Harold C. Appleton

Registered Professional Forester, License #1977
Certified Professional Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Specialist #271

1369 Tilton Road

Sebastopol, CA 95472
(707) 823-3776

Land Management Planning
Erosion Control - Stream Restoration
Reforestation - Timber Harvesting
Environmental Analysis
Contract Tree Nurseiy

LAGUNA CHARACTERIZATION STUDY 1989
CHARACTERIZATION OF WOODY HABITATS IN THE LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA

few

,

•V

'' C

Habitat <VOW>
soil relationships
trends

A

Abstract
Obj ectives
Methodology
Valley Oak Woodland
Oak densities,

Oak Papulation
Oak species
Habitat stages
Valley Oak Tree Conditions

Valley Oak regeneration: existing & potential

2

2

3

3

3

6

7

9

10

Valley Foothill Riparian Habitat <VRI>
Riparian regeneration: existing & potential

12

13

Soil-Vegetation Relationships summarized

19

References

Appendix

20

21

Prepared as part of the Laguna Area Characterization, a project
authorized by the Subregional System as part of Task Order # 27
between the City of Santa Rosa and CH2M Hill.

December, 1989

Including Addendum Feb. 9, 1990

1

ABSTRACT

The Valley Oak Woodland and the Valley Foothill Riparian habitat
types within the Laguna de Santa Rosa have been greatly reduced
in acreage. The Valley Oak Woodland Habitat is not self
perpetuating due to lack of regeneration. Some current management
practices are not compatable with the protection of the residual
habitats or with the regeneration of these habitat types. Crown
Density averages within the oak samples show that the old oaks
that are irrigated have less healthy crowns than in non-irrigated
areas. Historic photos show an increase in old growth oak
mortality in 2 irrigated sample areas over the last 11 years. A
sample of dead or nearly dead valley oaks shows that trenching
pipelines under the crowns and irrigating, or just irrigation
within a concave micro-topography leads to an accelerated decline
of mature valley oaks. Soil/vegetation criteria can guide the
location and type of regeneration efforts.

OBJECTIVES

1. Describe existing woodland habitats according to the Wildlife
Habitat Relationships System (WHR).

2. Develop sub categories by soils, irrigation, cultural practices.

3. Collect data on individual trees to refine type descriptions and

4. Correlate tree conditions (vigor or state of decline) with the
above descriptors.

5. Research historic conditions,

6. Look for regeneration and

7. Look for and describe suitable areas for revegetation.
METHODOLOGY

The November 1988 1”=500’ orthophotos were used as the- field
basemaps to determine areas to be investigated. The Sonoma
County Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil survey with 1961
orthophotos was used to determine soil sample areas and to check
soil/vegetation relationships. The 1917 "Soil Survey of the
Healdsburg Area” was reviewed for a historic perspective. 1942
and 1977 aerial photos were used in the historic tree counts. All
public lands (Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Dept, of Fish and Game)
were field inspected. Only a small portion of private lands were
surveyed due to difficulties with access permission. Some
private properties were roughly surveyed from the roadside.

A data collection form was developed to standardize sampling
proceedures and correlate with WHR criteria (see Appendix A).
Sample sites were selected based on habitat, habitat stage, soil
type, irrigation method, culture, and relative homogeneity.
Individual trees were measured for diameter, age, height, and
crown diameter, with occular estimates of crown density, root
rot, and heart rot. Also recorded were habitat elements,
understory, oak seedlings, micro topography, epicormic branching,

2

SEBASTOPOL

pruning, and pipelines trenched under the drip lines of trees.

73 data sheets were completed, with up to 10 trees per sheet. I
was hoping to obtain age and growth information from coring trees
with an increment borer. However, on the older valley oaks,
especially in the open areas on Wright series soils, reading the
cores was extremely difficult. Eventually, ages for these older
trees were estimated as "greater than..." based on counting rings
on stumps of similar size oaks on similar soils.

Several soil samples were taken on representative soil types. A
truck mounted auger was used to bring samples up from various
depths. Texture, color, and horizon depth were compared to the
SCS descriptions (See Appendix D) .

VALLEY OAK WOODLAND (VOW)

The VOW type is a residual of old valley oak trees dispersed in
clumps usually of 10 to 20 acres in size throughout what is now
annual grassland, pasture, or cropland. It is residual because
most trees are over 140 or 160 years of age and there is no
regeneration other than along roadsides and railroad embankments
(see figure 1). One explaination for no younger trees would be
that cultivation and/or grazing began in earnest 120 to 140 years
ago.

Oak Densities, Soil Relationships

The VOW type occurs primarily on Wright series loams in the
flatlands of the Laguna basin (see sample soil map, Appendix D).
VOW does not seem to occur on Clearlake clay soils except when
the area is near a drainage channel or creek. Then, VOW will
often merge into the Valley Foothill Riparian (VRI) type. On the
Wright series loams, residual trees are generally 30 to 40
inches in diameter at breast height (DBH), there are 1.5 to 2
trees per acre, and the basal area per acre is in the 13 to 16
square foot range. In natural conditions without cultivation or
grazing or the introduction of exotic species, one might expect a
denser and more varied size and age class distribution spread
over more of the Wright series soil type. An example of this
type of structure is found north of Finer Road on Huichia loam
which includes small areas of Wright loams in the soil mapping
(and Wright loams include Huichia loams).

Qak Population Trends

Estimates of current and historic Valley Oak Woodland/Vernal Pool
acreage have been compiled by Marco Waaland in a companion
report.

Figure 2 shows the Valley Oak population trends on three sample
sites from 1942 to 1988. Trees were counted using 1942, 1977,

and 1988 aerial photographs. (Only the large oaks were counted in
a clearly defined area.) Brown and Alpha farms have been
intensly managed with irrigation, pruning, and mowing within the

3

Figure 1. SIZE/AGE CLASS AVERAGES

Representing Sampled Sites
Valley Oak Woodland

Each "x" represents one sample location with a minimum of 10 trees sampled

ADDENDUM TO DECEMBER ’89 LAGUNA CHARATERIZATION OF WOODY HABITATS

OAK TREE TALLIES

In figure 2 of my December 1989 report, valley oak tallies were
graphed for Alpha, Brown, and Todd Road Preserve. Aerial photos
from 1942, 1977, and 1988 were used to obtain the relative change

in number of trees over time.

The Beretta farm has now been tallied, with Roseland Creek
dividing the area into two parts. North of the creek is the

handline irrigated side, and south of the creek is not irrigated.

The most notable observation is that no trees were lost south of

the creek between 1977 and 1988.

Disclaimer: Tallies are not exact and were subject to

interpretation. Only what appeared to be large valley oaks were
tailed. Every effort was made to maintain consistancy between
tally year photos by applying the same relative criteria. 1988
photo coverage of the Beretta farm was not as good as other
coverage.

TREE TALLIES

Area

1942

(loss/year)

1977

(loss/year>

1988

Alpha farm

313

(1.8)

250

(3.4)

213

Beretta farm
North of

creek

73

(0.5)

55

(0.4)

51

South of

creek

240

(1.8)

177

<0.0)

177

Brown farm

221

(0.8)

191

(1.5)

174

Todd Road Preserve

61

<0. 1)

57

(0. 0)

57

February 9, 1990

5 (A)

last 11 years. The Todd road preserve has not had irrigation or
pruning. The three areas are similar in soil and topography.
Residual oak age and size class are also similar.

