Laserfiche WebLink
<br />31 <br />RESULTS AND DISCUSSION <br />The Yampa River <br />The vegetation map of the Yampa is presented in Fig. 8. The upland <br />vegetation was categorized as broadly defined communities based on the dominant <br />species observed from the river. These included Blackbrush (BB), Grassland <br />(GR), Pinyon-Juniper (PJ), Mormon tea (MT), Rabbitbrush (RB), Sagebrush (SB), <br />and Shrub (SH), or combinations of the above. The riparian zone, where distinct, <br />was similarly divided according to dominant species, such as Boxelder (BE), <br />Cottonwood (CW), Squawbush (SQ), Tamarisk (TA), and Willow (WI). In some <br />locations one or a few large, isolated individuals of these and other tree <br />species are indicated as points on the map. <br />The floodzone vegetation did not form continuous communities with easily <br />delimited boundaries. The vegetation of this zone was mapped as patches of <br />dominant taxa, such as Glycyrrhiza (GLYC), Apocynum (APOC), Carex (CARE), etc. <br />Geomorphic notes are indicated in parentheses, e. g., cutbank (C), gravel (G), <br />rock (R), sand (S), and talus (T). <br />The summer regrowth of vegetation within the floodzone is illustrated in <br />the comparative photographs of Figs. 9, 10, and 11. The vegetation of this zone <br />presents a high visual impact at the sites illustrated here, and is visually <br />distinct from the riparian zone. Most of the growth is from root sprouts of <br />perennials whose spreading root systems have survived the scouring and flooding. <br />The results of the substrate and vegetation analyses for each of the study <br />sites on the Yampa River are given in tabular form with the discussion of each. <br />site. ~_ ~.~'r°i "/' <br />~.,q. <br />cv~r "~t~t size clas , ._,, <br />sifications of Iithic c~bri.s, " ~ ` ,I~r ""` ~ <br />