4

Project No.: 400/402/418F/418G/418J/419-Atkinson Creek Crystal Disposal Area, River Ponds, Water Storage Ponds, Town Area, Highway 141, Town Dump

Construction Segment: CR-VEG-1 - Reclamation Monitoring

DrawingNo.: N/A

Specification No.: Addendum to Final Reclamation Specifications, March 4, 1988

Revegetation Specification for Reclaimed Areas at Uravan, November 8, 2000

Quality Plan No.: Addendum to Quality Plans, March 4, 1988

Description of Completed Construction Segment:

Construction Activities: This Compliance Report addresses the reclamation monitoring performed at the former Atkinson Creek Crystal Disposal, River Ponds, Town Site, Water Storage Ponds, Highway 141 and Town Dump areas.

The results of the reclamation monitoring are given in the attached Uravan Reclamation Monitoring Summary Report - 2003, 2004 and 2005 dated December 2005. These results indicate that the areas meet revegetation and erosion control criteria set forth in the Uravan RAP and described in the subsequent reclamation monitoring report.

Criteria: The verification requirements in the Addendum to Quality Plan for this segment were met. A summary, demonstrating compliance with the specific Quality Plan requirements, is attached.

Schedule: No specific deadline is cited in the RAP for completion of this construction segment.

By: QC Officer _ _':_,~{.i~~~-:::.J(±.A~c_J(~~::::::::::=:::::::::::==----~ V

Approvals:

Compliance Report CR-VEG-1 Page 2 of 4

Form No. F-23

ATTACHMENT

Project No.: 400/402/418F/418G/418J/419 – Atkinson Creek Crystal Disposal Area, River Ponds, Water Storage Ponds, Town Area, Highway 141, Town Dump

Construction Segment: CR-VEG-1 – Reclamation Monitoring

The subsequent discussions are presented in the same order as the requirements given in the Addendum to Quality Plan.

Part III – Monitoring

Section 2.0(2), Part III of the Addendum to Quality Plan requires that final inspections (of surface configuration) shall be performed not earlier than two full growing seasons after performance of reclamation. All inspections shall be made in the month of July.

The inspections were performed in June 2003 at the Town Dump only and in June and September 2004 and July 2005 at all the reclamation areas. Revegetation activities in these areas were conducted in 2000 except for the River Ponds area which was revegetated in 1990. Field Observation Forms were used to document any evidence of erosion and are attached to the report.

Section 3.0(2), Part III of the Addendum to Quality Plan requires that final inspections (of vegetation) shall be performed not earlier than two full growing seasons after performance of reclamation. All inspections shall be made in the month of July.

As noted above, the inspections were performed at least two full years after the reclamation activities.

Part IV – Performance Evaluation

Section 2.0(1), Part IV of the Addendum to Quality Plan requires that reclaimed and natural reference areas shall be approximately one acre.

A thorough walk-over of each project and natural reference area was performed to determine different site conditions and to determine best, average and worst cases with respect to erosion and vegetation.

Section 2.0(2), Part IV of the Addendum to Quality Plan requires that reference areas in natural terrain shall generally represent the topography and general soil conditions in the reclaimed area.

As can be seen in the photographs in the report, the reference areas have similar topography and soil conditions to the reclaimed areas.

Section 2.0(3), Part IV of the Addendum to Quality Plan requires that a minimum of one natural reference area and a maximum of three areas shall be selected to represent the Club Mesa


Form No. F-23

project sites. In addition, a minimum of one natural reference area and a minimum of three areas shall be selected to represent the River Valley project sites. Up to three reference areas shall be chosen for each reclaimed area.

Three natural reference areas, shown on Figures 1 and 2 of the report, were used for comparison with the reclamation areas: one riparian reference area for the River Ponds and two upland reference areas for the remaining reclamation areas.

Section 2.0(4), Part IV of the Addendum to Quality Plan requires that natural reference areas shall be selected before October 1, 1988. Construction reference areas shall be selected at the time the measurements are made.

The areas were selected at the start of the investigation.

Section 2.0(5), Part IV of the Addendum to Quality Plan requires that the Site Manager and the On-Site Coordinator shall agree on natural and reclaimed reference areas selected.

The report indicates that the reference and reclamation areas were selected and approved by the State in the course of previous regulatory review.

Section 2.0(6), Part IV of the Addendum to Quality Plan requires that reference areas shall be marked by survey but shall not be fenced.

Reference areas cited in the report were surveyed but were not fenced.

Section 2.0(7), Part IV of the Addendum to Quality Plan requires that an origin shall be established at each reference area that is most closely located to the southwest cardinal point of the compass. The origins shall be surveyed into the Uravan grid system.

The origin for each reference area was established and marked with a metal fence post.

Section 3.0(1), Part IV of the Addendum to Quality Plan requires that sample points in a given reference area shall be located by radon number charts. Quality Control Procedure QC-12 shall be used to locate the sampling points.

The new sampling protocols were approved by the State on July 28, 2004 and are given in the report.

Section 3.0(2), Part IV of the Addendum to Quality Plan requires that the number of sampling points used to estimate the vegetative cover in a reference area shall be 100. If more than one reference area is selected to characterize the vegetation, the 100 points shall be divided evenly among the sites, but the sum of all measurements shall not exceed 100. For this case, the total estimated vegetative cover shall be the average value of cover computed for the reference areas under consideration.

As noted above, the investigation was performed using the State approved sampling protocols given in the report.


Form No. F-23

Section 5.0, Part IV of the Addendum to Quality Plan requires that the stability of any final cover placed shall be considered adequate if final inspections indicate erosion on the project area does not exceed the magnitude of erosion or adjacent natural areas for two consecutive annual measurements. In addition, no rills deeper than 6 inches shall occur on reclaimed surfaces unless the rills and gullies have been stabilized with engineered methods in accordance with a State-approved plan.

Although the report stated that no quantitative evaluation of soil erosion was made, observations noted on the Field Observation Forms indicate that no excessive erosion was observed and that conditions were similar between the reference and reclaimed areas.

Section 6.0, Part IV of the Addendum to Quality Plan requires that the vegetation shall be considered adequate if final inspections show the density of vegetation in reclaimed areas is similar to density of vegetation in undisturbed areas for two consecutive annual measurements. Similar density is defined as a selected reclaimed reference area having at least 80% of the total vegetative cover that is measured in the selected natural reference areas.

The report indicates that all the reclamation areas met the criteria with the exception of the Atkinson Creek Crystal Disposal Area which met the criteria in 2004 but not 2005. This area will be included in subsequent monitoring inspections to demonstrate compliance.

URA VAN RECLAMATION MONITORING SUMMARY REPORT 2003, 2004 and 2005

Prepared for: Umetco Minerals Corporation

2754 C()IIIP!l1~ Drive . ,.- .. ,,~qit~ilIQ: · ·.·.

ota:n,;FJtj.v.ijtill11, €0 siso6

Prepared by:

~ ~ \NestWater Engineering ~

2516 FORESIGHT CIRCLE, #1 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81505 (970) 241-7076 FAX: (970)241-7097

I

INTRODUCTION

In accordance with the request ofUmetco representative Mr. Rahe Junge, this is WestWaters' report of findings for Reclamation Monitoring performed in the vicinity of the Umetco Uravan facility during 2003, 2004 and 2005.