The trend for all areas is a decline in oaks with no replacement.
Over the last 11 years, the two intensly managed farms are losing
oaks at a faster rate than the Todd Road Preserve. Alpha farm
has lost 15% of its oaks, with 3% of the loss due to the
Aqueduct, 27% (or more) due to pipelines trenched under the
trees, 19% due to construction. Trends in this study suggest that
the remaining 51% of the mortality are due to one or more of the
recent management practices, notably irrigation and pruning.

Brown farm has lost 9% of its oaks over the last 11 years, with
12% of that loss due to construction, 29% due to pipelines
trenched under the trees, and the remaining 59% probably due to
the afforementioned management practices.

Todd Road Preserve may or may not have lost one tree over the
last 11 years - the date of mortality is uncertain.

More striking is the change in the annual loss rate between 1942
and 1977 and between 1977 and 1988. The Alpha farm sample area
had 313 trees in 1942 and 250 in 1977 with an average annual loss
of 1.8 trees per year. Between 1977 and 1988, Alpha lost another
37 trees which translates to an average annual loss of 3.4 trees
per year, almost twice the earlier average.

The Brown farm sample area had 221 trees in 1942 and by 1977,
191. This was an average annual loss of 0.8 trees per year.
Between 1977 and 1988, 17 more trees died, making the average

annual loss for that period 1.5 trees per year, again almost
twice the earlier average.

Meanwhile, the Todd road preserve had 61 trees in 1942 and 57 in
1977 an almost insignificant loss. Two trees died due to
construction. One or no trees died between 1977 and 1988.

There was an effort to regenerate oaks at Brown Farm in 1979.
200 oaks were planted in an area between the pond and Llano road.
86 of those trees are still alive. Many died due to discing or
other farming practices according to project leader Pam Muick.
One problem with the project however, is that the seed source was
not local.

In 1988, a regeneration project was started at the Todd Road
preserve. No natural regeneration was observed - probably the
result of no fire or flood deposits coupled with the presence of
a thick European annual grass thatch.

Oak species

The VOW type is almost pure Quercus lobata or crosses of Q,
lobata and other species such as Garrvana , Occasionally
Quercus Kelloggli and agrifolia are found but this is rare in

6

the Wright series loams. As soon as one approaches a slight
hill, the soil type changes generally to more sandy loams and the
habitat type changes to include more tree species.

Anderson and Pasquenelli, in their Sonoma State Master's thesis,
observed much hybridization of oaks in sites around Sonoma
county. Garryana crossed with Douglas!i to make x
Eplingii . Q. Garryana crossed with dumosa to produce Q,x
Howe11ii . Unfortunately none of their studies were in the Laguna.
Although valley oak doesn’t hybridize freely (abundantly), it
will cross with Douglasii , Q. Garryana , and dumosa (John M.
Tucker, personal communication). The populations must be close
to one another for free association, however. With blue oak near
Windsor, and Garry oak to the east, some hybridization of valley
oaks within the Laguna is possible.

In Mendocino county I have found the cross between Kelloggii
and Wislizenii which produces the "oracle oak," x morehus .
Black oak will not hybridize with valley oak however (Steve
Barnhart, personal communication). Munz and Keck refer to much
hybridization among the oaks, and oak scholars have observed
"swarms" of oak varieties in Mendocino and Sonoma counties (Pam
Muick, personal communication).

During the Laguna fieldwork in the summer, and during acorn
collecting in the fall, I have observed interesting variations in
leaf, bark, and acorn characteristics. The point to be made is
that the valley oaks in the Laguna could be a distinct race which
would be a subject for future studies. In any event, the genetic
integrity of the oaks in the Laguna should be maintained by
revegetation with only locally collected seed.

Habitat Stages

The most common habitat stage for the VOW in the Laguna is
medium-large trees with a sparce canopy (5S-see Figure 3).
Several of the areas sampled had canopy closures close to the 10%
minimum defined by WHR, and only careful boundary delineation
puts these relic stands within the VOW type. Samples were
collected on Alpha, Brown, Carinalli, and Kelly farms and the
Todd Road preserve. Roadside surveys were conducted on the
Beretta, Dotti, LaFranconi, and Mello farms. Special habitat
elements lacking in these areas include snags, logs, stumps,
slash, and shrub layer - the understory is usually grazed or
mowed annual grasses. One would expect coyote brush, poison oak,
rose, and blackberry to be among the understory species in an
undisturbed Laguna VOW. Before European influence, perennial
grasses (for example Hordeum brachyantherum ) may have provided
significant ground cover (David Amme, personal communication).
Presently, European annual grasses dominate most of the
understory.

Two surveyed areas that stand apart from the rest are the Stone
Farm and Sebastopol lands. The Stone farm VOW type may actually

7

Figure 3

HABITAT STAGES - From Guide to the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System

be a thinned-out VRI. The soils are Clearlake clays as opposed
to the usual Wright loams, the oaks are younger <70 to 75) and
Oregon ash, Fraxinus latifolia is intermixed, The stand density
is also higher (which corresponds to the younger smaller trees).

On the City of Sebastopol lands north of Highway 12 and east of
the Laguna channel, a mix of valley oak size classes occurs on
the Clearlake clays and what is incorrectly classified by SCS as
the Cortina series <it is actually a deep sandy loam).

VALLEY OAK TREE CONDITIONS

At each VOW habitat sample site, individual tree data were
collected. These data include microtopgraphy, diameter and
height, approximate age, crown density and diameter, epicormic
branching, pruning, root rot, heart rot, pipeline trenched under
the drip line, and the presence of seedlings under the canopy.
These data were averaged or used to develop percent proportions
for each subarea within a farm (see Appendix B-l).

Subareas are the sample sites determined by uniformity of soil,
irrigation type, cultural practices, and physical proximity of
trees to one another. A database was developed using the sample
data to facilitate sorting of parameters. Numeric values of 0
for no or 1 for yes were assigned to the epicormic, pruning, root
rot, heart rot, pipeline, and seedling fields. The crown density
evaluation is based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being a very
sparce, almost dead or dead tree, and 5 being a thick full crown,
hard to see through. The higher the value, the healthier or more
vigorous the tree. These surveys were taken in June when the
foliage is thick.

The data were first sorted by crown density (Appendix B-2&3).
The worst crown density averages correspond to the highest
pruning averages and highest pipeline occurance. The best
(highest) crown density averages correspond to the lowest
pruning averages and the lowest pipeline occurance. The Rank Sum
Test was used to determine significant differences (Ambrose &
Ambrose, 1981).

The next sort was by irrigation systems (Appendix B-4). Using
the crown density criteria, it would appear that the solid set
system (trenched pipe) is more detrimental to the trees than
handline or no irrigation. The solid set system of course has
most of the pipeline under drip line occurrances. There were not
enough samples of the "Gun” system to numerically compare, but
trees under the gun did not look to healthy to me. There were
also not enough samples to compare grazing vs. hay vs. no
agriculture. It is obvious, however, that in areas of intense
cattle use suqh as in stockyards, the residual valley oaks are
usually dead or dying.

The final sorts were for heart rot (B-5) and root rot (B-6). A
tree was classified as having heart rot if there were obvious
swellings or rot pockets in the lower bowl. Trees were

9

Root Rot% Figure k. OAK DESCRIPTIONS

Heart Rot* ~T IRRIGATED VS. NON-1RRI GATED

stage. Grazing and hay cutting eliminate the regeneration.
However, even on the Todd Road preserve where no mowing or
grazing occurs, there were no seedlings or saplings on the Wright
Loam (WhA) sample site. The thick introduced annual grasses
apparently have made regeneration difficult on the eastern half
of the preserve. The absence of disturbances such as fire or
significant sediment deposit from flooding in the years since the
area has become a preserve would also account for lack of natural
oak regeneration.

