HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000.09.00 - CT Pipeline Monitoring Report Year 2City of Port Townsend
CT Pipeline
Monitoring Report
September 2000
Year 2
Prepared for:
City of Port Townsend
Waterman & Katz Building
l8l Quincy Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Prepared by:
Dixie Llewellin
Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc.
856 50tt'Sffeet
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
La Croix
181 Quincy Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Bob,
The second year monitoring for the CT Pipe-line is complete. The enclosed report assesses the
survival and condition of planted species.
I have spoken with the general contractors and the planting They have agreed to do
the replanting this fall. I have sent a copy ofthe plant replacement list,is included in this
report (Table 2. page 6). A planting date should be confirmed this I hope to be present
during all
The monitoring reveals a poor level of success in Wetlands A and B. As you know many of the
plants originally installed in 1998 did not even survive the first year. The planting contractor,
Matia Contractors, is responsible for their replacement. Since this was not honoied the first year,
both sites need to be replanted.
plantings since I would like to verify the placement
I have made a few sfianges in the original plant list.
0lympic Wetland Resources
of all plants. Please
I have included shore pines since
projects.
note that
we have had excellent survival rates on other restoration
A copy of the report has been submitted to Judy Surber.
Sincerely,
Llewellin
City of Port Townsend
CT Pipeline
Monitoring Report
September 2000
Year 2
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project History
1. 1.1 Wetland A
1.1.2 Wetland B
1.1.3 Planting and Maintenance of Wetland A and B2.0 Methodology
2.1 Project Goals and Objectives
2.2 Morutoring Methodology
2.2.1 Determining survival Rates of Trees, Shrubs, and Emergents
2.2.2 Documenting Wetland Changes With photographs
3.0 Monitoring Schedule
Table 1. Monitoring and Maintenance Schedule
4.0 Results and Discussion
4.1 Wetland A
4. 1.1 Mixed Upland Forest Survival
4.1.2 Scrub/Shrub Wetland Survival
4.1.3 Scrub/Shrub Upland Survival
4.1.4 Species To Be Replaced
4.1.5 Weedy Species
4.2 Wetland B
4.2.1 Mixed Upland Forest Survival
4.2.2 Scrub/Shrub Wetland Survival
4.2.3 Scrub/Shrub Upland Survival
4.2.4 Species To Be Replaced
4.2.5 Weedy Species
4.3 Recommendations For Replacements
Table 2. Replacement plants for Wetland A and B
4.4 Action Items for Wetland A and Wetland B
5.0 Summary
Table Of Contents Continued
Appendix
Figures
I. Location Map Wetland A and B
U. Wetland A Monitoring Zones and Photopoint Locations
m Wetland B Monitoring Area and Photopoint Locations
Monitoring Forms
IV. Wetland A Zones I and2
V. Wetland B
PhotopointsVI. Wetland APhotopoints l-3
VIL WetlandAPhotopoints4 & 5
VIIL Wetland B Photopoints | &2IX. Wetland B Photopoints 3 & 4
City of Port Townsend
CT Pipeline
Monitoring Report
September 2000
Year 2
{.0 lntroduction
The City of Port Townsend constructed a water supply pipeline.in 1998 in order to meet chlorine
contact time (CT) requirements for the domestic water supply. The new pipeline passes through
five wetlands. Due to loss and alteration of the wetlands, the sites have been mitigated and re-
vegetated into two areas of restoration will henceforth, referred to as Wetland A flIfL l6-01)
and Wetland B (WL I l-01 and 11-02).
This monitoring report summarizes the mitigation compliance in 2000 for revegetation,
maintenance, and monitoring for Wetland A and Wetland B using the methodology outlined in
City of Port Townsend CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Plan, January 1999, Olympic Wetland
Resources.
