Laserfiche WebLink
areas. This requirement could be viewed as being similar to the <br />topsoil stockpiling requirement that presently exists in the <br />Mineral Rules. As was previously discussed in section 5.1, there <br />are uncertainties associated with this approach that can only be <br />resolved by further study. <br />Since in -kind reclamation may not be possible in all cases, <br />alternatives to it should be developed for use in those cases. <br />The first alternative to in -kind reclamation should still attempt <br />to reclaim the disturbed area to a wetland, but not necessarily <br />of the same type as originally existed. For example, an area <br />dominated by sedges prior to excavation might be reclaimed to <br />willows to improve wildlife habitat, or if for some reason sedge <br />rootstock became unavailable. Likewise, willow or sedge <br />dominated peatlands might be reclaimed to open water bodies for <br />recreation, wildlife habitat, or water supply. Such methods <br />would retain many wetland qualities on the site after reclamation <br />had been completed. <br />The permanent drainage and seeding of excavated peatland <br />areas with a non - wetland grass mix should be viewed as a last <br />resort alternative to other reclamation approaches. In those <br />cases where such a conversion from wetland to dryland takes place <br />a complete loss of wetland values should be expected. Depending <br />on the particular site these may far outweigh the benefits <br />expected from the conversion. only after a recognition of the <br />potential costs and benefits (and their distribution) has been <br />• 71 <br />