The purpose of the monitoring was to document the condition ofReclamation Reference Areas (RRAs) located on reclaimed areas of the Uravan site, as compared to the condition of Natural Reference Areas (NRAs) located in the Uravan vicinity. This report describes the observed conditions of selected RRAs and relevant NRAs, and compares the areas to determine if Final Acceptance Criteria have been achieved for the RRAs. Reference Areas (RAs), including RRAs and NRAs were selected and approved by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) in the course of previous regulatory review, as were the methods of documenting conditions at the reference areas and Final Acceptance Criteria.

This report documents and compares the following reference areas:

Table 1. RRAs and NRAs Monitored

Reclamation Reference Areas (RRAs) RRA Year RRA Description NRA Comparison Area Location: UTM Zone

Number Monitored 12,NAD83

RRAl 2004

Water Storage Area NRA4AandNRA7 0697964mE,4248762mN 2005

RRA5 2004

Town Site NRA4A and :NRA 7 0697178mE,4249843mN 2005

RRA7 2004

Atkinson Creek NRA4AandNRA7 0695820mE,4251116mN 2005 2003

RRA8 2004 Town Dump NRA4AandNRA7 0695192rnE,4250913mN 2005

RRA9 2004

River Ponds NRA14 0697857rnE,4249238mN 2005

RRA 2004 Highway 141 Site NRA4AandNRA7 0697570mE,4249614mN

HWY141 2005

Natural Reference Areas (NRAs) NRA Year NRA Description

Location: UTM Zone Number Monitored 12,NAD83

2003 BLM San Miguel Bridge Upland Natural Reference

NRA4A 2004 0699956m, 04247644mN 2005

Area For comparison to upland RRAs.

2003 BLM San Miguel Bench Upland Reference Area For

NRA7 2004 069382lmE, 4250956mN 2005

comparison to upland RRAs.

NRA14 2004 TNC San Miguel Riparian Natural Reference Area. For 0700954mE, 4246496mN 2005 comparison to riparian RRAs.

The locations of these reference areas are depicted on Figures 1 and 2.

695ooomE. s97000mE, WGS84 Zone 12S •99ooomE, z r'$;;:-::~--:;--c-«~S'2$;;;[!,:5==:y-.,;;:;;;;..~\lali?,i:;?::!'C"f7'~~:1\\T-ITTi/TTi:::Z'r:'7:lr.::::CJE~~SJ31J~~==r=c-:.1.,::::2:2:3,.~-,h<:/&-•:,::·~,~,~-:-3,J,3,z,£'~'C-:;,.::·J,2,·~·~"[,7 z § FIGURE 1 § '" Umetco Uravan Reclamation Monitoring Ri LJ1 Lf)

11 RRA and NRA Location Map ~";' 'J December 2005 1

WestWater Engineering

2 E 8 z 0 - E LJ1 8 N 0 ., n

Lf) N .,

z E 8 z ~ 8 LJ1 'J '' 8

0 Lf)

N V

694ooomE. 695ooomE, 696ooom E. 697ooomE, WGS84 Zone 12S •99ooomE,

o.o 0.5 LO miles l--.-'-~-.'----",----.--'---J---'-,---e'-.--'.-~--'--,......J

o.o o,5 1.0 1.5 km

TN~;~½o 12/27/05

6980DDmE,

z

G99ooomE,

0.0

0.0

G99ooomE.

0.5

0.5 1.0

7QQ000mE, WGS84 Zone 12S 7Q2DDDmE.

FIGURE2 Umetco Uravan Reclamation Monitoring

RRA and NRA Location Map December 2005

1ooooomE,

1.0 miles

1.5 km

WestWater Engineering

!

/

WGS84 Zone 12S 1O2000m E.

TNt:~1/,' 12/27/05

METHODS

The protocol for RA reclamation documentation was approved by CDPHE on July 28, 2004 (Umetco, Rahe Junge, personnal communication). The approved protocol is outlined below.

Reclamation Monitoring includes performance of the following activities and documentation for RRAs and NRAs.

(1) Walk-over Examination. Perform a thorough walk-over of the entire reference area viewing all variations in edaphic conditions, site aspect, slope position, slope gradient, vegetative cover and species dominance, evidence of erosion, and evidence of grazing by wildlife and livestock. Select 1 x 1 meter quadrat locations that represent the range of vegetation and soil erosion condition present at the site for photographic documentation purposes. Consider diversity of plant species, desirability of plant species, percent cover verses bare ground, presence of noxious weeds, and evidence of erosion. Select I location that represents the best overall condition, 3 that represent average condition, and 1 that represents the worst condition observed at the site.

(2) Field Observations Forms. A Field Observation Form will be completed for each of the 5 selected quadrats. Observations will include identification of the quadrat (Photo number), date of observation, observers, dominant plant species, percent cover of dominant species, presence of noxious weeds, evidence of erosion (sheet, rills, gullies) in the general vicinity of the quadrat, and evidence of grazing.

(3) Photographic Documentation. Take 1 oblique overview photograph of the Reference Area that depicts the general condition of the site (Photo l}. Take vertical, or as near vertical as possible, photographs of the lxl meter quadrats. Photo 2 will be the quadrat with the best overall condition, Photos 3 through 5 will be of the average condition quadrats, and Photo 6 will be the quadrat with the worst condition. An identification card will be included in each photograph indicating the RRA number, the photo number, and the date of recording.

The acceptability of reclamation is to be judged on the basis of Reclamation Monitoring findings and a determination that the Final Acceptance Criteria have been achieved. Final Acceptance Criteria are: Vegetation in a reclaimed area shall be considered adequate when total vegetative cover in the average condition quadrats is at least 80 percent of the total vegetative cover measured in the average condition quadrats in the Natural Reference Areas and soil erosion within the RRAs is less than or equal to soil erosion within the NRAs.

RECLAMATION MONITORING FINDINGS

Onsite examinations prior to monitoring indicated that NRA4A and NRA7 would be suitable for comparison to the upland RRAs (RRAl, RRA5, RRA7, RRA8 and RRAHWY141), and that NRA14 will be suitable for comparison to riparian RRA, RRA9. This determination was made on the basis of similarity of environmental factors (slope, exposure, slope position, soils, elevation) between the RRAs and selected NRAs. Two upland NRAs were selected for comparison to upland RRAs in order to better represent the range of conditions present at the

RRAs. One upland NRA is located approximately 2 miles east ofUravan (.N~4A) and one is located approximately 1.5 miles west ofUravan (NRA7). The single riparian NRA (NRA14), located approximately 3 miles east ofUravan, was considered to adequately represent the single riparian RRA (RRA9).

Westwater performed onsite monitoring at the Uravan site on June 19, 2003; June 4, 9, 16 and September 14, 2003; and July 28, 2005. Monitoring events were generally performed during June and July to represent vegetative conditions during mid growing season. During 2004, monitoring ofRRA9 was performed in September as flood stage conditions adjacent to the San Miguel River prevented observations of this site when the other RAs were examined. The 2003 monitoring was limited to 2 NRAs (NRA4A and NRA7) and one RRA (RRA8) as this was the first year of monitoring and CDPHE had not yet approved the monitoring protocol. The 2004 and 2005 monitoring events included all RRAs and NRAs reported on here.