Valley oak regeneration does occur along roadways and the old
railroad bed. Here, ages range from seedling to mature oak, with
many in the 40 year age class. Valley oak regeneration also
occurs within the Riparian areas, but it is the more open Valley
Oak Woodland Habitat which is not being replaced as the mature
trees die.

To replace or perpetuate the VOW type, a revegetation program
will have to be developed. This would rely largely on artificial
regeneration (planting) and tree protection (fencing). In some
areas, natural regeneration may be possible if the current
management practices change, however as we have seen on the Todd
Road preserve, competition by exotic species alone hinders
regeneration.

Efforts to restore the VOW type should be concentrated on the
Wright Series loams and the Huichia series loams. Restoration
efforts can be compatable with current management practices on
farms in the Laguna if revegetation areas are fenced during an
establishment period. Where lands are irrigated, the plantings
should be concentrated on convex or hummocky micro topography. A
detailed plan by an experienced revegetation specialist should be
developed for each site. Maintenance and establishment period
monitoring must be part of any plan.

As mentioned earlier, it is important to collect acorns for the
regeneration program from within the Laguna to preserve the
genetic integrity of the local oaks. The California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection has long recognized the importance
of reforestation using locally collected seed. California has
been divided into seed zones according to various criteria
including latitude, longitude, and elevation. Trees are long-
lived species and have genetically adapted to their microclimate.
Revegetation using the local gene pool which is most adapted to
the site should help to ensure the longevity of the trees, as
well as preserving the unique local ecology.

VALLEY FOOTHILL RIPARIAN HABITAT (VRI)

The VRI type occurs on a variety of soils along small
drainageways as well as the main channel of the Laguna de Santa
Rosa. The most frequently occurring species are the willows
( Salix spp. ), then Oregon ash ( Fraxinus latifolia ), Valley oak,

12

box elder ( Acer negundo ), and occasionally walnut ( Juglans
Hinds!i ) and cottonwood ( Populus fremontii ) .

Young stands of pure willow develop soon after channelization
activities if the area is protected from grazing. As the stands
mature, ash, oak, and boxelder are the most frequent additions to
the type. Cottonwood was noticeably absent from the sample
sites, and it would appear that within the study area, it only
occurs where there is sandy or gravelly river wash. Cottonwoods
are widely planted as landscape trees so its original
distribution becomes confused. Griffin and Critchfield in The
Distribution of Forest Trees in California , place the nearest
stands of cottonwoods mostly to the north of the Russian River.

An interesting change in species composition occurs as one
travels from south to north along the main channel of the Laguna.
To the south, the riparian tree species are mostly willow then
ash. Valley oaks show up usually in areas which have been less
disturbed. The boxelder is rare south of the Occidental Road
bridge, usually showing up on sandier soils, not the Clearlake
clay. As one travels towards Guerneville road going north, more
boxelder show up until finally, just north of the Guerneville
road bridge, they become a major component (see figures 5 & 6> .

On the Pajaro Clay loam overwash soils along Santa Rosa Creek and
north of River Road along the Laguna Channel (which becomes Mark
West Creek), the greatest variety of species occurs (figure 7).

Stand structure is related to the age of the stands and the
species variety. Older stands in areas which are less disturbed
such as south of Highway 12 along the Laguna channel exhibit the
most complex structure. The stand has been relatively undisturbed
in the last 30 or 40 years. There is an almost impenetrable
understory of rose, blackberry, poison oak, snowberry and
grasses. The lower canopy is willow and ash with an open
overstory of scattered remnant valley oak. The average density
is greater than 90 trees per acre for trees of diameters from 8
to 14 inches DBH. Most of the WHR "special habitat elements"
associated with riparian habitats are found here.

By contrast, areas which are subject to recent clearing and
grazing have very little species variety and structure. Just
north of the afforementioned site, north of highway 12 on the
same soil type, the stand is almost pure young willow of one size
class (average 6" DBH) with grass and some rose as the only
understory.

RIPARIAH REGENERATION: EXISTING AND POTENTIAL

Analysis of historic photos in earlier studies by Marco Waaland
(Nov. 1988) shows that the riparian forests were much more
extensive in the recent past. Broad swaths of forests existed up

13

Figure 5. SPECIES COMPOSITION
CLEARLAKE CLAY SOILS NEAR THE LAGUNA CHANNEL
Representing Sampled Sites
Valley Foothill Riparian Habitat
(VRI)

SEBASTOPOL HEAR PONOS SEBASTOPOL EAST SIDE SCHOCH

PERCENT

CAWOPV

PERCENT

CANOPY

AUE. OHM
AUG. AGE

6" 19* 8* )3*

10-40 22 45

VRI 4D

OFG NORTH OF 0UERN. BR, NEAR CHANNEL

PERCENT

CANOPY

PERCENT

CANOPY

AUE. DBH
AUfc. AOE

.4-12*.

..15+..

3 * 8 * 12 ' 24 *

10 33 83

VRI kP

OFQ FARTHER FROH CHANNEL

VRI 4D

WILLOW ASH OAK
3-14* 1.3* 33*

5-40 60 73

VRI 4D

75

PERCENT 60

CANOPY

45

30

15

0

WILLOW ASH
8-20* 1-13*

15 5-33

vri Ad

Note: All figures are averaged and approximate. The purpose of the figures is to
demonstrate the variability in stand structure and composition.

VRI Codes: Numbers = size classes. 2=sapling, 3=pole, 4=small, 5=mediurn-large
Letters = canopy closure. P= open, M= moderate, D= dense

PERCENT

CANOPV

AUE.. OSH
AUG. AGE

• PERCENT
CANOPV

AUE. OSH
AUE. AGE

Figure 6. SPECIES COMPOSITION
BLUCHER FINE SANDY LOAM OVERWASH
Representing Sampled Sites
Valley Foothill Riparian Habitat

BROUN FARM

SEBASTOPOL, EAST SIDE

NORTH OF RAILROAD

SE8AST0P0L, EAST SID£
NORTH OF HVW* 12

r ir i4*

8* 6-24*

6 *

13 30 40

vri Ad

20 30-100

vri Ad

12

VRI 2D

SEBASTOPOL WEST SJDE
NORTH OF RAILROAD

SEBASTOPOL CAMPGROUNDS

PERCENT

CANOPV

4-20*

10-40.

4

10

16 *

GO

24*

100

VRI 2D

VRI AM

15

Figure 7". SPECIES COMPOSITION
PAJARO CLAY LOAM OVERWASH
Representing Sampled Sites
Valley Foothill Riparian Habitat

RJTCH HURST STREAMBANK

R1TCH HURST WEST OF BANK

TRENTON RQ. BRIDGE DOWNSTREAM

PERCENT

CANOPV

PERCENT

CANOPV

AUE. O0H 4’ 2-12* 2-7*

2-12* 18*

1-24* 18* 6*

AUE. AGE 10 18 18

10 1818-62

18

VRI 2M

VRI 2M

VRI 4D

TRENTON RD. BRIDGE UPSTREAM

WILLOWSIDE RO. £ SANTA ROSA CREEK

PERCENT

CANLPV

AUE. OSH
AUE. AGE

15-23*

25

PERCENT

CANOPV

75 t

S' 20 26 ‘ 6* 18'

85

VRI

VRI 5D

16

to 1500 feet wide along the Laguna channel meanders of the
Clearlake clay soil type. Cattle grazing, clearing vegetation
for crops, flood control, and mosquito control, and the ever
expanding urbanization have all contributed to the the loss of
riparian habitat. In the nearby watershed of Stemple Creek,
farmers nearly eliminated willows by aerial spraying of
herbicides in the 1950’s & 60’s - herbicides have been used in
the Laguna, but I have not researched to what degree.