The goal of monitoring Wetlands A and B is to determine whether the performance standards
identified in the plan are met. Primary performance standards require survivorship of 80% or
more of all planted species after the five-year monitoring period. Another factor evaluated during
the monitoring process is overall plant cover, which includes all desirable volunteer species. A
project is considered successful if the plant cover consists of greater than 80% desirable species at
the end ofthe five years (2003).
1.1 Project History
1.1.1 Wetland A
Wetland A is located directly west of the commercial businesses (presently Seaport Fabric and
Peninsula Floor Coverings) at the intersection of Sims Way and the undeveloped section of
Howard Street. This wetland was impacted (filling of approximately 1,500 square feet of wetland
and 9,595 square feet permanent buffer loss) and altered (disturbance of approximately 14,500
square feet in the buffer) during the 1998 CT pipeline construction. A new wetland was created
on the site and the buffers were enhanced with trees and shrubs. The location of Wetland A is
shown in the Location Map included in the Appendix (Figure I).
Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Report page I
September 2000
The City has compensated for 1,500 square feet of filled wetland by the creation of 3,300 square
feet of wetland. Buffer averaging includes the enhancement of 12,922 square feet in exchange for
the 9,595 square feet of buffer impacted from construction. A l0-foot wide gravel pedestrian
path has been installed on the west side of wetland A.
1.1.2Wetland B
Wetland B is located near Rainier Street at the north end of the CT pipeline project. The location
of Wetland B is shown in the Location Map included in the Appendix (Figure I).
Wetland B was impacted by the CT pipeline construction with the temporary disturbance of 9,750
square feet of the buffer and permanent disturbance of 4,500 square feet of the buffer. Measures
to mitigate the impacts include enhancing approximately 6,700 square feet of the disturbed right
of way. Buffer areas now in pasture will be enhanced by re-vegetating with native species of trees
and shrubs. Bollards were installed at the end of Rainier, 186, and 20ft Streets to prevent
motorized access into the mitigation area.
1.1.3 Planting and Maintenance of Wetland A and B
The majority of plants were installed on December 14 and 15, 1998 by Matia Contractors of
Ferndale, WA. The remaining plants, which consisted of Douglas firs, cottonwoods, and salal
were installed January of 1999. Plants were grown at Westlake Nursery in Oregon and were
seasonally dormant at the time of planting. Many of the shrubs were bare-rooted. Planting
conditions during this time of year are not optimal; optimum planting months are October or
April. Live willow stakes (Pacific, Hookers, Scoulers) were also installed at this time.
The contactor is responsible for the survival of the planted species for one year after final
planting; this includes irigating and weeding all plants. If the plants do not survive the contractor
is responsible for replacing all dead specimens. The contractor visited the site in fall of 1999 but
did not replace any plants. As recorded in the 1999 monitoring much of the vegetation had below
normal survival rates (serviceberry llYo,IndianplumTYo, salmonberry 9%o, frrs 680/o, salal l7%).
2.0 Methodology
Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc. has been retained to collect the data and report on the
mitigation monitoring for the CT pipeline. Monitoring was completed on September 4,2000.
2.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The primary goal for this project is to compensate for unavoidable impacts from the construction
of the CT Pipeline. Wetland loss is to be compensated at a replacement ratio of 2:l and the
function and values of disturbed buffers are to be increased with native plantings. Environmental
objectives are to enhance the structural and biological diversity of the site and to further protect
the water quality of the wetland.
Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Report page2
September 2000
2.2 Monitoring Methodology
Monitoring methodology includes counting individual trees, shrubs, and emergents to determine
plant survivorship, habitat density, and general condition of planted species. Trees, shrubs, and
herbaceous plants were planted in well-defined plant communities and zones. Planting areas in
both Wetlands A and B are small enough in size that all individual plants were counted. Actual
survival percentages were calculated using two methods. The first method compared the numbers
of plants that were alive and healthy to the total numbers observed (dead or alive). The second
method compared numbers of plants observed against total numbers planted. These survival rates
are listed on the monitoring forms; totals are averaged as total percent survival for each plant
community. Monitoring forms for each of the plant communities are included in the Appendix
(Figure IV and V).