Walk-over Examinations were completed during each monitoring event. Field Observation Forms (Appendix A) and Photographic Documentation (Appendix B) were also performed. Our analysis is based on the data collected during monitoring events.

The following interpretation of the Final Acceptance Criteria (F AC) was applied in our analysis of the monitoring data:

When the mean of total vegetative cover for the 3 average condition quadrats in an RRA during a given year is equal to or greater than 80% of the mean of total vegetative cover for the 3 average condition quadrats in the representative NRA for the same year, and visually assessed erosion condition is less than or equal to erosion conditions within the NRA, the Final Acceptance Criteria has been achieved for that year.

Since 2 upland NRAs were selected to represent upland RRAs, the FAC is considered to be 80% of the mean total vegetative cover of the average condition quadrats of both NRAs. It should be noted that comparison of total vegetative cover between NRAs and RRAs should be done within the same year. This is true as annual precipitation can vary significantly from one year to the next and vegetative cover is likely to vary as well.

RESULTS and DISCUSSION

Table 2 summarizes vegetative cover observations from the Field Observation Forms for the upland RAs, and Table 3 summarizes vegetative cover observations from the Field Observation Forms for the riparian RAs. Both tables also provide a comparison of vegetative conditions in the RRAs to the FAC determined from conditions in the NRAs.

Table 2. Upland NRA and RRA Percent Total Vegetative

Cover Average Condition Quadrats Final Acceotance Criteria ( FAC): Average Condition Quadrats cover in RRA > 80% of NRA

Total Vegetative Cover

2003 2004 2005 NRA4A

Qudrat 1 10 10 17

Qudrat 2 9 36 30

Qudrat 3 13 4 46

Average/year 11 17 31

FAG (80% of Average/year) 9 13 25 NRA7

Qudrat 1 7 13 20 Qudrat 2 7 7 23

Qudrat 3 10 10 27

Average/year 8 10 23

FAG (80% of Average/year) 6 8 19 Average Upland FAC 8 11 22

RRA1 Qudrat 1 NA 13 30

Qudrat 2 NA 25 15

Qudrat 3 NA 18 20

Average/year NA 19 22 >FAC? NA Yes Yes

RRAS Qudrat 1 NA 30 40

Qudrat 2 NA 25 20

Qudrat 3 NA 40 25

Average/year NA 32 28 >FAC? Yes Yes

RRA7 Qudrat 1 NA 12 13

Qudrat 2 NA 11 18

Qudrat 3 NA 10 20

Average/year NA 11 17

>FAC? Yes No

RRAB Qudrat 1 12 17 25

Qudrat 2 14 30 25

Qudrat 3 10 26 30

Averaae/year 12 24 27 >FAC? Yes Yes

RRAHWY141 Qudrat 1 NA 30 35 Qudrat 2 NA 35 12 Qudrat 3 NA 50 40

Average/year NA 38 29 >FAC? Yes Yes

Table 3. Riparian NRA and RRA Percent Total Vegetative Cover

Average Condition Quadrats Final Acceptance Criteria ( FAC) Average Condition Quadrats Cover in RRA > NRA

Total Cover NRA14 2003 2004 Qudrat 1 NA 33

Qudrat 2 NA 45

Qudrat 3 NA 40

Average/year NA 39 Riparian FAC NA 31

RRA9 NA Qudrat 1 NA 60 Qudrat 2 NA 100

Qudrat 3 NA 100

Average/year NA 87 >FAC? NA Yes

The following conclusions are possible on the basis of Tables 2 and 3:

VEGETATIVE CONDIDON

UPLAND FAC and RRAs

2005 62 57 52 57 46

75 100 100 92

Yes

Upland FAC - For 2003, the upland FAC (for comparison to RRA8 only) is 8%. For 2004 and 2005, the upland FAC is 11 % and 22% respectively. There appears to be a trend toward increasing vegetative cover in the NRAs from 2004 to 2005, possibly related to increased precipitation in 2004 and 2005 as compared to 2003 (a drought year).

RRAI -The vegetation condition portion of the FAC is satisfied for both 2004 and 2005.

RRAS - The vegetation condition portion of the F AC is satisfied for both 2004 and 2005.

RRA7 - The vegetation condition portion oftheFAC is satisfied for 2004. However, the 2005 vegetative cover in this RRA is 17% as compared to theFAC of22%. If cover of species generally considered to be undesirable (see section below) were removed from the total cover within the NRAs, the F AC would be considerably lower, and RRA 7 would be closer to meeting the standard.

RRA8 - The vegetation condition portion of the FAC is satisfied for both 2004 and 2005.

RRA HWYl 41 - The vegetation condition portion of the F AC is satisfied for both 2004 and 2005.

RIPARIANFAC and RRA

Riparian FAC- For 2004 the riparianFAC is 31 % and for 2005 it is 46%.

RRA9 - The vegetation condition portion of the FAC is satisfied for both 2004 and 2005.

. In addition to vegetative cover observations, the following Based on the a review of

Noxious, Undesirable and Desirable Species

Appenix C includes a description of plant species considered to be noxious in Montrose County, and a listing of species generally considered to be desirable and undesirable that occur in the Uravan area.

The only noxious species observed in the RRAs or NRAs in spotted knapweed. Spotted knapweed was observed in RRA 5 and 7. Umetco has been engaged in a weed control program for this species for several years, and substantial progress appears to have been made. Tamarisk is present in RRA9 and in NRAI 4. This plant is included on the State of Colorado list of noxious species, but not on the Montrose County list. Umetco has indicated that an effort to control this species is expected to start in 2006.

If the list of undesirable species is compared to the species found in the various "N1lAs and RRAs (Appendix A), it is apparent that several undesirable species contribute substantial vegetative cover in some NRAs and RRAs. Of particular note is the amount of undesirable species cover present in NRA4A, NRA?, RRA5 and RRA7. If undesirable species cover is removed from the calculation of total vegetative cover, the% cover decreases substantially (Table 4). The most common undesirable species present in the RAs was cheatgrass.

TABLE4 Upland NRA and RRA Average Condition Quadrats % Cover

Final Acceptance Criteria ( FAC): Average Condition Quadrats Cover in RRA > 80% of NRA

Total Vegetative Cover Total Desirable Species Cover 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

NRA4A Average 1 10 10 17 Average 1 0 6 7 Average 2 9 36 30 Average 2 0 5 19 Average 3 13 4 46 Average 3 3 2 6 Averagefyear 11 17 31 Averagefyear 1 4 11

NRA7 Average 1 7 13 20 Average 1 5 13 14 Average 2 7 7 23 Average 2 7 4 14 Average 3 10 10 27 Average 3 10 2 12 Average/year 8 10 23 Average(year 7 6 13

RRA5 Average 1 30 40 Average 1 15 15 Average 2 25 20 Average 2 10 16 Average 3 40 25 Averaoe 3 30 12 Average/year 32 28 Average/year 18 14

RRA7 Average 1 12 13 Average 1 8 6 Average 2 11 18 Average 2 9 10 Averaoe 3 10 20 Average 3 7 12 Average/year 11 17 Average/year 8 9

son, EROSION CONDITION

While no quantitative evaluation of soil erosion conditions was performed, the observations performed in the NRAs and RRAs indicate that the soil erosion condition in the RRAs is similar to the conditions observed in the NRAs. On the basis of these observations, the F AC criterion for soil erosion appears to have been achieved in all RRAs.