Riparian forest regeneration is still hampered by the above
management practices. In addition, the introduction of exotic
species such as the aggressive Acacia in Sebastopol, Himalaya
blackberry, and the European annual grasses and weeds hamper
regeneration and land management. The elimination of fire and
control of flooding reduce regeneration opportunities as well.

Despite the above, the only real stumbling block to the
restoration of riparian forests is land ownership patterns and
the priorities of those land owners. In order to bring about
riparian regeneration in the Laguna, landowners must be willing
to take the streamside areas out of production. Cooperating
farmers or landowners should be compensated for loss of
productive property through tax incentives or land purchase.
Alternative watering sources for cattle would have to be
developed as part of the program. The Sonoma/Marin Mosquito
Abatement District <M.A.D.> must be brought into the revegetation
planning process. Presently they clean ditches and channels
throwing up spoils on both sides of the drainage way. If
clearing can be designed to disturb only the north side of
channels, vegetation could be re-established on the southside. In
the long run, the shade could reduce algae bloom which will help
M.A.D.’s program. Defining the permanent access points is a
critical part of coordination with M.A.D.

The Sonoma County Water Agency and any other landowner who
practices clearing channels must also be part of the over-all
revegetation planning. Channel clearing can be done in such a
way as to allow riparian regeneration. Colgan creek next to the
Meadowlane ponds West of Llano road is a case in point. Here,
the willow canopy is closing over the channel, shading out
unwanted vegetation which might restrict flow within the channel.
Careful thinning and pruning by hand maintains access to the
channel without eliminating the closed canopy. With the
development of the closed canopy, maintenance costs should be
reduced over time.

In many drainages and channels throughout the Laguna, simply
placing a fence or eliminating mowing alongside or clearing
within the channel will allow willows to proliferate if there are
willows nearby. To speed up the regeneration process, especially
where there is competition from grasses or tree seed sources are
more distant, a regeneration plan should be developed.

The highest priority for riparian revegetation would be in the
areas which have been identified on Waaland’s November 1988 maps

17

as having been riparian forest. Next priority should go to
drainages contiguous to existing riparian forests. The larger
the area, the more valuable the habitat. Revegetation plans
must consider the wildlife species whose habitat is to be
restored. The breeding habitat of critical avian wildlife
species such as the endangered yellow-billed cuckoo ( Coccyzus
americanus ) require riparian forests with areas of dense
cottonwood and willow growth at least 300 feet wide and 25 acres
in surface area (Appleton, Rigney, & Stanley, 1987). Planning
riparian revegetation in conjunction with developing more open
water marsh would benefit many species of waterfowl.

On the Clearlake clays which dominate the central Laguna channel,
willow and ash would be the primary species to plant. Local
cuttings for the willows should be used, and local seed for the
other species. Valley oaks would be the next species in order of
frequency. The addition of boxelder, walnut, and cottonwood would
be more experimental.

On the Blucher series soils, the same species would be
recommended with boxelder and walnut becoming a key part of the
mix. Cottonwood could be considered as an experimental addition
on these soils.

For the Pajaro series, all of the above species would be
appropriate. All seed sources should be local to protect the
genetic integrity of the species in the area and to assure the
greatest long-term success. Again, a detailed plan by an
experienced revegetation specialist should be developed for each
site. Maintenance and establishment period monitoring must be
part of any plan.

18

SOIL-VEGETATION RELATIONSHIPS SUMMARIZED

The following generalizations are useful when considering
management or revegetation of woody species in the Laguna. The
soil types are from the 1972 SCS Soil Survey of Sonoma
County maps. Major soil and vegetation types were checked by this
investigator.

DOMINANT
VEGETATION

BcA Blucher fine sandy loam overwash Riparian: willow, ash,

valley oak

CeA Clear Lake Clay Grass, marsh

CfA* Clear Lake Clay, ponded Riparian along creeks

Grass, marsh

CrA** Cortina very gravelly sandy loam Valley oaks, grass

CtC Cotati fine sandy loam Valley oaks, grass

CtD Cotati fine sandy loam - slopes Live,black, valley oaks,grass

CtE

Cotati fine sandy

loam - slopes

It

It

II

II II

fil***

railroad

bed,roadside disturbance

Valley

& black oaks,grass

HaB

Haire fine sandy

loam, hummocky

Valley

oak,

grass

HtC

Huichica

loam

Valley

oak,

grass

HtD

It

II

slopes

HuB

II

It

ponded

V.oak,,

grass

vernal

pools

HwB

♦ I

II

ponded, shallow

It

II

»♦

II

HvC

II

♦ I

shallow

Black

& valley oak,

grass

LoD Los Osos clay loam

PcA Pajaro Clay loam overwash - flat

PcB ” ” ” ” - slope

RnA Riverwash, gravel, sand & silt
alluvium

VgC

VhA*

Wright
♦ 1

loam

II

wet

Valley oak, grass

♦1 II II

WmB

II

II

shallow

II II II

WoA*

II

II

shallow, wet

V.oak,grass,vernal pools

Grass

Mixed riparian: willow,
ash,V.oak, boxelder, walnut

II It It

Mixed riparian including
cottonwood

MAP

SYMBOL NAME

* largest acreage in study area

** probably mis-typed on Sebastopol lands-see Appendix D I

*** my own convention - all others are SCS ;

19

REFERENCES

Airola, Daniel A., Guide to the California Wildlife Habitat
Relationships System. Prepared for the State of California
Resources Agency, by Jones & Stokes, Associates, Inc. March
1988.

Ambrose, Harrison W., and Katharine Ambrose. A Handbook of
Biological Investigation. Hunter Textbooks, Inc. copywright
1981.

Anderson, Melanie, and Renee Pasquinelli. Ecology and Management
of the Northern Oak Woodland Community , a masters thesis at
Sonoma State University, Santa Rosa. 1984.

Appleton, Harold C., Mike Rigney, John Stanley. Preliminary
Revegetation Plan, The Nature Conservancy Consumnes Property .
Harvey and Stanley Associates, Inc. April 13, 1987.

Bureau of Soils, 1917. Soil Survey of the Healdsburg Area,
California. USDA in cooperation with the University of
California Agricultural Experiment Station.

Griffin, James R., William B. Critchfield. The Distribution of
Forest Trees in California . USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-
82. 1972, reprinted with supplement 1976.

Munz, Phillip A., in collaboration with David D. Keck. A
California Flora . University of California Press, c. 1968.

SCS, 1972. Soi 1 Survey Sonoma County California . USDA, Forest
Service and Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with
University of California Agr. Exp. Sta. May 1972.

Waaland, Marco. Map: Laguna de Santa Rosa Land Use and Critical
Habitat. CH2MHILL. November 1988.

