Laserfiche WebLink
Contrary to the aforementioned three variables, woody plant density at Coiowyo remains somewhat <br />problematic, at least ui some older areas. Perusal of Charts 6 and 7 m comparison to the current success <br />standard of 1000 stems per acre reveals that alt of the mgrntored areas fall short (except the CSU shrug <br />plots and fire areas). As stated !n the 2003 report, ~t !s Cedar Creek's recommendation that Colowyo <br />pursue a program of modification, This program would provide several avenues For correction of the <br />woody plant densty Issue (see Appends, AA -Section '1.3) by modifying both the success criterion as well <br />as "m-the field" revegetabon efforts. <br />Considering the 2006 mondonng effort as a whole, observed reve9etatlon at the Cotgwyo mine !s <br />generally in good conddion and well onto the path of successional advancement. An occasional and that <br />exh!hds elevated levels of annual grasses or early seral weeds may or may not need remediahon <br />(herbiude treatment) depending on future preupita[lon patterns that should favor planted perennials. <br />As revegetated communities continue to mature, the malonty should meet both Wnd use goals and bond <br />release suer-oss cntpna with regard to ground cover, d!versity, and curtent annual produtl!on. However, <br />woody plant densities m most umis with at least two growing seasons are txlow, and occasionally well <br />below, the current standard of 1,000 shrubs per acre. This d!fficulty must be addressed, and several <br />gpbons are ava~Iable fur Colovryo to cons!der and present to CDRMS- <br />Sections that follow on front to back panes (Sections 2.2, 23, 2.4, and LS) prowde a brief narrative <br />of the results From each mdiwdual umt evaluated by Cedar Creek. Also in0uded fqr each unit is d map of <br />the 2006 sample points and aone-page summary (compendwm) of all pertinent data collected wdh!n the <br />umt and revegetation specdtcabons applicable to the unrt'. Section 2.6 provides a data summary by area <br />(East Pit, West Pit, Section 16, and Fue Area), while Section 2.7 provides a summary by vear of <br />r~y~,q i n (1999, 2002, and Z005). Section 2.8 provides a discussion of the results from the sampling <br />of the two reference areas. A discussion of the results from sampling of the CSU shrub plots !n East P!t !s <br />presented m Section 2.9. Raw i1aW tables fqr rover, production, and woody plant density are presented <br />rn Appendix AB <br />C)ala and speafwUOns are 6m,ted to that mformaton co!~ected by or known ro Cedar Creex as or 2006 ~ ast darn <br />and mformaben could be aeu:ed to these combenaa at any time Fraurd data Can M atlCCC O6 .I trruimes Ovanabie <br />R,o r,nlo Enrrpy ~manu: Colo,vyo Mlns Page G Revogetauon Momtonng - 2006 <br />