Laserfiche WebLink
within the disturbance area footprint. Testing will then follow procedures detailed under <br />Rule 4.15.11 (2) with preference being given first to subsection (a) [direct comparison], <br />second to subsection (c) [reverse -null testing], and third subsection (b) [classic t- test]. <br />For areas designated as Post -2008 sagebrush steppe revegetation (rangeland land use <br />subcomponent of wildlife habitat), herbaceous production success criteria will be <br />eliminated as a requirement should CDRMS rules change as expected in the near future. <br />In the meantime, for Post -2008 sagebrush steppe revegetation, herbaceous production of <br />the revegetated area will be considered adequate for final bond release if it is not less than <br />70% of the herbaceous production as determined from the reference areas with a 90% <br />statistical confidence utilizing a standard students statistical t -test comparison of the <br />means. If necessary, a reverse -null hypothesis testing procedure may be utilized in <br />accordance with procedures detailed in Rule 4.15.11 (2) (c). As inferred under Rule <br />4.15.8 (3) (ii), relaxation of the herbaceous production standard for areas targeting <br />wildlife habitat post- mining land uses is designed to compensate for revegetation <br />techniques (prescribed ecological reclamation approach) that must discourage grasses to <br />encourage shrubs in the post - revegetated community. Justifications for reduction to 70% <br />are identical to those presented for cover in the previous section. <br />Woodv Plant Densitv — Pre -2008 Revegetation <br />Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.'s recent in -depth analysis of past "shrub conducive efforts" <br />(report dated April, 2007) attempted by Colowyo on older (pre -2008) reclamation has <br />resulted in the conclusion that such past efforts can largely be considered a failure and <br />techniques such as bare -root or containerized plantings should no longer be attempted. It <br />has become obvious to all parties concerned (including Colowyo, their consultants, the <br />researchers at Colorado State University, the CDRMS, and the CDOW) that reclamation <br />practices utilized historically were far more conducive to establishing herbaceous species <br />at the expense of woody species. (It is for this reason that post -2008 reclamation, using <br />different reclamation techniques will have a different success criterion.) <br />Furthermore, the continued existence of herbaceous species at elevated densities, along <br />with browsing by big game animals, continues to preclude opportunities for <br />establishment and /or growth of woody species populations. In effect, historic (and <br />expensive) attempts to establish shrub populations into these "dense herbaceous stands" <br />using the best technology available at the time have met with nearly complete failure. <br />Only a few remnant plants and "patches" of shrubs remain in the reclamation, and many <br />of those surviving plants were established from seed in the mix as opposed to seedling <br />planting. <br />In this regard, all parties (including the CDOW) are in general agreement that older (pre - <br />2008) revegetation at Colowyo's operations favors the livestock grazing aspect of the <br />approved Rang(.,-land Land Use, and that the woody plant density component of those, <br />areas is largely inconsequential for such iise. However, it has been noted, that big game <br />use, primarily by elk, of the pre -2008 revegetation has been at substantially elevated <br />4.15 -25 Revision Date: 6/21/11 <br />Revision No.: TR -84 <br />