FAC EVALUATION SUMMARY

On the basis of observations performed during monitoring events and analysis performed here all RRAs except for RRA7 appear to satisfy the vegetative and erosion condition criteria of the F AC

APPENDIX A

Field Observation Forms

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: INRA4A IDATE !June 19, 2003 I OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and WR Junge LOCATION: luTMNAD 83: 0699956mE, 4247644mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to ESE PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR 6/4- sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slone UTILIZATION(%) . 70 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Artemisia tridentata 10 Gutierezia sarothrae 1 Bromus tectorum I

TOTAL COVER 12 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 10 to 15% of the NRA PHOTO 3 AVERAGE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR 6/4- sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? Sheet SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) 80 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Vulpina octiflora 6 Phlox spp. I Bromus tectorum 3

TOTAL COVER 10 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 3 0 to 40% of the NRA. Annual, non-native species dominate.

PHOTO 4 A VERA GE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) 75 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Vulvina octiflora 3 Hilariajamesii 2 Bromus tectorum 5


PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7 .5YR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) 75 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Bromus tectorum 10 Phlox svp. 3


PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? sheet SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) 95 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Bromus tectorum 3

TOTAL COVER 3 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the NRA. No desirable species in this quadrat.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: INRA4A IDATE !June 4, 2004 I OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and WR Junge LOCATION: IUTM NAD 83: 0699956mE, 4247644mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to ESE PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) <5% DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) Hilaria iamesii 20 Gutierezia sarothrae I Bromus tectorum 1 IAcropyron smithii 2 TOTAL COVER 25 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 5 to I 0% of the NRA PHOTO 3 AVERAGE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.SYR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) <5% DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOlVIINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) Stipa viridula ' J

Bromus tectorum 4 Hilaria jamesii 3 TOTAL COVER 10 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: /Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the :NRA. Annual, non-native species dominate. PHOTO 4 A VERA GE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR 6/4 - sandv loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) 10 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) Vulpina octiflora 1 Hilaria iamesii 4 Bromus tectorum 30 Gutierezia sarothrae 1 TOTAL COVER 36 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 3 0 to 40% of the NRA. Annual, non-native species dominate. PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.SYR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION(¾ 1 <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) Bromus tectorum 2 Phlox spp. I Oryzopsis hymennoides 1 TOTAL COVER 4 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the NRA. Annual, non-native species dominate. PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR 6/4- sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? sheet SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION<¾) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) Oryzoosis hymennoides >l

TOTAL COVER >l NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the NRA.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: INRA4A !DATE !July 28, 2005 I OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and A Files LOCATION: luTM NAD 83: 0699956mE, 4247644mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to E PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) JO DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) IHilariajamesii 25 Gutierezia sarothrae 5 Bromus tee/arum 2 Stipa viridula s TOTAL COVER 37 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 5 to 10% of the NRA

PHOTO 3 A VERA GE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7 .SYR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? Sheet SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) JO DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) Stipa viridula 5 Hilariajamesii s Bromus tectorum s Spharalcea coccinia 2 TOTAL COVER 17 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the NRA .. PHOTO 4 AVERAGE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.SYR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) 10 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Hilaria iamesii JS Gutierezia sarothrae 6 Bromus tectorum 5 Stipa viridula 4 TOTAL COVER 30 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 3 0 to 40% % of the NRA.

PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.SYR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) 12 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Hilariajamesii 5 Gutierezia sarothrae 5 Bromus tectorum 35 Stipa viridula l TOTAL COVER 46 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% % of the NRA. Annual, non-native species dominate.

PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.SYR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? sheet SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) JO DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Stipa viridula 2 Spharalcea coccinia 2

TOTAL COVER 4 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 5 to 10% of the NRA.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: INRA 7 IDATE !June 19, 2003 I OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and WR Junge LOCATION: /UTM NAD 83: 69382lmE, 4250956mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to ESE PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR 6/4 - loamy sand SITE ASPECT WSW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 2-4 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION(%) 20 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Hilariajamesii 10 Spharalcea coccinia 1 Stipa viridula 2

TOTAL COVER 13 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 5 to 10% of the NRA

PHOTO 3 A VERA GE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR 6/4 - loamy sand SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) 25 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) Hilariajamesii 5 Bromus tectorum 2

TOTAL COVER 7 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the NRA.

PHOTO 4 AVERAGE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR 6/4 - loamy sand SITE ASPECT SW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 2 to 4 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) 30 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) Gutierrezia sarothrae 1 Hi/ariajamesii 4 Oryzopsis hymenoides 2

TOTAL COVER 7 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the NRA.

PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR 6/4 - loamy sand SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) 60 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) T-rilariajamesii 8 Spharalcea coccinia 2

TOTAL COVER 10 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: /Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 3 0% of the NRA.

PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) SYR 6/4 - loamy sand SITE ASPECT WSW ACCELERATED EROSION? sheet SLOPE GRADIENT % 2 to2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) Bare ground DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) None 0

TOTAL COVER 0 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: \No plants in this quadrat. Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the NRA.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: /NRA 7 IDATE /June 4, 2004 /OBSERVERS: /MW Klish and WR Junge LOCATION: /UTMNAD 83: 69382lmE, 4250956mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to E PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Colorffexture) 7.5YR5/4 sandy loam SITE ASPECT SW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 2-4 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Hilariajamesii 15 Salsola ka!i 1 Vulpina octijlora <l Bromus tectorum <l TOTAL COVER 18 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: /Areas similar to this amount to 10 to 15% of the NRA PHOTO 3 AVERAGE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Colorffexture) 5YR 6/4 - loamy sand SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Hilaria James ii 8 Bromus tectorum 2 Gutierrezia sarothrae 1 IAtri[][ex canescens 1 TOTAL COVER 13 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: /Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the NRA. PHOTO 4 A VERA GE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR 6/4 - loamv sand SITE ASPECT SW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 2 to 4 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION<% l <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Gutierrezia sarothrae 3 Salsola kali 2 Oryzopsis hymenoides <l Bromus tectorum 1 Stipa viridula <l TOTAL COVER 7 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: /Areas similar to this amount to 3 0 to 40% of the NRA. PHOTO 5 AVERAGE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Colorffexture) 5YR 6/4 - loamy sand SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(% 1 <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Hilariajamesii <] Salsola kali 2 Spharalcea coccinia 1 Vulpina octijlora 1 Bromus tectorum 6 TOTAL COVER 10 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: /Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30 % of the NRA. PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL rcolorffexture) 5YR 6/4 - loamv sand SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? sheet SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION/%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Stipa viridula <l SJJharalcea coccinia <l