20

APPENDICIES

i

I

i

i

Appendix

A -

Data

collection

form

Appendix

B -

Averaged sample

data

Appendix

C -

Snag

survey and

data

Appendix

D -

Soil

samples

Appendix

E -

Maps

and data sorts
sorts

!

21

LAGUNA CHARACTERIZATION page_of_

Farm/Landowner _ Investigator - Date -

Map Area_

Veg. Type: VOW V.Pd EUC Soil Type_

Stage: Size = 1 2 3 4 5 G Canopy = S P M D

Species:

Ave. DBH:

Regenera tion: seed 1ing, sap1ing

Hydro-topography: flat, concave, convex, hummocky, swale,

drainage ditch, pond, watercourse-ephemeral,
intermittent, blue line

History: Irrigation: solid, handline, gun, none.: 1 yr, 10 yr.

Cu1tu r e: hay, gr azing, none

Potential:

Problems:

Spacing:
Understory:

Species

DBH

Age

Growth

Height

Crown dens.
Crown diam.

Vigor
C GFPD)

M i c r o

Under

Epicor
(Y/N)
Pruning
(Y/N)

Root Rot
C DDF >
Heart Rot
(Y/N)

Lit her

TREE SAMPLES

LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA CHARACTERIZATION STUDY 1989
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE FIELD MEASUREMENTS, VALLEY OAK WOODLAND HABITAT

Crown

percent

in decimals

Area

Sub

Soi 1

Irrig

Cultr

Topo DBH

Age

Dens

Di a

Epi c

P run

Root

Heart

Pi pe

Ht

Seed

Alpha

1

wha

sol id

hay-

conv

.-!

1 40

2

. 5

51

0.1 8

0.94

0

.47

0.59

0.24

45

.T.

Alpha

V* 1

woa

sol id

hay

conv

42

1 40

2

*7

56

0.4.7

1 .00

0

.47

0.77

0.24

sw

.T.

Alpha

4

wo a

sol id

graz

f 1 a t.

40

1 40

2

. 6

46

0.40

0.70

0

.70

0.60

0.60

48

.F.

Alpha

5

woa

sol id

graz

c onv

35

1 40

2

. 6

46

0.40

0.1 4

0

.40

0.1 0

0.00

46

.F.

Beret.

0

woa

handl

graz

humm

30

1 40

2

. 0

0

0.00

0.00

0

. 00

0.00

0 .00

0

. F .

Brown

1

wha

sol id

hay-

conv

42

1 60

2

. 7

52

0.1 0

0.80

0

0.80

0 . 40

48

. T .

Brown

S

wha

none

hay

humm

39

1 40

. 2

52

0 . 27

0.33

0

•~»o

0.60

0.00

45

.T.

Brown

7

wgc

so lid

hay

humm

40

1 60

2

. 4

48

0.50

1 .00

o

. 25

0.50

0.1 3

49

. T .

Brown

o

wha

so lid

hay

c one

32!

1 40

2

. 0

45

0.1 2

0.75

o

. 33

0.50

0.25

40

. T .

Brown

9

woa

sol id

hay-

humm

36

1 4.0

2

-/

48

0.1 3

0.93

o

. 73

0.40

0.33

51

. F .

Brown

1 1

woa

sol id

hay

humm

43

1 40

2

.6

51

o. oo

1 . 00

0

. 00

0.36

0.46

.53

. T .

Brown

RR

f i 1

none

none

conv

i 2

40

3

o

25

0,50

0 . 00

o

. 00

0.00

0.00

3 /

. T .

Brown

YD

wha

none

t r a f

flat

42

1 60

4

0

45

0.00

0.50

0

. so

0.50

0.00

45

. I.

Car in

1

wha

handl

hay-

humm

39

'! 45

2

. 7

49

0.20

0.40

o

. 30

0.70

0.00

47

. T .

Dotti

'1

wha

gun

hay

hum iti

30

1 40

2

.5

50

0.00

0.00

o

. 00

0.00

0.00

o

.F.

Fulto

Or

woa

none

hay

humm

30

1 40

2

. 7

37

0.40

0.80

0

. 00

0.00

0.00

53

. T .

Kel ly

'1

wha

so lid

hay

f 1 a t

.j

1 00

o

. 0

52

0.30

1 . 00

o

. 50

0.30

0 . 4 Ci

48

.T.

Kelly

w o a

sol id

hay

humm

28

] 20

2

. 7

44

0 . SO

0.80

0

. 40

0.40

0.40

•52

. T .

LaF r a

nc

wha

handl

graz

humm

34

1 40

o

. 0

50

0.00

0.00

o

. 00

0.00

0.00

0

.F.

LaFra

nc

woa

handl

graz

humm

34

1 40

o

. 0

0

0.00

0.00

0

. 00

0.00

0.00

o

. F.

hello

1

woa

handl

graz

humm

0

0

2

. 5

0

0.00

0.00

o

. 00

0.00

0.00

o

. F .

RR&Me

re

f il

none

none

conv

o

40

o

. 0

.Cm ■»—

0.1 0

0). 00

0

. 00

0.00

0.00

c* O

. T.

Br&Ll

an

wha

none

none

conv

1 2

43

. 6

25

0.00

0.1 0

0

. 00

0.1 0

0.00

35

.T.

Sebas

•4

c ra

sol id

graz

conv

o c,

1 SO

i

. 6

40

0 . 20

0.40

o

. 60

0.60

0.60

49

.F.

Stone

1

cf a

handl

graz

conv

2

70

o

5

34

0.1 0

0.30

0

. 00

0.30

0.00

56

.T.

Stone

2

cf a

hand 1

graz

f lat

1 7

75

2

. 0

22

0.40

0.20

0

. 30

0.30

0.00

50

. F.

Stone

c f a

hand 1

graz

f lat

20

75

‘.'j

o

34

0.00

0.00

0

. 00

0.00

0.00

51

. F .

Todd

•j

wha

none

none

humm

! ::: !

I 40

O

. 0

51

0.30

0.00

o

. 20

0.30

0.00

44

. F .

Todd

2

woa

none

none

f lat

37

1 40

. 0

47

0.20

0.00

0

. 1 0

0 , 40

0.00

40

. T .

The

individual

tree

values

for

each subarea

were averaged

to

produce this database. Some areas were roadside evaluations, and
the values may show zeros. Where appropriate, these were included
or excluded in the sorts.

Sub = Sub area within identified farms. Refer to maps.

Soil = SCS symbol for soil type. See soil-vegetation

relationships in main text.

