Laserfiche WebLink
<br />40 years was required for reestablishment of sagebrush <br />communities on abandoned cropland in eastern Wyoming. This <br />reflected a reduced competition environment and primary <br />succession levels. <br />In terms of woody density then, the most critical aspect of <br />reclamation is to restore a stable and functioning ecosystem <br />that is capable of successional change, not the restoration of <br />moderate or high densities in a relatively short ecological <br />time frame. To do so would require significant areas of the <br />reclaimed landscape to be in a relatively unstable condition <br />with reduced perennial cover, production, and diversity. <br />Based on the above discussion, application of ecosystem <br />concepts and the monitoring data available for the Seneca II <br />Mine reclaimed areas, SCC will continue to propose the woody <br />density standards presented in Tab 22. Again, the CDOW has <br />not commented negatively on the proposed plan. Since the <br />Division has agreed to at least some of the above observations <br />and concerns in the past, SCC requests that woody density <br />establishment feasibility and success criteria in relation to <br />all aspects of revegetation success criteria and land use be <br />reevaluated. <br />Literature Cited. <br />Johnson, K.L. 1979. Basic synecological relationships of the <br />sagebrush types on the high plains of Montana, Wyoming, <br />and the Dakotas. Pages 42-49 IN: The Sagebrush Ecosystem <br />- a symposium. Utah State University, Logan. <br />79. SCC will monitor the concentrated shrub establishment areas <br />and will develop suitable mitigation in the event of failures. <br />Mitigation will include attempts to determine the cause of the <br />failures, additional site preparation and replanting, or <br />substitution of mature shrub clump transplants. <br />~`~ 80. SCC referenced two documents in Tab 22, Mueggler (1988) and <br />-~'" DeByle and Winokur (1985) as supporting information in <br />justifying the exclusion of aspen in reclamation activities. <br />Both of these documents discuss in detail the ecology and <br />ecogeography of aspen and the critical relationship between <br />aspen presence and specific site conditions. This <br />relationship is even more critical when the limit of range for <br />aspen is reached such as at Yoast and the nearby Seneca II and <br />Seneca II-W Mines. It is SCC's opinion that the failure to <br />reestablish aspen at the Seneca II Mine is related to many <br />site characteristics beneficial to aspen no longer being <br />present after mining. Review of geology and soils for the <br />Yoast Mine indicate a similar situation. <br />SCC will attempt to establish approximately three acres of <br />aspen in two reclaimed sites near the south and east borders <br />of the mining-affected area (see revised Exhibit 22-1, Sheet <br />2 of 2). These planting sites occur in surficial disturbance <br />23 <br />