Laserfiche WebLink
,, <br />Vegetation within the proposed mine plan area was mapped and further classified <br />according [o range site based on dominant climax vegetation and topography. This <br />was done using a modification of the method used by the Soil Conservation Service <br />(SCS) whereby range sites are based on soils and [he "climax" vegetation. In <br />contrast, on the proposed mine plan area, range sites were characterized as fair- <br />ly homogeneous units composed of similar vegetation and topographic features <br />regardless of soil type. For example, similar vegetation on north and east <br />slopes was mapped as [he same range site. The same vegetation on south and west <br />slopes however, was mapped as a separate range site. Thus, definition of a range <br />site in an area is based upon the concept of like response to environmental fac- <br />tors. <br />The above concept of like response to environmental factors infers that a dis- <br />turbed area and an undisturbed area of similar topography and aspect will respond <br />in a similar manner. Therefore, successful reclamation will be based upon com- <br />parisons of cover, production, shrub density and diversity between similar pre <br />and post mined land. The comparison will be correlated between pre and post <br />mined areas via permanent reference sites established within each affected vege- <br />tation type (Section 4.4). <br />Based on sampling work done in 1979 the proposed mine plan area has been divided <br />into three range sites, A, B and C. Range site A is mountain shrub with ~ north ` <br />or east aspect and all aspects containing mountain shrub above 7,200 feet (5,819 <br />acres). <br />The drier mountain shrub site, site B, occurs on west or south facing slopes <br />(1,298 acres). Originally, these two sites were thought to be composed of three <br />range sites, i.e. (1) north and east slopes, (2) all slopes above 7,400 fee[, and <br />(3) all south and west slopes. A statistical comparison of sample means based on <br />1979 production data showed that [he null hypothesis could not be rejected (that <br />a comparison of range sites 1 and 2 production sample means are from the same <br />population) a[ the of =. 05 level of statistical significance (Table 2.3-10). <br />Therefore, the firs[ and second sites were combined into one range site. When <br />._ [he same analysis was run comparing range site number 1 and 3, [he statistical <br />[es[ showed [hat the nu1L hypothesis could be rejected a[ of =.05, i.e. cannot <br />2-95 <br />~-~..,~~ „JJ.r W <br />