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
~to• pso~ ed saes. With respect to grasses, neither site would satisfy the proposed <br />revegetation success standard. F.oabsxco~t~ib~:e~9~ 24,0.3~p_erce„nt of the ~total,~~.eg~tation <br />cover on the norms--topsoil_edasite`and 747~8~pel~cer~taofitF~e+totalFCO,uerrora~the~topsoilec~rsitesr <br />iSh~ubs were or~Y~eg,cot~ered~ in the tcgy,,~r~sa7m~lifi'~' in the 15 transects o~~the.;non-, <br />topsoiled~sitesland contributed only 0.77 percent of the total vegetation cover on the <br />topsoiled sites. Shrub density was determined to equal 78.24 shrubs per acre on the non- <br />topsoiled site and 94.43 shrubs per acre on the topsoiled reclaimed sites. This <br />comparison suggests that neither the non-topsoiled nor topsoiled reclaimed sites would <br />satisfy any of the approved revegetation success standards other than Total Plant Cover <br />for this mine site and that ne:~4heF siteaa`ppearsxto havewar~ywad•uarttag~gwove,:r~,th•.;eAotttefy <br />These vegetation monitoring data support the conclusions found in the September 1994 <br />report entitled "Topsoil Substitute Suitability Report for Energy Fuels Mining Company's <br />Raton Creek Mines" wherein it is reported that the overburden materials would have to <br />be "considered to represent suitable topsoil substitute material." <br />The second evaluation conducted in connection with this field investigation involved the <br />stratification of the reclaimed areas to determine whether the non-topsoiled reclamation <br />is equivalent to the topsoil reclaimed areas. The focus of this evaluation addresses <br />concerns raised by the DMG, that the non-topsoiled revegetation sites are of poorer <br />quality than the topsoiled sites and might need to be reseeded. In order to specifically <br />address these concerns, all of the 1998 revegetation monitoring data were statistically <br />compared. All corresponding values obtained from the sampling of the non-topsoiled <br />reclaimed sites were compared with equivalent values obtained from the sampling of the <br />topsoiled reclaimed sites. This comparison is presented in Table 6, t-test comparison of <br />Topsoiled and Non-Topsoiled Sites. In this comparison, a total of 42 different ar~a e~tg~s <br />were compared. A total of 3ti~~oue[,~irelateda~parame ~s.am.~ soy, _~6~enslt,• q~lat~d~ <br />_paa,Famefer'sbluere+compal•`ed. ~ <br />Analysis of this table indicates that st~t'stioa~~gnifca~t±ynea• <br />4~q~r~a,~etefs~compafed! No differences in shrub density cc <br />topsoiled and non-topsoiled sites. All of the far, ameters for v_ <br />measured w_ere.associated_with.cover,relate_~ parameters. Tgot <br />V~heatgrass, Intermediate Wheatgrass, Blue Grama, Atli <br />cheatgrass, Total Annual Grasses, Field Bindweed, White <br />Sweetclover and Litter were #.oWrp_• to • e,,~g,I,~e~oA.Yt~e~atopsoil <br />be found between the <br />Sweetclover and <br />.d• sites. T,kte~Tiot< <br />The mete~act~thatrhigher~coveT+of~selectetl~Paramet"ets was~gr~ea. te1.o,~ytl~.erto,psoiiE~c~S test <br />mapntol~necres_sparily~be~,viewed~as~po~sit~e~ The pry minanee„o,,,~,~gr,~ss cover on the <br />topsoil-ed sites has been extensivelycriticized in numerous regulatory settings, as <br />precluding, f" a 'zing.;goaTs'of achieving a c3iYerse`_ar~,d~sfi[ub: dominated.pl.aryt; Ge7:'rfi'fact, <br />these data suggest that the pfarii: cover on the non-topsoiled sites is more uni#orm and <br />diverse in certain respects than that found on the topsoiled sites. The greater cover of <br />Cicer Milkvetch on the non-to soiled sites can be viewed as positive from the standpoint <br />that this is a•s~rio• tGlived~'s'~i'eci~s that will significantly add soil nutrients to the soil. For the <br />standpoint of plant succession the presence of this plant would have to be viewed as <br />more desirable than the dominance of the weedy annual and biennial species found <br />growing on the topsoiled sites. The presence of these annual and biennial species has <br />long been expressed a concern in long term reclamation stability and when the Allowable <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.