TOTAL COVER 1 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: /Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the NRA.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: INRA 7 IDATE !July 28, 2005 !OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and A Files LOCATION: IUTM NAD 83: 69382lmE, 4250956mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to ESE PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR 6/4 - loamy sand SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION(% l <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Hilariajamesii 10 Vu/pina octiflora 5 Bromus tectorum 7 Stiva viridula 12 TOTAL COVER 34 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 5 to 10% of the NRA PHOTO 3 AVERAGE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR 6/4 - loamy sand SITE ASPECT WSW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Hilaria jamesii 3 Spharalcea coccinia 4 Bromus tectorum 3 Vulvina octiflora 3 Gutierrez/a sarothrae 7 TOTAL COVER 20 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30% of the NRA. PHOTO 4 AVERAGE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR 6/4 - loamy sand SITE ASPECT SW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 2 to 4 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION"(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Stiva viridula 7 Vu/pina octillora 4 Hilariajamesii 2 Gutierrez/a sarothrae 5 Bromus tectorum 5 TOTALCOVER 23 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 3 0% of the NRA. PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) SYR 6/4 - loamv sand SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Hilariajamesii 2 Gutierrez/a sarothrae 4 Cactus hedgho;; I Bromus tectorum 5 Atrip/ex canescens 5 Vulpina octillora 10 TOTAL COVER 27 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30% of the NRA. PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) SYR 6/4 - loamv sand SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife/Livestock SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Stipa viridula <I Hilaria iamesii I

TOTAL COVER 1 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the NRA.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: INRA 14 !DATE !June 9, 2004 !OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and R Vilapando LOCATION: IUTM NAD 83: 700954mE, 4246496mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to E PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURF ACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 1 0YR2/2 - loamy sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? no SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVII>ENCE OF GRAZING? >5 SLOPE POSITION Flood plain UTILIZATION(%) 5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Sa/Lr; exigua 60 Carex aquatilis 5 Me/tlotus ottzcinalis 5 Glycyrrhiza levidota 1 Eleocharis macrostachya IO Phrarm,i/es australis 25 TOTAL COVER 100 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to IO to 15% of the NRA PHOTO 3 AVERAGE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 10YR2/l loamy sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? no SLOPE POSITION Flood olain UTILIZATION(%) >5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER{%) Meltlotus officinalis 15 Populus fremontii 2 Bromus inermus 5 Salix exirma 6 Gallium spp. 5 TOTAL COVER 33 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30% of the NRA. PHOTO 4 AVERAGE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) I0YR3/4 loam SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? no SLOPE POSITION Flood olain UTILIZATION(%) >5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Salix exi,;ua 25 Meltlotus officinalis 15 Phramites australis 5 TOTAL COVER 45 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30% of the NRA. PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) I 0YR2/2 loamy sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? no SLOPE POSITION Flood plain UTILIZATION<%) >5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Eleocharis macrostachya 15 Salix exii;rua IO Bromus inermus IO Calamawostis canadensis 5 TOTAL COVER 40 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30% of the NRA. PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 1 0YR2/l sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? sheet SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? no SLOPE POSITION Flood olain UTILIZATION(%) >5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Glycyrrhiza lepidota 5 Salix exfr,ua 2

TOTAL COVER 7 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the NRA.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: ]NRA 14 !DATE !July 29, 2005 I OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and A Files LOCATION: IUTM NAD 83: 700954mE, 4246496mN PHOTO l OVERVIBW view to ESE PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 1 0YR2/2 - loamy sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? no SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? >5 SLOPE POSITION Flood plain UTILIZATION(%) 5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) Salix exigua 45 Bromus inermus 35 Melt/otus officinalis 5 Glycyrrhiza levidota 5 Eleocharis macrostachya 5 Epli/obium snn. 1 TOTAL COVER 100 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount tolO to 15% of the NRA

PHOTO 3 A VERA GE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 1 0YR2/2 loamy sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? no SLOPE POSITION Flood plain UTILIZATION£%) >5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) Melt/otus officinalis 15 Populus fremontii 5 Equsetum spp. 20 Trisetum wolfii 2 Gallium snn. 20 TOTAL COVER 62 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the NRA.

PHOTO 4 AVERAGE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 1 0YR2/2 loamv sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? no SLOPE POSITION Flood plain UTILIZATION£%) >5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) Salix nlanifolia 10 Gallium snn. 10 Meltlotus officinalis 35 Phramites australis 2 TOTAL COVER 57 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30% of the NRA.

PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 1 OYR2/2 loamy sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? no SLOPE POSITION Flood plain UTILIZATION(¾) >5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Scirpus spungens 2 Eleocharis macrostachya 20 Mel/lotus officinalis 25 Calamacn·ostis canadensis 5 TOTAL COVER 52 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the NRA.

PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 1 0YR211 sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? sheet SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? no SLOPE POSITION Flood plain UTILIZATION(%) >S DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) Glycyrrhiza levidota 5 Meltlotus ofhcinalis 1 Eousetum snn. 10 TOTAL COVER 16 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !No plants in this ouadrat. Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the NRA.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: lRRA l IDATE lJune 16, 2004 IOI!SERVERS: IMW Klish and R Vialpando LOCATION: TurM NAD 83: 0697964mE, 4248762mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to w PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR5/4 sandy loam SITE ASPECT N ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 1 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION mid slooe UTILIZATION(%) <5% DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Oryzopsis hymenoides 25 Kochia scovaria 1 Atriolex canescens 10 A eronuron intermedia 10 TOTAL COVER 46 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 5 to 7% of the NRA

PHOTO 3 A VERA GE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR5/2 - sandv loam SITE ASPECT SW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 1 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) <5% DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Oryzopsis hymenoides 5 Agropyron intermedia 5 Kochia scooaria 3 TOTAL COVER 13 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30% of the NRA.

PHOTO 4 AVERAGE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR5/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION base of slone UTILIZATION(%) <5% DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Oryzoosis hymenoides 10 Atriplex canescens 12 r;:;-;;ronyron intermedia 3 TOTAL COVER 25 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: lAreas similar to this amount to 20 to 3 0% of the NRA

PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR5/2 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT M ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 1 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION base of slooe UTILIZATION(%) <5% DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Kochia sconaria 3

IA triplex canescens 15

TOTAL COVER 18 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amountto 35 to 45 % of the NRA.

PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 10YR5/4- sandy loam SITE ASPECT NW ACCELERATED EROSION? sheet SLOPE GRADIENT % 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION mid slone UTILIZATION(%) <5% DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Melilotus officinalis <1

TOTAL COVER <l NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 5 to l 0% of the NRA.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: IRRA 1 !DATE IJuly 28, 2005 I OBSERVERS: TMW Klish and A Files LOCATION: luTM NAD 83: 0697964mE, 4248762mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEWviewto w PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR5/4 sandy loam SITE ASPECT N ACCELERATED EROS10N? No SLOPE GRADIENT % I EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION mid slope UTILIZATION(%). <5% DOMINANT SPECIES COVER<%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) Oryzopsis hymenoides 20

14 trin/ex canescens I IAProvvron intermedia 55 TOTAL COVER 75 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 3 to 7% of the NRA PHOTO 3 A VERA GE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR5/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OFGRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(o/.0 <5% DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Oryzopsis hymenoides 6 Bromus tectorum IO IAtrivlex canescens 15 TOTAL COVER 30 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 55 to 65% of the NRA. PHOTO 4 A VER<\.GE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR5/2 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION base of slope UTILIZATION<%) <5% DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Aw·ovyron intermedia IO Atrip/ex canescens 5

