2011-07-20_REPORT - M1988044 (2)

Home Browse Search

strong dominance from the alfalfa that was planted. That alfalfa dominated vegetation is quite good but it is very different from the natural vegetation. Thus, the new seed mixture has now been shown to be capable of producing a growth similar to the natural vegetation far more quickly and without the problems of developmental stagnation that occurs in alfalfa dominated growths. This is heartening because that was the intent of the seed mixture design. On the report map, the five locations discussed here are identified with a large number next to the location. Locations 2 and 3 were seeded in 2007. Reclamation areas 1 and 4 were done in 2008 and area 5 was done in 2009. It is interesting and significant that the current condition of each area is only marginally related to when the reclamation was done. Areas 1 and 2 are the most advanced with area 1 (done in 2008) slightly more advanced than area 2 (done in 2007). Area 3 (done in 2007) is more advanced than area 4 (done in 2008). And area 5 (2009) is the least developed but appears to be nearly ready to pass area 4 in its development. Reclamation areas 1 and 2 are almost ready for consideration for bond release. There is a little more weed control needed on musk thistle and a little Canada thistle. But other than that the vegetation cover is excellent. Area 2 was planted in a very dry year (2007) and initially appeared to be a failure. Area 1 was quickly overwhelmed by cheatgrass and tumbleweeds, but desirable species were also present in sub - optimum numbers. Cheatgrass is generally uncommon in both areas now and tumbleweed rarely ever found. No control was done on either species, yet they have been overwhelmed by the more desirable species. In both areas, the needlegrasses and wheatgrasses dominate the vegetation and have formed a thick cover. Both locations are generally equal with vegetation cover estimated at 90% or more. In fact, area 2 is very slightly behind area 1. This is due to area 1 being in a slightly more favorable position on the moisture gradient. But, for all practical purposes they are equal. For areas 1 and 2 it can be concluded that a vegetation capable for consideration of release can be achieved in 3 to 4 years where topography is favorable with respect to the moisture gradient. Area 3 is located a little further up the slope from area 2 and therefore in a slightly drier environment. Accordingly, it is a bit behind in its development compared to area 2. The vegetation is a bit more open and cheatgrass somewhat more common, but the development pattern is virtually identical to area 2. It is just taking a bit longer due to a somewhat less favorable growth environment. Reclamation area 4 is a large area with a wide diversity of habitats. Although it was planted in 2008 just like area 1, it is far behind area 1 in its development. That is not to say it is retarded or developing differently. It is just slower. Here there was a strong difference in the growth medium between the upper third and the lower third of this location. The upper third received a darker and richer soil. The poorer and more subsoil like material was spread on the lower third. In the first year, the upper third developed an incredible growth of tumbleweeds with a fair amount of cheatgrass added. There was a germination rate of desirable species that was adequate but a bit sparse. Further down the slope in the poorer soils the weed growth was sparse and so were the desirable species. Today, the highest diversity growth is on the upper third but the most natural appearing growth is developing on the lower two - thirds. Weedy species are still more common on the richer soils, but the desirable Status report for 2009 due July 15, 2010 Page 9 of 13