Laserfiche WebLink
Results of Exclosure Studies <br />As was the case in last year's report, the emphasis in this report is on the long term trends in <br />the vegetation rather than changes from the previous year. It seems quite apparent that all the <br />exclosures will be a success, barring any serious natural calamities like a 100 year or larger flood. <br />Detailed analysis is now only done on Exclosures 1 and 2 with only photographic monitoring <br />on Exclosures 3, 4, and 5 as well as Exclosures 1 and 2. <br />METHODS- The same transects were used this year as were used in previous years. All of the <br />same data were collected in 2009 as in previous years, but in this report only the key points relevant <br />to a comparison of all of the years is reported. <br />It is important to note that laying out the transect lines in Exclosure 1 is becoming extremely <br />difficult because the vegetation is so thick running the tape through the bushes causes damage to the <br />vegetation being measured. The method of sampling here may need to be changed in the future <br />because of this problem. Exclosure 2 is still doable, but just barely as the combination of woody and <br />herbaceous growth here is also becoming very thick and stringing the tape straight along the line is a <br />tedious process. As a result inaccuracies in the data when comparing specific plants along the <br />transect are creeping into the results and reducing the comparison accuracy. This is not as much of a <br />problem on Exclosure 2 where woody plants of interest are somewhat more widely distributed, but in <br />Exclosure 1 analysis of the data is judged to only be valid anymore in a general sense. Doing an <br />analysis of specific changes along the transect with earlier data is no longer possible here with any <br />sensible degree of reliability. <br />As a result of these sampling methodology problems, restricting the results to overall trend <br />analysis is about all that can be done with a high degree of confidence. Moving down to smaller <br />scale examinations turns into a matter of not being sure apples are actually being compared to apples. <br />The results look good, but when one looks at the comparison of what is assumed to be the same <br />location on previous transect data sets the lack of correspondence becomes apparent due to the fact <br />that, for example, a set of plants that were found at, say, 50 feet along the transect in previous years <br />may now be found at 53 feet because the line is not as straight as it was in previous years. To make it <br />as straight would mean either weaving the tape through bushes while still trying to stay on line or <br />breaking off branches to produce a straight line. The former usually veers off line and the latter does <br />damage to the plants being measured. <br />On the other hand, at this point doing that kind of critical measurement is probably not <br />necessary because it is apparent the vegetation is developing quite well and no problems have been <br />found in that development. For at least Exclosure 1 and probably Exclosure 2 as well, using a <br />quadratless, point analysis method is probably much more sensible. In this method a rod is placed <br />down through the vegetation and measurements are taken at that point and within a set distance of <br />2010 Annual Report Coal Creek Wetland Mitigation Permit DA 198811488 Page 6