TOTAL COVER 15 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30% of the NRA PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 1 0YR5/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT M ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % I EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION base of slope UTILIZATION(%) <5% DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%)· DOMINANT SPECIES COVER<%) Oryzopsis hymenoides 8 !Atrivlex canescens 10 Bromus tectorum 2 TOTAL COVER 20 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30% of the NRA PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR5/2 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT NW ACCELERATED EROSION? sheet SLOPE GRADIENT % 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION mid slope UTILIZATION(%) <5% DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) Sa/so/a ka/i <l Kochia scovaria 6 Bromus tectorum JO TOTAL COVER 15 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 3 to 7 % of the NRA. No desirable soecies in this ouadrat.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: IRRA5 !DATE !June 16, 2004 !OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and R Vialnando LOCATION: IUTMNAD 83: 697178mE, 4249843mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to SE PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURF ACE .SOIL (Color/Texture) 7 .5YR5/3 sandv loam SITE ASPECT SW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % l EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION(¾) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER<%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%\ Oryzopsis hymenoides 15

I A tr iv lex canecens 35 I A ,,ronvron intermedia IO TOTAL COVER 60 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 3 to 5% of the NRA

PHOTO 3 A VERA GE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR6/3 loamy sand SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slone UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMJNANT SPECIES COVER(%) Kochia soparia 20 Bromus tectorum 2 Vulpina octiflora 3 I A trio/ex canescens 15 TOTAL COVER 30 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 45 to 55% of the NRA. PHOTO 4 AVERAGE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR 6/4 sandy loam SITE ASPECT SW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 2 to 4 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slone UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER!%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) I A trio/ex canescens 10 Munroa squarosa 10 Kochia sovaria 5 TOTAL COVER 25 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30 % of the NRA. PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7 .5YR5/3 sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION(¾) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER<0/J DOMJNANT SPECIES COVER(%) IAtrivlex canescens 15 Kochia sovaria 5 IA trivlex eardnerii 10 Oryzopsis hymenoides 5 Salsola kali 5 TOTAL COVER 40 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 3 0 % of the NRA. PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR6/3 sandv loam SITE ASPECT SW ACCELERATED EROSION? minor rills SLOPE GRADIENT % 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%\ DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%\ A1unroa scmarosa 8 Kochia sorwria 6

TOTAL COVER 1 NOXIOUS WEEDS? <1% Centaria maculosa in the area

NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the NRA.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: IRRA5 IDATE !July 28, 2005 I OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and A Files LOCATION: luTM NAD 83: 697178mE, 4249843mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to SE PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR5/3 sandy loam SITE ASPECT SW ACCELERATED.EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 1 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) Oryzopsis hymenoides 2 Atrivlex canescens 25 Medica5<0 saliva 15

IA 9ronvron intermedia 20 TOTAL COVER 60 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 3 to 5% of the NRA PHOTO 3 AVERAGE CONDITION 1 . SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7 .5YR6/3 loamy sand SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%\ DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Kochia soparia 5 Agropyron intermedia 8 Sisymbrium altissimum 50 Bromus tectorum 10 Atrivlex canescens 15 TOTAL COVER 40 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40 % of the NRA. PHOTO 4 AVERAGE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR 6/4 sandv loam SITE ASPECT SW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 2 to 4 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%\ Atrivlex canescens 8 Bromus tectorum 6 IA triplex gardnerii 8 Kochia sovaria 4 TOTAL COVER 20 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30 % of the NRA.

PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR5/3 sandv loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slone UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) IAtrivlex canescens 12 Bromus tectorum 12 Sisvmbrium altissimum 5 TOTAL COVER 25 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30 % of the NRA.

PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR6/3 sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? minor rills SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION/%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%\ DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) Hordeum leoorinum 8 Kochia sovaria l Sa/so/a kali 4 TOTAL COVER 10 NOXIOUS WEEDS? < ½ % Centaria

maculosa in the area. NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the NRA. This quadrat includes no desirable species.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: IRRA 7 !DATE !June 4, 2004 !OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and WR Junge LOCATION: IUTM NAD 83: 695820mE, 4251116mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to w PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL /Color/Texture) 5YR5/4 sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) IA triplex canescens 80 Erodium cicutarium I

TOTAL COVER 80 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the NRA PHOTO 3 AVERAGE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7 .5YR5/4 sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Oto 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) A triplex canescens 8 Bromus tectorum 2 Erodium cicutarium 2 TOTAL COVER 12 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30% of the NRA. PHOTO 4 AVERAGE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR 6/4 - loam SITE ASPECT SW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 2 to 4 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION/%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Svorobolus crytandrus 2 Salsola kali 2 Bromus tectorum 2 Bromus tectorum I Atriplex canescens 7 TOTAL COVER 11 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 3 0 to 40% of the NRA. PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE. SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR 6/4 - loamy sand SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Sporobolus c1ytandrus <l Sa/sofa kali 2 Bromus tectorum. I Vulpina octiflora 1 A trip/ex canescens 6 TOTAL COVER 10 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the NRA. PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR5/4 sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? sheet SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION/%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) Bromus tectorum 2 Erodium cicutarium I

TOTAL COVER 3 NOXIOUS WEEDS? 1 % Centaria macu/osa in the area

NOTES: ,~reas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the NRA. No desirable species in this quadrat. Occasional knapweed present.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: IRR<\ 7 IDATE IJuly 28, 2005 I OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and A Files LOCATION: IUTMNAD 83: 695820mE, 4251116mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to w PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR 5/4 -loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Oto 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slone UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%)

IA triplex canescens 60 }vfedicaeo saliva 5 Bromus tectorum 5 Chrysothamnus nauseosus 6 IA rrronvron cristatum <] TOTAL COVER 75 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the NRA PHOTO 3 AVERAGE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) SYR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED.EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER('¼) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Atriplex canescens 6 Bromus tectorum 6 Hordeum /eJJorinum I TOTAL COVER 13 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30% of the NRA. PHOTO 4 AVERAGE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(o/.0 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) AwoJJyron cristatum 8 Hilariajamesii 2 Bromus tectorum 8 TOTAL COVER 18 NOXIOUS WEEDS? <½% Centaria maculosa

in the area NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 3 0 to 40% of the NRA. PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 5YR 6/4 - loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Hordeum levorinum 10 Bromus tectorum 5 !AtriJJ/ex canescens 12 TOTAL COVER 20 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 3 0 to 40% of the NRA. PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) SYR 6/4 - loamv sand SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? minor sheet SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slone UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Brom-us tectorum 2 Spharalcea coccinia <1

TOTAL COVER 2 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the NRA. No desirable species in this quadrat.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: ITown Dump RRA 8 IDATE IJune 19, 2003 I OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and WR Junge LOCATION: IUTMNAD 83: 695192mE, 4250913mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to West PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7 .5YR 6/4 - sandv loam SITE ASPECT NNW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 5-10 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION mid to lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) 10 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) IA triplex canescens 15 Oryzopsis hymenoides 3 Agropyron smithii 2 IAtrivlex zardnerii 10 TOTAL COVER 30 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 10 to 15% of the RRA

