Laserfiche WebLink
original state. It differs from restoration in that it does not <br />attempt to recreate what originally existed. It does, however, <br />recognize broad community types and seeks to reclaim the area to <br />the same type that existed prior to excavation. For example, <br />reclamation in a peatland previously dominated by a willow <br />community would seek to revegetate the area with a new willow <br />community. This can easily be accomplished by planting willow <br />cuttings collected from undisturbed areas of the peatland, or <br />other nearby areas, into soil with positive moisture relations. <br />Cooper (personal communication 1989) has used this method <br />successfully in the South Park area. Similarly, sedge- dominated <br />communities might easily be reclaimed by broadcasting rootstock <br />which was stockpiled during excavation or is collected from <br />nearby areas (see section 5.1). <br />Although, as an objective, complete restoration is <br />infeasible, In -kind reclamation is not, and may even prove to be <br />cost - effective. Currently, reclamation practice consists of <br />either building a dam and flooding the excavated area, or <br />reseeding with a commercial seed mix recommended by the SCS. <br />Both of these, in addition to time and effort, require additional <br />expenditures for the purchase of seed or construction materials. <br />Universal Peat, Sand, and Gravel, Inc., one of the state's <br />largest peat excavators, supports the concept of using indigenous <br />materials to reclaim excavated areas. Peatland policies which <br />advocate in -kind reclamation at excavation sites may also <br />0 69 <br />