Laserfiche WebLink
Treatment 1. 18-20 inches of live haul topsoil placed over spoil with strip seeding. The strip <br />seeding included a strip of native shrubs and native low-competitive forbs (Seed Mix #1) that <br />would alternate with a strip of native grasses, (orbs and shrubs (Seed Mix #2). <br />Treatment 2. 6 inches of live haul topsoil and seeding with native shrubs and low-competitive <br />native forbs (Seed Mix #1). Included with this treatment were some surface manipulations to <br />create depressions for enhanced soil moisture conditions. <br />Treatment 3. 6 inches of live haul topsoil over spoil with strip seeding. The strip seeding would <br />include a strip of native shrubs and native low-competitive forbs (Seed Mix #1) that would <br />alternate with a strip of native grasses, forbs and shrubs (Seed Mix #2). <br />Treatment 4. Non-topsoiled spoil with strip seeding. The strip seeding would include a strip of <br />native shrubs and native low-competitive forbs (Seed Mix #1) that would alternate with a strip of <br />native grasses, forbs and shrubs (Seed Mix #2). <br />Treatment 5. Non-topsoiled spoil seeded with relatively unpalatable native shrubs, low-competitive <br />native forbs, and low-competitive native grasses (Seed Mix #3). <br />Sampling of the CSU shrub plots was conducted by Colorado State University from 2001 through <br />2004. In 2005, Cedar Creek initiated vegetation cover and woody plant density sampling using <br />comparable, but significantly upgraded methodologies. Given the value of the data collected in 2005, <br />Cedar Creek determined that a second tier of 0.1-acre plots (6-10) both within and exterior to the fenced <br />exclosure was warranted. The second tier of plots was established some distance from the first tier (see <br />Map 4) to provide additional representation of the overall area. This brought the total evaluated area to <br />approximately 2.0 acres (two 0.1 acre plots within each treatment area both within and external to the <br />fenced exclosure) or a total of 20 plots. In 2009, biennial sampling was initiated. Therefore, plots 1-5 <br />both inside and outside the fence will be monitored in odd years (starting in 2009), and 6-10 both inside <br />and outside the fence will be monitored in even years. As a result, an overall analysis of information <br />collected on these plots will be presented in even year reports using data from the previous year to <br />complete the data set. In odd year reports, analysis of the plots monitored with summary charts and <br />tables will be provided. <br />Perusal of Charts 9 and 11 indicate that the topsoiled treatments (#1, #2, and #3) continue to <br />exhibit a greater perennial cover than the non-topsoiled treatments (#4 and #5) both inside and outside <br />the fence. However, annual grass levels were also greater in the topsoiled treatments. With respect to <br />shrub density, treatment #2 (no grasses in the seed mix) generally exhibited the highest density while <br />treatment #4 (no topsoil with grasses) averaged the lowest densities (see Table 10 and Charts 23 & 24). <br />The distributions of mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana) and silver sage <br />(Artemisia cana) were somewhat consistent across all treatments, however bitterbrush (Purshia <br />tridentata) was far more numerous in treatments #2, #3, and #4 than in treatments #1 and #5. <br />Perusal of Charts 13 through 16 and Charts 19 through 22 indicates an apparent impact due to elk <br />and deer browsing on both the size of individual shrubs and population levels. Overall, the average cover <br />CEDAR CREEK ASSOCIATES, Inc. Page 32 Colowyo Mine <br />2009 Revegetation Monitoring Report