2.2.1 Determining Survival Rates of Trees, Shrubs, and Emergents
Wetland A has been divided into two zones (Zone I andZone 2) to facilitate documentation of
species. Quantitative data was gathered using the monitoring forms to determine the survival rate
of tree, shrub, and emergent species within the plant communities.
Information presented on monitoring forms includes plant names (common and scientific), type
(tree, shrub, herb), numbers planted, plant community (mixed upland forest, scrub/shrub wetland,
scrub/shrub upland), general condition of planted species (alive ,stressed, dead), and percent
survival of tree, shrub, and herbaceous species. Also reported is the presence and location of
non-native invasive species including Himalayan blackbenies, reed canarygrass, Scot's broom,
and Canadian thistle.
2.2.2 Documenting Wetland Changes With Photographs
Photographic monitoring provides an excellent method of documenting vegetative changes over
time. To this end, five permanent photopoints at Wetland A (two photopoints in Zone I and
three in Zone 2) and four photopoints in Wetland B have been established. Photopoint locations,
and the directions the photographs are taken, are indicated on the maps included in the Appendix
(Frgure II and III), Photographs from all photopoints are included in the Appendix (Figure VI,
vrl vrrr).
3.0 Monitoring Schedule
This report represents the second year of monitoring following plant installation in December
I998lJanuary 1999. Monitoring will continue for 5 years (until the year 2003). The Monitoring
and Maintenance Schedule is outlined in Table 1:
Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Report page 3
September 2000
Fall
I 998
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall
1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001
Spring Fall
2002 2002
Spring Fall
2003 2003Maintenance
l2l14&15lNone
None lNone
May- loct May-
NO
Planting
Maintenance
Irrigation *
Replace plants as needed
Monitoring
8t99 9/00
8199 9100
9199 9/00
Vegetation and Habitat
Photopoint
Annual Report
Table 1.and Maintenance Schedule
*Irrigation is only present in Wetland AZone 2 (May through October)
Success rates of plants in Wetland A, Zone I and Wetland B has been low due to the lack of
irrigation or maintenance. Wetland A" Zone 2 has a soaker hose that is active from May through
October (conversation with Bob LacrotD. In the created wetland regular water is present year-
round and successfully supports wetland species, both planted and species existing prior to site
alteration.
4.0 Results and Discussion
4.1 Wetland A
Wetland A has been divided into Zone I (southwest of Paula's Creek) and Zone 2 (the remainder
of the site). Numbers of individual plants specified for each zone in Wetland A are indicated on
the monitoring forms included in the Appendix (Figure IV).
4.1.1 Mixed Upland Forest Survival
The survival rate (comparing plants alive to plants observed) in the mixed upland forest was
moderate, at76yo. This indicates that more plants have died since the 1999 monitoring. Only
l1Yo of all plants planted in the mixed upland forest were living. Some species such as sword
ferns showed an increase over last years monitoring. In 1999 only 2 of the 119 ferns planted were
observed; this year 12 were seen. This could be due to small plants becoming established.
Ninebark, usually a hardy species, had only no survivors (78 planted).
4:1.2 Scrub/Shrub Wetland Survival
The overall survival rate within the scrub/shrub wetland (Zone 2) was fair, with a76Yo survival
rate for plants observed. Most aspen, chokecherries, and crabapples did not survive (observed
standing dead). Only 35% of all plants planted were observed. However, the live stake willows
along the retaining wall and along the wetland edge are very healthy and thriving. One pacific
willow had vigorous new growth, over I I feet tall.
Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Report page 4
September 2000
4.1.3 Scrub/Shrub Upland Survival
Findings reveal a very poor surviv al rate of all planted species on the slope directly below the
parking area, in Zone l. This is due to no irrigation or maintenance and the dominance of tall
grass that out-competes shrubs less than two feet in height. However, survival rate for upland
scrub/shrub was excellent for species observed (100%). Although all species observed were
living and healthy, only 23Yo of plants planted were located. Salmonberry and Indian plum both
had less than a 5olo survival rate.
