REP52068 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•. ~ ,' The vegetation shows excellent cover with no evidence of any nutritional deficiencies. Reproduction rates, both vegetative and sexual, is high. No physical instability is evident on any of the areas. No cracks, lobed areas or other evidence of instability were noted anywhere. It appears that the sites, especially number 1, are stable. The conclusion is that the grass seeding and revegetation is successful and has accomplished what was intended. Tree Reestablishment: Unlike the grass establishment, tree plantings on the roadside disturbances show poor success. Tree reestablishment in Williams Canyon, however, is good and is probably near the required amount, although no counts were made on that area. On the roadside disturbances the following counts were made. Area 1: Nine Pinons and one Juniper. Total of 10 of the 125 to 135 expected. Area 2: Twenty three Pinons and two Junipers. A total of 25 of the 25 to 35 expected. Area 3: Eight Pinons and five Junipers. A total 13 of the 50 to 60 expected. Area 4: Fourteen Pinons and six Junipers. A total of 20 of the 70 to 80 expected. Only Area 2 appears to have achieved the expected number of trees. All other areas along the roadside are far less than expected. This deficiency was thoroughly examined in an attempt to explain why such a differential establishment rate has occurred. A pattern was noted on each area as well as with individual tree seedlings. Examination of the data and observations indicated that Williams Canyon and Area 2 were far more successful than Areas 1, 3, or 4. A trend was noted that the higher the grass density the lower the number of trees present on that area. Furthermore, examining each tree showed that those trees growing where grass density is less showed the greatest vigor and growth rate. It became evident that competition with grass was clearly influencing tree establishment and growth, however, trees in Williams Canyon not only had to compete with grass but also shrubs and other, fully mature trees. Therefore, it could not be concluded that only competition with grass was influencing the establishment. In Williams Canyon both Pinon Pine and Douglas Fir were growing well and showed good needle development as well as considerable increase in height. Such growth and health were rarely noted on any of the roadside disturbance areas. Most of the trees there showed minimal growth and poor needle development. Often only a few branches had needles and the needle growth, rather than being generally distributed over the whole tree, was in isolated tufts and bunches. Dead needles were commonly noted on trees growing on the roadside disturbances whereas few dead needles were seen on any of the seedlings in Williams Canyon. Additional Sheet Snyder Quarry 1994 Annual Report Page 2