PHOTO 3 A VERA GE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.SYR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT NNW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 3-5 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) 10 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) IAtriplex canescens JO Oryzopsis hymenoides 2

TOTAL COVER 12 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the RRA PHOTO 4 A VERA GE CONDITION 2 SURF ACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT WNW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 to 2 EVIi>ENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) 10 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Atriplex canescens 12 Stipa viridula 2

TOTAL COVER 14 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30% of the RRA

PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7 .5YR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION lower slooe UTILIZATION(%) 10 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) 4.trip/ex canescens JO

TOTAL COVER JO NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 3 0 to 40% of the RRA

PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.SYR 6/4- sandy loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) IO DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Vulpina octijlora 6

TOTAL COVER 6 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the RRA

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: !Town Dump RRA 8 !DATE !June 4, 2004 !OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and WR Junge LOCATION: IUTMNAD 83: 695l92mE, 42509l3mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to West PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Colorffexture) 7.5YR 5/4 - sandv loam SITE ASPECT flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION lower slone UTILIZATION(¾) 10 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Oryzovsis hymenoides 8 A urovyron smithii 8

14 triplex canescens 15 Vulvina octi/lora 1 4trivlex ;;arnerii 15 TOTAL COVER 45 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 5 to 15% of the RRA

PHOTO 3 AVERAGE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Colorffexture) 7.5YR 6/4- sandy loam SITE ASPECT flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION lower slone UTILIZATION(¾) 10 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Atrip/ex canescens 15 O1yzopsis hymenoides 2

TOTAL COVER 17 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 3 0 to 40% of the RRA PHOTO 4 A VERA GE CONDITION 2 SURF ACE SOIL (Colortfexture) 7.5YR 6/4- sandv loam SITE ASPECT NNW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 2-4 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION mid slope UTILIZATION(¾) 10 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) IAtriplex canescens 25 l4triplex gamerii 5

TOTAL COVER 30 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the RRA

PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION lower slone UTILIZATION(¾) 10 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Atrivlex canescens 25 Sa/sofa kali I

TOTAL COVER 26 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 10 to 15% of the RRA

PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Colortrexture) 7.5YR 6/4- sandy loam SITE ASPECT flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) 10 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) I" tr iv/ex canescens 3 Oryzovsis lrnmenoides 3 Oryzopsis hymenoides 2

TOTAL COVER 5 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the RRA

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: !Town Dump RRA 8 IDATE I July 28, 2005 !OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and A Files LOCATION: IUTM NAD 83: 695192mE, 4250913mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to West

PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7 .5YR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT NNW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 5-10 EVIDENCE. OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION mid to lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) A triplex canescens 60 Oryzovsis hymenoides I Agropyron smithii 15 Agrovyron svicata 2 A triplex zardnerii 2 TOTAL COVER 75 NOXIOUS WEEDS? <5 NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 5 to I 0% of the RRA

PHOTO 3 AVERAGE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) 10 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) IAtriplex canescens 25 Kochia scoparia I Hilaria James ii I Bromus tectorum I TOTAL COVER 25 NOXIOUS WEEDS? <5 NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30% of the RRA PHOTO 4 A VERA GE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT NNW ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 2-4 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION mid slope UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) IA triplex canescens JO Hordeum leporinum 3 Af!.ropyron smithii 2 A triplex gardnerii 5 Elymus salinus 10 TOTAL COVER 25 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30% of the RRA

PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7 .5YR 6/4 - sandy loam SITE ASPECT flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Atriplex canescens 15 Rlymus salinus 5 Oryzopsis hymenoides 11 Af!rovyron intermedia I

A triplex zm·dnerii 5 TOTAL COVER 30 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: /Areas similar to this amount to 35 to 45% of the RRA

PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR 6/4- sandy loam SITE ASPECT flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? Wildlife SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) <5

DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Bromus tectorum 2

TOTAL COVER 2 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No

NOTES: \Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the RRA

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: IRRA9 !DATE I Sept. 14, 2004 IOJJSERVERS: IMW Klish and A Files LOCATION: IUTM NAD 83: 697857mE, 4249238mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to s PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 1 0YR6/2 silty sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? no SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? wildlife/livestock SLOPE POSITION Flood plain UTILIZATION(%) 5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) Salix exi!,ua 80 Apocyanum cannabinum 2 Bromus inermus 15 Ulmas pumila 1 Phalaris arundinacea 10 TOTAL COVER 100 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount tol5 to 20% of the NRA PHOTO 3 A VERA GE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 1 0YR2/l loamy sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? wildlife/livestock SLOPE POSITION Flood olain UTILIZATION(%) 5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Salix exigua 35 Bromus inermus 5 So/idaRO spp. 10 Populus fremontii 5 Machaeranthera canescens 5 TOTAL COVER 60 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the NRA. PHOTO 4 AVERAGE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 10YR3/4 silty sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? wildlife/livestock SLOPE POSITION Flood olain UTILIZATION(%) 5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Salix exiRZia 15 Bromus inermus 10 Pooulus fremontii 25 Agropyron intermedia 30 P halaris arundinacea 20 TOTAL COVER 100 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the NRA. PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 10YR2/2 loamy sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? wildlife/livestock SLOPE POSITION Flood plain UTILIZATION(%) 5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Phalaris arundinacea 95 Salix exiRUa 5

TOTAL COVER 100 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 3 0 to 40% of the NRA. PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 1 0YR5/3 - silty sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? wildlife/livestock SLOPE POSITION Flood plain UTILIZATION/%) 10 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER/%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Tamar ix SIJIJ. 5 Populus fremontii 1 Salix exigua 5 Phalaris arundinacea 15 Me/ilotus officinalis 10 TOTAL COVER 65 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to less than 10% of the NRA.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: IRRA9 !DATE !July 28, 2005 !OBSERVERS: !MW Klish and A Files LOCATION: JUTM NAD 83: 697857mE, 4249238mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to s PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURF ACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 1 0YR2/2 loamv sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? no SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? wildlife/livestock SLOPE POSITION Flood plain UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER{%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER{%) Salix exigua 5 Phalaris arundinacea 95

TOTAL COVER 100 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 15 to 20% of the NRA PHOTO 3 AVERAGE CONDITION L SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 10YR3/4 silty sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? wildlife/livestock SLOPE POSITION Flood plain UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Salix exigua 40 Polygogon monspeliensis 2 P halaris arundinacea 5 Hordeum jubatum 5 Sa/so/a kali 15 Bromus tectorum 5 TOTAL COVER 75 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the NRA. PHOTO 4 AVERAGE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 1 0YR2/I loamy sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? wildlife/livestock SLOPE POSITION Flood plain UTILIZATION{%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Phalaris arundinacea 70 Tamarix spp. 30

TOTAL COVER 100 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: IAreas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the NRA. Tamarix is not a noxious plant in Montrose

