Laserfiche WebLink
lowing is a table that shows the goals fo~ach azea (exclusive of Williams <br />Canyon), the number of live trees that were counted, and a figure which shows an estimated actual <br />number. This estimated actual number is derived frem the counted number multiplied by a factor <br />that represents the difficulty of finding trees. There were a total of 571 trees planted in these four <br />areas. Of those, 177 (both alive and dead) were relocated. Therefore, approximately 1 in 3 of the <br />trees planted were relocated. <br />Area Goal Count Factor Estimated Actual <br />1 130 31 3 63 <br />2 30 27 1.2 32 <br />3 55 20 2 40 <br />4 75 24 3 72 <br />From these data it appears that Areas 2 and 4 are probably fairly close to <br />what they should be, provided no more trees die. Areas 1 and 3, however, appear to be falling short <br />of where they should be. V the count is taken to represent reality then only Area 2 is close to where <br />it should be. But the multiplication factors, although perhaps high in some cases, and low in others, <br />probably provide a reasonable adjustment to the counts. <br />The tree count will be repeated in November or December of 1992. Based <br />upon that count, these data, and other judgments, sufficient additional trees will be ordered for <br />planting neat spring to bring the totals up to where they should be. <br />In doing the counts, each tree found was judged as to being alive or dead and <br />the species was noted. This data is very useful in determining future plantings to achieve the <br />highest success rates. Following is a table that indicates, by species, the number of plants found that <br />were alive and the number of plants found that were dead. The list does not include all species <br />planted because none of the Ponderosa Pine that were planted could be found. No dead plants were <br />found that had been browsed by deer and among the live plants no browsing was noted on any plants. <br />Deer aze abundant in the area and the grass shows cleaz evidence of being grazed, especially on <br />Areas 1 and 4. <br />Species Alive Dead <br />Juniper 24 51 <br />Pinyon 77 13 <br />Douglas Fir 1 11 <br />From this table it is clear that future plantings should strongly emphasize <br />Pinyon Pine, avoid Douglas Fir, and limit plantings of Juniper. It could be that the high rate of <br />Juniper mortality, which was not expected, is due to it being a bare root stock while the Pinyon were <br />containerized plants. If the Junipers were containerized the survival rate might be much closer to <br />that of Pinyon Pine. This is what would be expected as the two species grow in similar environments <br />and are often associated with one another. <br />As the trees become larger, the ease of relocating, counting, and calculating <br />the success rate will increase considerably. Initially, flagging or otherwise noting the location of the <br />trees wea considered, but the difficulty of maintaining location markers for 571 trees and the fact <br />that location mazkers, to be visible, not only locate the trees but also attract attention and look bad, <br />dictated that mazking was probably not worth the trouble. After five years trees should be easily <br />found and a determination made as to compliance with the agreed to goals. Markers aze probably <br />not really necessary. <br />Page 3 Supplemental Sheets M-77-210 1992 Annual Report <br />