Laserfiche WebLink
3.0 RESULTS <br />Tabular compilations of raw data and summaries for the aforementioned sampling efforts are <br />presented in Appendix A on Tables 2 through 21 and Charts 7 through 10. Summaries of the proposed <br />success comparisons for the four units individually and collectively are provided on the following pages in <br />Table 1 and Charts 1 through 6. Table 1 gives a quick indication of the overall success of the various <br />revegetation units compared with reference area data and /or standards. Charts 1 through 6 provide a <br />visual display of the same comparisons. <br />With regard to plant cover, three of the four areas sampled in 2011 pass the proposed success <br />comparison (90% of the reference area value) for perennial lifeform ground cover. With regard to <br />diversity, all four revegetated areas fail at least two of the seven proposed standards. Most of the <br />diversity failures are due to insufficient cover by perennial, warm - season grasses (Table 1) that are <br />having difficulty establishing due to high levels of competition from annual grasses and forbs in the area. <br />The current total herbaceous production success comparison shows one of the four sites passes the <br />total production standard (90% of the reference area value). Woody plant density, on two units, far <br />exceeds the standard of 800 live stems per acre; however, the other two units will likely need more time <br />and possibly some form of mitigation to reach the standard. <br />These results are not unexpected for 4 -year old revegetation. It is possible, that a weighted <br />comparison may be needed if these values remain similar to 2011 levels, but it is more likely that positive <br />changes will be observed in the coming years. <br />CEDAR CREEK ASSOCIATES, Inc. <br />Page 13 Snowcap - Revegetation Evaluation - 2011 <br />Monitoring <br />