Laserfiche WebLink
... <br />RED: Grassland vegetation mixed with shrubs is commas on large areas <br />near the quarry. There is an area of about 50 acres of grass/shrub vegetation on a <br />hilltop just south of the quarry. The lack of grassland in the amendment area has <br />been the result of the history of the land which has resulted in forestation. It is <br />erroneous to assume that just because trees are present an a site today that the <br />site is appropriate for a return to trees. Climates and conditions change. The <br />mere act of disturbing a parcel of ground alters the history of that land and to <br />assume that it can return to what was there before is illogical. Furthermore, a <br />forest is a highly integrated vegetation unit which becanes established over vast <br />periods of time, especially in semi-arid lands. One of the key steps in the <br />production of forests, where forests are able to be established again, is through <br />the grassland stage. So called climax forest species can rarely be established in <br />an environment which is highly altered and unstable. Even if climax forest species <br />were established ,it cannot logically be argued that the vegetation has been restored <br />to forest simply because the species which were numerically dominant in the original <br />vegetation grow on the site. A saying among plant ecologists, which also applies to <br />all other types of vegetation, essentially says, "The presence of trees does not a <br />forest make." <br />Therefore, a return to grass domination is simply a step in the direction of <br />reforestation under an assumption that the current environment is suitable for the <br />establishment of forest as it was in the past, an assumption which cannot be <br />confirmed or denied inductively. Fbwever, if reforestation is not apprapriate~then <br />grassland certainly is, and the establishment of grassland is the establishment of <br />the final form of vegetation which would have occurred naturally if no reclamation <br />was implemented. Thus, the presence of nearby, major grassland and shrubland units <br />is evidence that grassland is appropriate. If those natural grassland/shrubland <br />units are trending to forest then this area will too. If those natural areas are <br />actually expanding as the forest dies then this site will be established on what it <br />would have became anyway. <br />Furthermore, the Division of Wildlife has made it quite clear that they want <br />mare grass; that grass is more important than shrubs and certainly more important <br />than trees. The public has expressed great concern over the loss of wildlife <br />habitat as a result of this project. But the public apparently does not understand <br />what constitutes goad habitat for the species with which they are most concerned. <br />It is a common misconception that the best wildlife habitat is what is there. In <br />the case of deer, they prefer grass. In the case of Bighorn Sheep, they prefer <br />grass and although they do not hate trees, if they have a choice they will stay away <br />from trees. Furthermore, the public is uninformed regarding the value of this land <br />as wildlife habitat. The grass cover is poor on existing undisturbed lands. That <br />is why the D.O.W. welcomes what we are proposing. The deer population will <br />ultimately benefit as will the few sheep that pass through this area enroute to <br />other lands. <br />ITEM 3 = As in Exhibit K, page 64, it is stated that "winter winds will impact this <br />area heavily and the south exposure will produce a hot and dry summer climate," I <br />would recommend that the tree seedlings you propose for reclamation be protected <br />with shingles as outline on page 20 of the Colorado State Forest Service's Planting <br />and Care 1988 publication. <br />SNIDER NW AhII~hE]VT ADEGll1ACY f~0V~5 hWY 22, 1989 PAGE 16 <br />