Irrig = Irrigation system: solid set, handline, gun, none

Cultr = Cultural practices: hay, grazing, traffic, none

Topo = Topography: convex, flat, hummocky, concave

DBH = Diameter at breast height in inches

Age = Approximate average age of oaks

Crown Density = 5 is dense foliage, 1 is sparce

Crown Diameter = Average diameter in feet

Epic = Presence of excess epicormic branching

Prun = Trees have been pruned. % of trees sampled in decimals

Root = External signs of root rot. ” ” ” ” ” ’’

Heart= External signs of heart rot." " " ” "

Pipe = Pipeline trenched beneath crown. "

Ht = Height of trees in feet

Seed = Presence of seedlings. T = yes, F = no

B - 1

SORT BY CROWN DENSITY

j

I

Ji

i

Crown Density greater than or = to 3

i

'i

ec ord#

AREA

SUBAREA

SOIL

IREIGAT

CULTURE

TO FOG

EPICORMIC

PRUNING

PIPELINE

7

Brown

0

wha

none

hay

humm

0

. 27

0.33

0.00

1 2

Brown

RR

f i 1

none

none

conv

0

. SO

0.00

0.00

13

Brown

YD

wha

none

traf

flat

0

. 00

0.50

0.00

1 7

Kelly

1

wha

sol id

hay

f lat-

o

. 30

1 .00

0.40

19

LaFra

nc

wha

handl

graz

humm

0

. 00

0.00

0.00

20

LaFra

nc

wo a

handl

graz

humm

0

. 00

0.00

0.00

22

RR&Me

r c

f i 1

none

none

conv

0

. 10

0.00

0.00

23

Br&Ll

an

wha

none

none

c on v

0

. 00

0.1 0

0.00

2.q

Stone

1

eta

handl

graz

c on v

0

. 10

0.30

0.00

26

Stone

2

c fa

handl

graz

f 1 a t

q

.40

0.20

0.00

27

Stone

■Z>

c f a

handl

graz

f 1 a t

o

. 00

0.00

0.00

2 o

Todd

i

wha

none

none

humm

0

. 30

0.00

0.00

29

Todd

2

woa

none

none

flat

0

. 20

0.00

0.00

Crown Density less than or = to 2.5

v- c o r d ii-

AREA

SUBAE!E-_A

SOIL

IRE IGAT

CULTURE TQP06

EPICQRMIC

PRUNING

PIPELINE

1

Alpha

j

wha

sol id

hay

conv

0 .

IS

0.94

0.24

c

Beret

o

woa.

handl

graz

humm

0

00

0.00

0.00

o

Brown

— Y

wgc

so 1 i d

hay

humm

o .

50

1 . 00

0.1 3

9

Brown

o

wha

so lid

hay

cone

0 .

1 2

0.75

0. 25 |

] 1

Brown

11

woa

sol id

hay

humm

0

00

1 . 00

0.46

15

Dotti

1

wha

gun

ha'/

humm

0 .

00

0.00

0.00

2 1

Mel lo

1

woa

hand 1

graz

humm

0

00

0 00

O 00 i

24

Sabas

•2'

c r a

so lid

graz

conv

0 .

20

0.40

0.60

averages:

67

125

1.26

0.21

B - 2

Crown Density less than or = to 3

iecord#

AREA

SUBAREA

SOIL.

IRRIGAT

CULTURE

TOP 06

EPICORMIC

PRUNING

PIPELINE

1

Alpha

i

wha

sol id

hay

conv

0.1 8

0.94

0

.24

!Z

Alpha

2

soa

sol id

hay

conv

0.47

1 . 00

o

. aLA-

o

Alpha

4

woa

sol id

graz

f lat

0.40

0.70

0

. GO

4

Alpha

5

W O 3.

so lid

graz

conv

0.40

0.1 4

o

. 00

F*

Beret

0

woa

handl

graz

humm

0.00

0.00

o

. 00

6

Brown

j

wha

so lid

hay'

c onv

0. 1 0

0.80

o

. 40

o

Brown

"7

wgc

sol id

hay

humm

0.50

1 .00

0

. 1 3

9

Brown

o

wha

so lid

hay'

cone

0. 1 2

0 75

Q

. 25

1 0

Brown

9

woa

so lid

hay

humm

0.1 3

0.93

o

. 8 8

1 i

Brown

11

woa

sol id

hay'

iiumm

0.00

1 .00

q

. 46

12

Brown

RR

f i 1

none

none

conv

0.60

0.00

0

. 00

14

Car i n

1

wha

handl

hay

humm

0.20

0.40

0

. 00

1 S

Dotti

1

wha

qun

hay

humm

0.00

0.00

0

. 00

16

Fulto

□ c

woa

none

hay'

humm

0.40

0.80

(I)

. 00

1 7

Kelly

]

wha

sol id

hay

f lat

0.30

1 .00

0

.40

1 S

ke 11 y

2

woa

sol id

hay'

humm

0.50

0.80

o

. 40

1 9

LaF r a

nc

wha

hand 1

graz

humm

0.00

0.00

o

. 00

20

LaFra

nc

woa

handl

Q r 321

humm

0.00

0.00

o

. 00

21

Mel 1 o

1

woa

hand 1

graz

humm

0.00

0.00

0

. 00

22

RR&Me

rc

f i 1

none

none

c onv

0.1 0

0.00

0

. 00

24

Sebas

O

era

sol id

graz

conv

0.20

0.40

o

. 60

26

Stone

2

c f a

handl

graz

flat

0.40

0.20

o

. 00

28

Todd

i

wha

none

none

humm

0.30

0.00

0

. 00

29

Todd

2

woa

none

none

flat

0.20

0.00

0

. 00

Crown

Density

g reater

than 3

ecord#

AREA

SUBAREA

SOIL

IRRIGAT CULTURE TOPQG

EPICORMIC

PRUNING

PIPELINE

7

Brown

fcl

wha

none

hay

humm

0 27

0.33

0 . 00

13

Brown

YD

wha

none

t r a f

flat

0.00

0 . 50

0 . 00

28

Br&Ll

an

wha

none

none

conv

0 . 00

0 . 1 0

0 . 00

•“< c

Stone

j

c f a

handl

graz

c onv

0 . 1 0

0.30

0 . 00

27

Stone

c f a

handl

graz

f lat

0 . 00

0.00

0 . 00

averages

0.074

0.246

0

B - 3

SORT BY IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

Solid Set

Record#

AREA

SUBAREA

SOIL

CULTURE

TOPOG

CROWNDENS

GROUND I AM

EPICQRMIC

PRUNING

1

Alpha

1

Whs.

hay

conv

2 . 5

51

0.1 8

0 . 84

2

h 1 p hi a

wo a

hay

c onv

2 . 7

56

0 . 47

1 . 00

] -|

A 1 pha

4

woa

gras

f 1 a t-

2 . G

46

0 40

0 70

A

A 1 pha

Ft

wo a

gras

conv

2 . 6

46

0 . 40

0.1 4

f-~,

Brown

i

whs

hay

conv

2 7

52

0 . 1 0

0 . 80

8

Brown

~>

wgc

hay

hum it!

2.4

48

0.50

1 . 00

9

Brown

P

Whs

hay

cone

2 . 0

45

0.1 2

0 75

10

Brown

9

woa

hay

humm

2 . 7

48

0 . 1 3

0 93

1 1

Brown

11

woa

hay

humm

2 . 5

51

0 . 00

| . 00

17

Kel ly

i

Whd.

hay

flat

3 . 0

52

0.30

1 .00

18

Kelly

woa

hay

humm

•-> ~J

44

0 . SO

0 . 80

24

Sebas

• 2 '

era

O r 3 . 21 !

conv

1 . 6

40

0.20

0 40

Hand 1ine

rd#

AREA

SUBAREA

SO IL

CULTURE

TOPOG

CROWNDENS

GROUNDIAM

EPICORMIC

PRUNING

C

Beret-

0

woa

graz

humm

2.0

0

0.00

0.00

1 4

Car in

1

wha

hay

humm

2.7

49

0.20

0.40

1 3

LaFra

nc

wha

graz

humm

3.0

5 0

0.00

0.00

20

LaFra

nc

woa

graz

humm

3.0

0

0 . 00

0.00

21

Me 11 o

1

woa

Cj r 3.21!

humm

v c,

0

0 . 00

0.00

'~'F,

Stone

1

c f a

graz

conv

3.5

34

0 . 1 0

0.30

(•*;

Stone

v

c f a

graz

f 1 at

3.0

■~i ■">

0 . 40

0.20

♦~i ~. v

Stone

">

c f a

graz

f lat

8.3

34

0.00

0.00

Gun

d#
1 5

Do t, t i

IJBAREA SOIL CULTURE TOPOG
] whs. hay humm

;rowndens groundian

2 5 50

CL I

• I CORNIC

o oo

PRUNING
O 00

None

ecord#

AREA

!"l l .* 8 A, {•< 8 £i

SOIL

CULTURE

TOPOG

CROWNDENS

GROUNDIAM EPICORMIC

PRUNING

7

Brown

G

wha

U. ~ .

t ! •=». y

humm

8.2

52 0

. 2 /

O 33

1 V

Py--.-i.iv-,

RR

f i 1

i SL.il st=?

c onv

3 . 0

2 5 • J

. 60

0.00

! 3

Brown

YD

wha

T. ’i n If

T lat.

