Laserfiche WebLink
• spoil. Texture of spoil is loam and clay loam in topsoil. Phosphorus and pH aze the only two soil <br />properties that appear to be different between topsoil and spoil. <br />In summary, topsoil and spoil were found to have favorable chazacteristics for plant growth, with the <br />possible exception of phosphorus. However, plant growth from previous reclamation efforts has not <br />shown evidence of phosphorus defidencies and so it has been assumed that phosphorus levels are <br />adequate, <br />Seneca II SpeciSc Plot Monitoring <br />In July of each year (2000 through 2004) demonstration plots were sampled by DMG/CSU For <br />vegetative cover by species, baze ground, rock and litter using apoint-intercept method. Sampling <br />was stratified in the fenced and non-fenced azeas in order to examine the effects of game exclusion. <br />Three 30-m transects were used and cover data was collected every one meter (90 cover points per <br />plot). Only three plots at the Seneca Mine were divided into subplots by a fence. <br />Shmb tubelings were planted in September of 2000 in select demonstration plots. To evaluate the <br />success of this operation, survival of transplants was quantified during the vegetation sampling. <br />Shmb survival within each demonstration plot was estimated by following rows of ttanspl:wts and <br />scoring seedlings as either alive or dead. A minimum of 25% of the transplant rows within each plot <br />was surveyed as such. <br />During the vegetation sampling, voucher specimens of plant rasa were collected Eor positive <br />identification and Eor archival in the Restoration Emlogy Lab Herbarium. Permanent photo <br />reference points established in 2001 in each demonstration plot were photographed annually to <br />• illustrate long-term changes in the vegetation. <br />The decline or elimination of established shrubs in unfenced plots at Seneca between 2002 and 2004 <br />will need to be followed over time to see if it is a real trend or an artifact of sampling (the low density <br />of shrubs causes variance to be high). While shrub density is relatively low at Seneca, the shrubs aze <br />very robust at this site as indicated by height measures (Figure 6 and Table 9 in Appendix A) due to <br />the Eact that transplants were used. Shtvb tubelings planted in some of the plots continue to show <br />high survival in 2004 (Appendix A, Table 16) and many flowering and fruiting shrubs were observed <br />at this time. Among all of the mines, Seneca was the only location where the tall shrub species such <br />as serviceberry and chokecherry became established. These species did not establish well Etom <br />seeding on the other mines, whereas they did establish from the transplants at Seneca. The fall 2000 <br />seeding at the Seneca mine appeazs to have been somewhat successful. Many of the seeded speces <br />were encountered in some of the plots at Seneca in 2004 (Appendix A, Table 14). Invasive weeds <br />such as yellow sweet clover and Japanese brome continue to dominate most plots. Russian thistle, <br />which was a site dominant in 2003, was not found in 2004. It is likely that yellow sweet clover will <br />not be a persistent problem, but Japanese brome and cheatgrass aze of concern. Fall application of <br />herbicides, as is being done bi-annually at the mine, should help to reduce the threat from these <br />species if they do become a serious problem in the demonstration plots. <br />The fence treatment appears to have generally resulted in increased shrub density, average height and <br />cover. This is especially apparent for preferred browse speces such as bitterbrush. Since deer, elk <br />and antelope are known to browse shrub species, this is the expected result. Since browsing is an <br />episodic phenomenon in these habitats, it is likely that the fencing treatment will become more <br />significant with intteasing time as the chances for destructive browsing events increase with time. <br />Continued monitoring of the plots on a biennial ar triennia] basis will be needed to gauge the true <br />impact of fencing on shrub establishment over a more ecologically-relevant time frame. <br />MR-52 ] 3-] 111 July 2005 <br />