Co. PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 1 0YR6/2 silty sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? wildlife/livestock SLOPE POSITION Flood plain UTILIZATION(% l <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) P halaris arundinacea 80 Salix exigua 20 Tamarix svv. 5 TOTAL COVER 100 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 30 to 40% of the NRA. PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 10YR5/4-sandy loam SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % Flat EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? wildlife/livestock SLOPE POSITION Flood plain UTILIZATION{%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Kochia scoparia 2 Bromus inermus 1 Sa/sofa kali 1 TOTAL COVER 4 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: JAreas similar to this amount to less than l % of the NRA. Atypical ouadrat for RRA 9.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: IRRAHWY141 IDATE !June 16, 2004 !OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and R Vialpando LOCATION: luTM NAD 83: 697570mE, 42496!4mN PHOTO 1 OVERVIEW view to SSE PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Colortrexture) 7 .5YR6/3 - loamy sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION<¾ l <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Atrip/ex canescens 50 Elymus sa/inus 15 Oryzovsis hymenoides 6 Bromus tectorum 6 TOTAL COVER 65 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 5 to 10% of the NRA PHOTO 3 AVERAGE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Colorffexture) 7.5YR6/3 - loam SITE ASPECT w ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 1 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No 0

SLOPE POSITION mid slope UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) IAtiplex gardneri 18 Hordeum leporinum 12 Kochia scoparia 3 TOTAL COVER 30 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30% of the NRA. PHOTO 4 AVERAGE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Colorffexture) 7.5YR6/3 loam SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(¾) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Kochia scoparia 25 IA tip/ex gardneri 7 Hordeum levorinum 5 TOTAL COVER 35 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30 % of the NRA. PHOTO 5 A VERA GE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7 .5YR6/3 loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Kochia scovaria 5 Bromus tectorum 3 IA triplex canescens 20 4tivlex :;;ardneri 28 TOTAL COVER 50 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 15 to 25 % of the NRA. PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Colorffexture) 7.5YR5/4 loam SITE ASPECT E ACCELERATED EROSION? moderate rills SLOPE GRADIENT % 2-4 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION mid slope UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%\ Kochia scoparia 6 IA triplex canescens 1 I A tivlex :;;ardneri 3 TOTAL COVER 10 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 5 to 15% of the NRA.

FIELD OBSERVATION FORM SITE: IRRAHWY141 !DATE !July 28, 2005 I OBSERVERS: IMW Klish and A Files LOCATION: IUTM NAD 83: 697570mE, 42496!4mN PHOTO l OVERVJEW view to SSE PHOTO 2 BEST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7 .5YR6/3 - loamy sand SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) 4trip/ex canescens 8 Agropyron intermedia 45 Bromus tectorum 5 TOTAL COVER 55 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to 10 to 20% of the NRA PHOTO 3 A VERA GE CONDITION 1 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR6/3 - loam SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(¾) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Atiplex gardneri IS Hordeum leporinum IS IAtriolex canescens 8 TOTAL COVER 35 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 3 0% of the NRA. PHOTO 4 A VERA GE CONDITION 2 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR6/3 loam SITE ASPECT 0 ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Bromus tectorum 6 IA tip/ex zardneri 6

TOTAL COVER 12 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30 % of the NRA. PHOTO 5 AVERAGE CONDITION 3 SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7 .5YR5/4 loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slope UTILIZATION(%) <S DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Kochia scoparia <5 Bromus tectorum 10 Elymus salinus 15 A tiolex zardneri 20 TOTAL COVER 40 NOXIOUS WEEDS? . No NOTES: !Areas similar to this amount to 20 to 30 % of the NRA. PHOTO 6 WORST CONDITION SURFACE SOIL (Color/Texture) 7.5YR6/3 loam SITE ASPECT Flat ACCELERATED EROSION? No SLOPE GRADIENT % 0 EVIDENCE OF GRAZING? No SLOPE POSITION lower slone UTILIZATION(%) <5 DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) DOMINANT SPECIES COVER(%) Bromus tectorum I I A trio lex canescens I

TOTAL COVER 2 NOXIOUS WEEDS? No NOTES: I Areas similar to this amount to less than 5% of the NRA.

APPENDIXB

Photo Documentation

Plate IA NRA4A June 19, 2003

Photo 1 Oblique Overview Photo 2 Best Condition

,; ./_/'/)/·' 7

Photo 3 Average Condition Photo 4 Average Condition

Photo S Average Condition Photo 6 Worst Condition

Plate 1B NRA4A June 4, 2004



Photo 5 Average Condition Photo 6 Worst Condition

Plate 1 C NRA4A July 28, 2005




PLATE 2A NRA7 June 19, 2003

Photo I Oblique Overview Photo 2 Best Condition



PLATE 2B NRA7 June 4, 2004




PLATE 2C NRA7 July28, 2005




PLATE 3A NRA14 June 9, 2004


b IC) /,-,t,_ t ,_ , l ._, f

'



~B I

PLATE~ ~ July 28, 2005




PLATE 4A RRA 1 June 16, 2004




PLATE 4B RRA 1 July 28, 2005








PLATE SB RRA 5 July 28, 2005
















PLATE 7B RRA 8 June 4, 2004


Photo3 Average Condition Photo 4 Average Condition


PLATE 7C RRA 8 July 28, 2005


1/28/os



PLATE BA RRA 9 September 19, 2004








PLATE 9A RRAHWY141 June 16, 2004




PLATE 9A RRAHWY141 July 28, 2005


7 /28/05



APPENDIXC

Noxious, Desirable and Undesirable Plants

Appendix C. Montrose County Noxious Weeds, and Undesirable and Desirable Species of the Uravan Area.

Montrose County Noxious Weeds Uravan Area Undesirable Species Uravan Area Desirable Species (www.ag.state.co.us/CSD/Weeds/Montrose.html) (Non-native, invasive species) (Native, non-invasive, perennial species)

Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed Bromus tectoraum Cheatgrass Agropyron desertorum Crested wheatgrass Aegilops cylindrical Jointed goatgrass Erodum cicutarium Storksbill Agropyron intermedia Intermediate wheatgrass Arctium minus Common burdock Halogeton glomerotis Halogeton Agropyron smithii Western wheatgrass Cardaria draba Hoary Cress Hordeum jubatum Foxtail barley Agropyron spicatum Bluebunch wheatgrass Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle Hordeum leporinum Wild barley Artemisia tridentata Big sagebrush Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Kochia scoparia Kochia Atriplex canescens Fourwing saltbush Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle Salsola kali Russian thistle A triplex gardneri Gardner saltbush Carduus nutans Musk thistle Sisymbrium altissimum Tumble mustard Elymus salinus Salina wildrye Centaurea dijfitsa Diffuse knapweed Tamarix spp. Tamarisk Hilaria jamesii Galleta grass Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed Ulmas pumila Chinese elm Oryzopsis hymenoides Indian ricegrass Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle Vulpina octiflora Sixweeks fescue Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass Chrysanthemum

Oxeye daisy Phragmites australis Giant reedgrass leucanthenum

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Populusjremontii Fremont cottonwood Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Rhus trilobata Threeleaf sumac Cyanoglossum officinale Houndstongue Salix exigua Coyote willow Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge Sporobolus cryptandrus Sand dropseed Linaria vulgaris Yellow toadflax Stipa viridula Green needle-grass

Documents

i~~~-:::.J(±.A~c J(~~::::::::::=:::::::::::==----