Laserfiche WebLink
authorities in permitting and enforcement of coal mine activities. This project was a cooperative effort <br />with contributions from U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS), the DOI OSM <br />Peabody Energy and Seneca Coal Company, and the State of Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mini <br />n <br />and Safety. Findings will provide information to Peabody Energy and the State of Colorado for <br />reforestation and re-vegetation of reclaimed lands. The methods tested in this study are all commercial) <br />available and in use, and can be adapted to reclamation projects elsewhere if shown to be successful he <br />The findings of this study are not limited to Colorado, and the planting techniques tested can be used ft <br />reclamation throughout the U.S. Tractor mounted planting equipment to replicate the techniques tested <br />here are generally available in rural forested areas throughout the U.S. <br />Results <br />g <br />Y <br />re. <br />r <br /> <br />Results of this study confirm our hypothesis that best survival and growth were achieved with the use <br />of landscape fabric for aspen. Irrigation of aspen also increased some growth parameters, but the response <br />was less from irrigation than that from landscape fabric. Serviceberry did not respond to landscape fabric <br />or to irrigation treatment. It is likely that the aspen responded more to treatment since these plants were <br />larger and less subject to transplant shock than the smaller serviceberry. Very little growth was evident on <br />the serviceberry plants, and it expected that first year response may have been concentrated in survival <br />and root growth. <br />Response of aspen to irrigation was less than the response to landscape fabric. Rainfall during the <br />growing season was light, but relatively frequent (Fig 2). It is expected that there was sufficient ambient <br />rainfall to provide adequate soil moisture for aspen to survive and grow. However, the amount of survival <br />and growth was dependent on the amount of soil moisture remaining after removal by competing <br />vegetation. <br />0.8 <br />0.7 <br />c <br />c 0.6 <br />.2 0.5 <br />CLm <br />0.4 <br />CL 0.3 <br />a <br />0.2 <br />0.1 <br />0 <br />Seneca IIW Precipitation 2008 <br />3.05 <br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <br />--------------------1 <br />----------- <br />- - - - - - - - <br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <br />170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 <br />Day of Year <br />Figure 2. Ambient rainfall at the HW study site.