Laserfiche WebLink
erosion. Areas `offering such :physical` circumstances are indicated on Figure fon the following page. <br />Present thinking would place attempted mountain shrub types within the bottoms and parallel to north and <br />east facing, slopes of those drainages developed, at the highest elevations of the project. Sagebrush <br />communities would be attempted on the flat and gently, sloping ridgetops and ridge shoulders between <br />reclaimed drainages. All areas of steeper slopes (e.g., 3:1) would target erosion reducing grassland <br />communities. <br />Justification for this split will likely become important when CDOW is brought into this process by CDMG <br />as they are certain to desire more than 20% of the acreage targeting sub-component wildlife habitats. If <br />we can develop our rationale beforehand, we can address this concern before it becomes problematic. <br />Woody Plant Density <br />The most problematic variable for bond release on Colowyo's revegetated areas has historically been the <br />achievement of adequate woody plant density. This problem has primarily arisen from three sources. <br />First, is the inappropriately (and possibly arbitrarily) set standard of 1000 stems per acre on all acreage <br />flatter than 5:1 which is largely the result of CDOW's input several years ago. Second, is the difficulty in <br />obtaining woody plant establishment and survival at elevated densities within a short time frame such as <br />the 10-year bond responsibility period, and under the adverse conditions presented by uniform topsoiling <br />requirements (which encourages grasslands) and elk browsing pressure. Third, was Colowyo's inability <br />during the early reclamation years to find a reclamation solution favorable to shrub establishment and <br />population viability. <br />Fortunately, we can now better address all three of these circumstances, and must continue to do so in a <br />scientifically defensible manner for Collom. The solution to the first source of the problem is to <br />successfully negotiate with CDOW and CDMG for achievable standards on logical and defensible units <br />within the reclamation. Hence the need to properly identify land uses and placement of reclaimed <br />communities where we will not compromise the primary objective of stabilizing the landscape. At present, <br />I am strongly leaning toward a flexible and multi-phased approach to success criteria. A first level, to be <br />applied for arguments with CDOW, is that vegetation communities designed to support wildlife habitats as <br />the primary land use (sub-component) will be attempted on 20% of the reclaimed landscape, with a goal <br />of achieving success on 10% of the reclaimed acreage. However, no bond or liability release will be <br />dependent on achievement of these values. In this manner, the attem t becomes the standard, and it will <br />be qualified (given the third solution below) because development of the underlying foundation (special <br />soils handling and profile development) will be a specific procedure designed to encourage shrublands <br />over grasslands. Where shrublands evolve on these "shrub community attempts", they will be <br />segregated into "core" areas and °ecotonal" areas, each with separate woody plant density success <br />criteria. At present, I believe that we have the capability to meet 1000 stems per acre on core areas after <br />10 years, <br />CIZDAR CREEKASSOCUATEs, INC. Page 50 2005 Collom Vegetation Survey