4 . 0

45 0

. 00

0 . 50

! 6

j-~ f. fs

Oc

WO 8.

hay

humm

2 . /

37 Cj

. 40

0. 80

22

r c

•4 •!- ]

none

c onv

3 0

*“• o

. 1 0

0.00

,

_ ___

•7 n n

00

0.1 c

t7 r a!_ l

an

wr iv.

none

L. L.U 1 V

— ■

28

Todd

T

UX {-. .Z;

no ne

humm

(i

5 } 0

3 i)

0 oc

29

Tnnr

*W 8.

none

f lat

■J . l -J

47 0

. 20

0 . oc

B - 4

SORT BY HEART ROT

Heart Rot greater than 30%

ecord#

AREA

SUB

SOIL

IRRIG

CULTR

TOPO

DENS

EPICOR

PRUN

ROOT

HEART

PIPE

1

alpha

1

wha

soli

hay

conv

2.5

0. 18

0.94

0.47

0.59

0.24

2

alpha

2

woa

soli

hay

conv

2.7

0. 47

1.00

0.47

0.77

0. 24

3

alpha

4

woa

soli

graz

f lat

2.6

0.40

0.70

0.70

0.60

0.60

6

brown

1

wha

soli

hay

conv

2.7

0. 10

0.80

0.33

0. 80

0. 40

7

brown

6

wha

none

hay

humm

3.2

0.27

0.33

0.33

0.60

0. 00

8

brown

7

wgc

soli

hay

humm

2. 4

0.50

1.00

0.25

0.50

0. 13

9

brown

8

wha

soli

hay

cone

2.0

0. 12

0.75

0. 33

0.50

0.25

10

brown

9

woa

soli

hay

humm

2. 7

0. 13

0.93

0.73

0. 40

0. 33

11

brown

11

woa

soli

hay

humm

2.5

0. 00

1.00

0. 00

0.36

0.46

13

brown

yd

wha

none

traf

flat

4. 0

0. 00

0.50

0.50

0.50

0. 00

14

carin

1

wha

hand

hay

humm

2.7

0.20

0.40

0.30

0.70

0. 00

18

kelly

2

woa

soli

hay

humm

2. 7

0.50

0.80

0.40

0.40

0.40

24

sebas

3

era

soli

graz

conv

1.6

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.60

0.60

29

todd

1

woa

none

none

flat

3. 0

0. 20

0. 00

0. 10

0. 40

0. 00

2.6av.

Heart Rot greater than or = to 30%

Record#

AREA

SUB

SOIL

5 1

alpha

1

wha

1 2

alpha

2

woa

3

alpha

4

woa

6

brown

1

wha

j 7

brown

6

wha

8

brown

7

wgc

9

brown

8

wha

10

brown

9

woa

11

brown

11

woa

13

brown

yd

wha

14

carin

i

wha

17

kelly

i

wha

18

kelly

2

woa

24

sebas

3

era

25

stone

1

cfa

26

stone

2

cfa

28

todd

1

wha

29

todd

1

woa

IRRIG

CULTR

TOPO

DENS E

soli

hay

conv

2.5

soli

hay

conv

2.7

soli

graz

flat

2.6

soli

hay

conv

2.7

none

hay

humm

3.2

soli

hay

humm

2.4

soli

hay

cone

2. 0

soli

hay

humm

2.7

soli

hay

humm

2.5

none

traf

flat

4. 0

hand

hay

humm

2. 7

soli

hay

flat

3. 0

soli

hay

humm

2. 7

soli

graz

conv

1.6

hand

graz

conv

3.5

hand

graz

flat

3. 0

none

none

humm

3. 0

none

none

flat

3. 0

2.7 av

I COR

PRUN

ROOT

HEART

PIPE

0 .

18

0 .

94

0 .

47

0.59

0 .

24

0 .

47

1 .

00

0 .

47

0.77

0 .

24

0 .

40

0 .

70

0 .

70

0.60

0 .

60

0 .

10

0 .

80

0 .

33

0.80

0 .

40

0 .

27

0 .

33

0 .

33

0.60

0 .

00

0 .

50

1 .

00

0 .

25

0.50

0 .

13

0 .

12

0 .

75

0 .

33

0.50

0 .

25

0 .

13

0 .

93

0 .

73

0.40

0 .

33

0 .

00

1 .

00

0 .

00

0. 36

0 .

46

0 .

00

0 .

50

0 .

50

0.50

0 .

00

0 .

20

0 .

40

0 .

30

0.70

0 .

00

0 .

30

1 .

00

0 .

50

0.30

0 .

40

0 .

50

0 .

80

0 .

40

0.40

0 .

40

0 .

20

0 .

40

0 .

60

0.60

0 .

60

0 .

10

0 .

30

0 .

00

0.30

0 .

00

0 .

40

0 .

20

0 .

30

0.30

0 .

00

0 .

30

0 .

00

0 .

20

0.30

0 .

00

0 .

20

0 .

00

0 .

10

0.40

0 .

00

Heart Rot less than 30%

Record# AREA SUB SOIL IRRIG CULTR TOPO DENS EPICOR PRUN ROOT HEART PIPE

4 alpha 5 woa soli graz conv 2.6 0.40 0.14 0.40 0,10 0.00

~ 5 - b e- P Q- t —1- west— hand — gr -e nz — humm — Sh-G - Ot - OO - 0-. 00 0.00 - 0; 00 - 0■ 00

12 brown rr fil none none conv 3.0 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TS- dott4 —1-wfea—gun-hay- huim —S-r-5- 0. 00 O. 00 0■ 00 -O .-O - Q - 0. 00

-T6- fultn 1 -west- none -hay- humm —2-.-?- 0. 4 0 0.80 0.00 -Q- i-Q - Q - Q - . 00-

-T®-L aTra —1-wha— h a nd — gr a z - humm —3-r-0-Q-. -U O- 0 . 00-0, 00 - 0. 00 - Q -.-O-O-

-20- — Tai ra 2 - woa - hand — graz - humm — 3-rO - Q- t - O - Q — 9-rOO 0,00 - 9-t-GO -O-r-0-0-

—S4- me 11 o 1 -woa- hand :— graz -h ar m—2-r-S-Or-O O ■ O r 00 - 0■ 00 - 0. - 00 - 0■ 00

, 22 merce rr fil none none conv 3.0 0.10 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00

23 br&ll rd wha none none conv 3.6 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00

27 stone 3 cfa hand graz flat 3.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TTav.

lined out values are roadside evaluations (no data)

