2011-12-30_REPORT - M1988044 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

with protection of riparian land from grazing. If the grazing had simply been removed at that point, recovery of much of the riparian corridor would have occurred without any problems. In hindsight, no planting was actually needed in those two early exclosures. But mining continued, albeit to a much shallower depth, and grazing continued and even intensified. Some blamed the mining for the continued decline of the riparian corridor while others blamed the cattle. In fact, both impacted the corridor and without separating these two disturbing forces there was no way for anyone to be sure why recovery could not occur. After the conclusion of the stream corridor mining to a depth of not more than about six feet, the disturbed land quickly recovered and produced large areas of rich wetland composed mostly of rushes, bullrushes and sedges. It was found that under the surface sand there was a clay layer and if that clay layer was not broken and removed to mine yet deeper sand, recovery to a "grassed" waterway was feasible and the impact on the older riparian forest adjacent to the stream was minimal. It was found that removing some of the sand that had clogged the channel as a result of poor management of uplands could actually provide great benefit to the health of the streambed. But that was dependent on the presence of a clay layer under the sand at a depth that had minimal impact on the deeper watertable. Where the clay layer was locally damaged, the adjacent riparian forest was also damaged. In effect, it was found that if the groundwater under the clay layer was not affected by removal of the clay layer the adjacent forest would not be adversely affected, sand could be recovered, and a rich rehabilitation environment created with little or no effort. Removal of the excess sand produced a benefit, but only if the structure of the streambed was as it was at this site. Therefore, simply the process of mining the stream corridor for sand does not necessarily damage the stream character and can, under special circumstances, actually result in a marked improvement by removing sand that is holding back or even completely blocking the development of wetland environments with rich, dense growth. This type of recovery also occurs irrespective of the grazing impact. And the riparian forest is not harmed in the process. Unfortunately, one problem remained and that was continued survivalof the forest unit itself. Examination of the stream corridor showed that few seedlings ever made it to the point where the plant was strong enough to survive the intense browsing by cattle, particularly during the winter months. Those that did survive never gained much height and became "bonsai" trees with thick trunks, little height, and contorted branches. Even those were clearly not going to become replacements for the old and often huge cottonwoods that formed the adjacent open forests. Those forests remained in good condition even with the grazing but as the old growth died from age and disease there were no replacements waiting to take their place. It became more and more clear that grazing was the primary cause of the decline of the forests because grazing eliminated generational replacement. The current five exclosures were constructed and the studies began. A few months later, the grazing was completely removed. The uplands dramatically improved with increased cover and as a 2011 Annual Report Coal Creek Wetland Mitigation Permit DA 198811488 Page 13