My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP49081
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP49081
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:52:55 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 12:28:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982055
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Name
1998 ANNUAL RECLAMATION REPORT
Permit Index Doc Type
ANNUAL RECLAMATION REPORT
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Cover is compared the non-topsoiled sites consistently possess a higher percentage of <br />Allowable Cover than do the topsoiled sites. <br />While the overall Shrub Density differences are not different between sites, these data <br />strongly suggest the concern long held by regulatory agencies regarding the problems <br />of shrub establishment on reclaimed mine sites. Overall, the means are not different due <br />to the small sample size utilized in this evaluation. However, consistent and somewhat <br />alarming trends can be observed. When the topsoiled shrub densities are calculated, <br />excluding transect 15 which contributed 51.43 percent of the total shrubs found on the <br />topsoiled sites, the evidence suggests that superior shrub establishment is associated <br />with the non-topsoiled sites. The density of Rubber Rabbitbrush is consistently higher, <br />although not significantly, on the non-topsoiled sites. Similar findings have been <br />extensively documented in shrub establishment studies in Oil Shale Revegetation studies <br />in western Colorado and in central Utah, wherein higher shrub densities are reported for <br />non-topsoiled sites. <br />With respect to Litter Cover, it is obvious that higher litter is associated with the topsoiled <br />sites, but careful examination of these areas reveals that the litter found on these sites <br />is not in the form of plant material but rather from the fact that the mulch applied to these <br />areas was stored in the flatter portions of the site, corresponding to the topsoiled areas <br />and that this material was no adequately incorporated into the ground during rr:ulching. <br />Based upon this evaluation, it can be concluded there is no need to reseed t:he non- <br />topsoiled sites. They are s...ta„tst~call,yaeq~iv~alent°yto.:th.e;;togso~~dsate_s9im;terrns.ofi~peree.~,t, <br />totalw,egetation,cou,~er,,ar~d;percent:;total~,ground:cover~and since more perennial cover is <br />associated wifli'~lie non-topsoiled sites, the vegetation on these sites can be viewed as <br />more desirable than that associated with the annual and biennials found on the topsoiled <br />sites. <br />Examination of the old topsoil stockpile SAE site, while not encountered in the sampling, <br />indicates that this site possesses perhaps the highest plant cover of any area at this <br />location. The SAE site associated with the diversion ditch possesses lower plant cover <br />but this site is represented by numerous well established plant grass seedlings and <br />should adequately stabilize this site once this reseeded area matures. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.