B - 5

SORT BY ROOT ROT

Root Rot greater than 30%

Record#

AREA

SUB

SOIL

IRRIG

CULTR

TOPO

DENS

EPICOR

PRUN

ROOT

HEART

PIPE

1

alpha

1

wha

soli

hay

conv

2. 5

0. 18

0.94

0.47

0.59

0.24

2

alpha

2

woa

soli

hay

conv

2.7

0.47

1.00

0.47

0.77

0.24

3

alpha

4

woa

soli

graz

flat

2.6

0.40

0.70

0.70

0.60

0.60

4

alpha

5

woa

soli

graz

conv

2.6

0.40

0. 14

0.40

0. 10

0. 00

6

brown

1

wha

soli

hay

conv

2.7

0. 10

0.80

0.33

0. 80

0.40

7

brown

6

wha

none

hay

humm

3.2

0. 27

0.33

0.33

0.60

0.00

9

brown

8

wha

soli

hay

cone

2. 0

0. 12

0.75

0.33

0.50

0.25

10

brown

9

woa

soli

hay

humm

2. 7

0. 13

0.93

0.73

0.40

0,33

13

brown

y d

wha

none

traf

flat

4. 0

0. 00

0.50

0.50

0.50

0. 00

17

kelly

1

wha

soli

hay

flat

3. 0

0.30

1.00

0.50

0.30

0.40

18

kelly

2

woa

soli

hay

humm

2.7

0.50

0.80

0.40

0.40

0.40

24

sebas

3

era

soli

graz

conv

1.6

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.60

0.60

2.7 av.

Root Rot greater than or = to 30 %

Record#

AREA

SUB

SOIL

IRRIG

CULTR

TOPO

DENS

DIAM

EPICOR

PRUN

ROOT

HEART

PIPE

1

alpha

1

wha

soli

hay

conv

2.5

51

0. 18

0.94

0. 47

0.59

0.24

2

alpha

2

woa

soli

hay

conv

2.7

56

0.47

1.00

0.47

0.77

0.24

3

alpha

4

woa

soli

graz

flat

2.6

46

0.40

0.70

0.70

0.60

0.60

4

alpha

5

woa

soli

graz

conv

2. 6

46

0.40

0. 14

0.40

0. 10

0. 00

6

brown

1

wha

soli

hay

conv

2.7

52

0. 10

0.80

0.33

0.80

0.40

7

brown

6

wha

none

hay

humm

3.2

52

0.27

0.33

0.33

0.60

0. 00

9

brown

8

wha

soli

hay

cone

2. 0

45

0. 12

0.75

0.33

0.50

0.25

10

brown

9

woa

soli

hay

humm

2.7

49

0. 13

0.93

0. 73

0.40

0. 33

13

brown

y d

wha

none

traf

flat

4. 0

45

0.00

0.50

0.50

0.50

0. 00

14

carin

1

wha

hand

hay

humm

2.7

49

0.20

0.40

0.30

0.70

0. 00

17

kelly

1

wha

soli

hay

flat

3. 0

52

0.30

1.00

0.50

0.30

0.40

18

kelly

2

woa

soli

hay

humm

2.7

44

0.50

0.80

0.40

0.40

0.40

24

sebas

3

era

soli

graz

conv

1.6

40

0.20

0.40

0. 60

0. 60

0.60

26

stone

2

cfa

hand

graz

flat

3. 0

22

0.40

0.20

0.30

0.30

0. 00

2.7 av.

Root Rot less than 30%

Record# AREA SUB SOIL IRRIG CULTR TOPO DENS EPICOR PRUN ROOT HEART PIPE

8

11

12

beret--

brown

brown

brown

-4-

7

11

rr

—woa

wgc

woa

fil

—wha

—hand
soli
soli

none

gpag- -

hay

hay

none

V. 11 -mra
n taxniu

humm

humm

conv

h'U'HUfi

-2. 0-

2.4

2.5

3.0

o c:

O-.-DD-
0.50
0. 00
0.60
n on

-0.00
1. 00
1.00

0. 00
A A A

0, 00
0.25
0. 00
0. 00

- 0,00-
0.50
0.36
0. 00

A A A

■Gr-OG—
0. 13
0.46

0. 00

A AA

1>J

_4

dott i

1

1

—gun—

—hay

t—i * ■ —/

o v_

_ a _ lxx

_an

_nn_

,.Q t 00

_ QQ

A

'j

_Vt a .

lid lx cl

nay -
- g r az -

A A a’ AA a'AA

--G. 00~~

A A A

--Gr-OO-

r> AA-

-2D

-Si-

A A-

_AA-

A AA

iralrSt-

mello

—zc—

-4—

—woa

—woa

—hand—gra-z-

-humm-

—Gi-GG-

-Gr-GG-

G-.-GG--

-CK-GG-

-O.GG

22

23

25

27

28
29

merce rr
br&ll rd
stone 1
stone 3
todd 1
todd 1

fil none none
wha none none
cfa Land graz
cfa hand graz
wha none none
woa none none

conv 3.0
conv 3.6
conv 3.5
flat 3.3
humm 3.0
flat 3.0

0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00
0.10 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.00

0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0.00 0.00

0.30 0.00 0.20 0.30 0.00

0.20 0.00 0.10 0.40 0.00

3.0 av.

B - 6

Sort for Topography = convex only

Record#

AREA

SOIL

DBH

IRRIG

CULTURE

TOPO

PIPE

1

Alpha

woa

30

. T.

graz

conv

. T.

2

Alpha

woa

30

. T.

graz

conv

. T.

3

Alpha

woa

30

. T.

graz

conv

. T.

12

Brown

wha

27

. T.

hay

conv

. T.

20

Brown

wha

50

. T.

hay

conv

. F.

22

Brown

wha

37

. T.

hay

conv

. T.

Note: there were not enough non-irrigated samples to justify
a sort for irrigation vs. non-irrigation

C - 3

SOIL SAMPLES

Samples were obtained using an 8” diameter power auger to make
initial excavation. Maximum depth = 6'.

SCS

#

Type

Location

Field Description

1

WhA

Brown

Topsoil = dark grey loam. Grey clay at 3*

2

Be A

Brown

Topsoil = sandy loam to 1.5*. Dark grey moist
Sand to 5*, sandy clay at 5’

3

Be A

Brown

Sandy clay loam first 1’ then very sandy
clay. Wet sand at 5.5’

4

Cf A

Brown

Topsoil = jumbled organics, clay loam

At 1.5 or 2’, black clay with no mottles

5

Cf A?

Channel

Black clay, more organics

6

WoA

Brown

Loam to 1.5’, sandy clay to 4’

7

Cf A

Brown

Heavy dark clay (several sample sites)

8

WgC

Brown

Topsoil = sandy loam, light grey

Grey clay at 2’

9

CrA

Sebastopol

Topsoil = sandy loam, color 10YR 3/2 moist
Change to greyish sand at 60”

3 samples taken - all the same. Does not
fit CrA description in manual

10

Cf A

Sebastopol

Black, dark clay - deep. 10YR 3/1 moist

11

Cf A

Sebastopol

Same at #10. Was mapped BcA. BeA boundary
is closer to channel.

12

Be A

Sebastopol

Topsoil = fine sandy loam, light grey dry

These descriptions are breif because the samples were compared to
SCS descriptions in the field and generally conformed to SCS
typing except as noted at sites # 9 and 11.

D

1

260 000 FFFT Mni