Laserfiche WebLink
Whether removal of grazing will allow a return to the former vegetation <br />composition is a different question. It should not be assumed that such a <br />developmental pathway will be followed in the future. Just because a particulaz form <br />of vegetation existed on the land before does not necessarily mean it will return after <br />removal of a degrading agent. What existed before may have developed under very <br />different conditions than aze present today and if those conditions are different today <br />there is no reason to think what was there before will return. That said, it is probably <br />safe to assume that what will develop under current conditions should not be <br />drastically different from the pre-disturbance vegetation simply because the <br />conditions are probably not drastically different. But using any competent theory of <br />vegetation change mechanisms and processes, it is unlikely that disturbed vegetation <br />can ever return to the assemblage that was there before. With severe disturbance such <br />as overgrazing the environment and habitat chazacteristics of the land has been <br />permanently altered. If the vegetation is an expression of the history of the land the <br />vegetation cannot be the same as it was before because the historical paths have been <br />altered by the disturbance agent. The unknown is how different the resulting <br />vegetation will be. <br />The reclamation plan approved in the Reclamation Permit, however, took into <br />account the full recognition of the probable original condition of the grasslands here <br />and the species selection is specifically designed to provide the species needed for the <br />production of a vegetation that is at least similar to the assumed pre-disturbance <br />vegetation composition, assuming conditions are, in fact, similar. If the conditions are <br />not similar then something different is likely to develop. <br />WEED STATUS: <br />1. General overview of weed status oa site: Weeds remain a serious problem throughout <br />this site and that is not expected to change anytime soon. The weed populations are deeply <br />entrenched on this land and have become that way simply because of the long life they have <br />had here and the continued presence of suitable disturbed habitat to enhance their persistence. <br />Photos 13 and 14 (page 7 of the photo pages) cleazly shows the effect of grazing impacts <br />allowing leafy spurge to dominate all suitable habitats. The land south of the Quincy bridge <br />has been heavily grazed for decades while the land north of the bridge has received much less <br />grazing. South of the bridge, even the land within the highway right of way is compazatively <br />free of spurge (as is the land north of the bridge}. Grass growth in these azeas is strong and <br />exhibits high densities. But south of the bridge and beyond the right of way fence (see photo <br />13) leafy spurge dominates the lowland habitats. This is where the grazing impact has been <br />intense for so long. The gazing removed much of the grass growth which, although unable to <br />keep leafy spurge out, greatly reduces the ability of spurge to dominate (see photo 14). At this <br />point, the only way to reach a condition south of the Quincy bridge that approximates that <br />shown in photo 14 will require a massive reduction in spurge growth and probably heavy <br />planting with suitable grass species. Once the grass density can be increased to something <br />that approximates that seen in photo 14, then the land in photo 13 will begin to look more <br />like the land in photo 14, <br />Status report for 2007 (July 15, 2007) Page 10 of 12 <br />