4.1.4 Species To Be Replaced
Species to be replanted in Zone I are serviceberry, vine maple, oceanspray, shore pine and
Douglas' Fir. Species to be replanted inZone 2 include red-osier dogwood, twinberry, ninebark,
aspen, shore pine, and Douglas' fir. Cottonwoods should be planted in both zones near the
wetland edge as live stakes. Species to be replanted are listed in Table 2. Replacement Plants for
Wetlands A and B (Section 4.3).
4.1.5 Weedy Species
Weedy species identified on site include Himalayan blackberry and Canadian thistle. The City of
Port Townsend has removed all Scot's broom.
4.2 Wetland B
Wetland B has been revegetated along the access road to the water tower and adjacent corridor
roads, which consist of narrow strips surrounded by forests. Desirable native vegetation, which
grows nearby, is dense and is a great asset in re-vegetating the disturbed area. Presently, small
alders and salal far exceed the numbers of planted species. Numbers of individual plants specified
for Wetland B compared to individuals surviving are indicated on the monitoring forms included
in the Appendix (Figure V).
4.2.1 Mixed Upland Forest Survival
Survival rate for the mixed upland forest layer is 20o/o for plants planted. Several species were not
located during this year's monitoring (sword fern, nine bark, aspen, elderberry, and cottonwood).
Aspen and ninebark are usually easy to transplant; mortality is due to nonviable stock or lack of
any maintenance. Of the 10 Douglas firs planted only 4 were alive. Native populations of salal
are re-vegetating the site and will eventually fill in the impacted areas.
4.2.2 Scrub/Shrub Wetland Survival
There was 42o/o survival rate in this plant community; small hawthorns were present and healthy
but serviceberries did not survive
4.2.3 Scrub/Shrub Upland Survival
AII plants observed were healthy with a 67Yo suwlal rate. Snowberry is establishing itself and
the Indian plum was healthy. Hookers' willow, planted from live stakes, was present and healthy
Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Report page 5
September 2000
4.2.4 Species To Be RePlaced
Species to be replaced or replanted include ninebark, shore pine, aspen, and Douglas fir.
Cottonwoods should be planted in the southwest corner as live stakes. Species to be replaced are
listed in Table 2. Replacement Plants for Wetlands A and B, (Section 4.3).
4.2.5 WeedY SPecies
Weedy species identified on site include Himalayan blackberry and Canadian thistle. Scot's
broom was observed and is still very small and can be easily removed. Generally, grass from the
original seed mix is the dominant ground cover and weedy species are not a major problem at this
time.
4.3 Recommendations for Replacements
Recommendation includes planting more evergreens and lugerltaller plants in areas where the
weeds are aggressive. Shore pines have a very high success rate in other Port Townsend
restoration projects (San Juan Basin/Froggy Bottoms Restoration and Hendricks Street) and have
been incorporated into this revegetation project. Vine maples and ocean spray (over two feet in
height) also have also been added to replace salmonberry, crabapple, and elderberry. These
species will be appropriate for the dry section of Wetland A where the success rate has been
extremely poor. Container-grown nursery stock often has a better survival rate than bare rooted
plants. It is recommended that they be used when available.
Table 2. Replacement Plants for Wetlands A and B
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Form
Common Name Species Name
WLA
Type Zonel
WLA WLB
Zone2 Total # Size
**Vine maple Acer circinatum T l0 10 4-s',
Service-berry Amelanchier alnifolia S 8 8 3-4',
*Red-osier dogwood Cornus sericea S 24 24 3-4'
x*Ocean spray Holodiscus discolor S 25 25 3-4'
*Black twinberry Lonicera involucrata S 23 23 3-4'
*Ninebark Physocarpus capitatus S 35 4 39 3-4'
**Shore pine Pinus contorta T 4 10 6 20 4-5'
Cottonwood Populus balsamifera T l0 30 20 60 stakes
Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides T 9 4 13 4-s'.
Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menzesii T J 10 5 l8 4-5'
Total 240
*Larger plants than specified on original planting plan; therefore fewer plants than originally specified
** New plants added to plan, replacing species that are inappropriate (replacing crabapple, salmonberry, red elderberry)
Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Report page 6
September 2000
4.4 Action ltems For Wetland A and Wetland B
Weed/mow invasive weeds, especially around plants (fall)
Remove all Scot's broom (annually)
Replant species on replacement list Matia Contractors (fall 2000)
Irrigate regularly
1. Begin irrigation as soon as the dry season begins (May, June or early July)
2. Check plants to make sure they are getting enough water (August)
5.0 Summary
This report represents year two of the five year monitoring for the CT pipeline as required by the
City of Port Townsend Planning and Building Department. Performance standards are evaluated
after the five years and require survivorship of 80% or greater of all planted species with an
overall plant cover of80% or greater ofdesirable planted or volunteer species.
Findings after year one reveal a poor overall survival rate for Wetland A (24%). Wetland B has a
poor to moderate survival rate (43%) for plants planted. Recommendations and revisions to the
original plan include replacing species with larger specimens than designated in the original
planting plan and substituting some shrubs for evergreen and deciduous trees. Matia Contractor
is required to replace all plants that did not survive during the first year after initial planting. They
had agreed to replace dead material in the fall of 1999 but did not follow through. They have
agreed to do the replanting in the fall of 2000 (conversation with Mark Elias 9/00 and Matia
Contractors). Minimal replacement planting will need to be done in Wetland B, as desirable
native trees and shrubs are returning to the disturbed site from surrounding forests. Some plants
from the original plant list have been eliminated and replaced with plants that have proved
successful on other local restoration projects.
The "weed species" constitute far less than2}%o cover of plants present at both wetlands; this falls
within the performance standards. Most areas are covered by grass from the seed mix planted
after the construction was completed.
Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Report page 7
September 2000
City of Port TownsendCT PipelineLegend1ft/t'v t''''I Wet AreasN.gt flpeline/V 2loot contour'\.,'10 foot contouru4"y'Basin Boundary-".,' Critical Drainage Corridorgg Basin NumberJ__l Ownership parcelsAN1 inch = 400 feetItItHiIt,lIIIFt.,irt", C*ce-K+r)t,)I-ffi)JA t bll\,;(r\IFtquR rril
Figure II.
Wetland A Monitoring Zones
and
Photopoint Locations
Photopoint # 3Photopoint # 4
1dP
ffie7
Photopoint # 2
.#dhotopoint# I
,
'ta
o.
DET
NIS
tta
I
€t-{
I\.
PLAJ{
t".tu-o-
->
Photopoints
s
.o
Ee
..tt'
tfiAi/.:'
',8,,i'!,*| '/t: *J', "i if', iilt',.tfl
rt
0lympir xletlord Rerouner, lnc
856 50lh Jheel
Porl bwruend, IIA 98368
360 $5.6432
rirlc fl Pioeline
Wetlond A llonitoring'Zoner ond Pholopointr
ftolE
F'igure tr
lhed
hlc
tatembei 2000titv of Port lownrend, \llA
52'10 Kuhn
Pod lownrend, lllA 98368
fli6il:
hb r:
Wetland B Monitoring Area
Figure III.
and
Photopoint Locations
Monitoring Area
Photopoint
Photopoint # 3
as,
Photopoint # I
4
WETLA^ID B BI.JFFER MITIGATION..___
:: ;: ptAN
- >:j +:.. l'.2t .4i"
.lhotopoint# 2
:,
-'a -l:' -..
\_1
,tl;,l:i--wFfl utD A
-r'Ji..,!.-o20IEEE{lET
scA
-)
phoropoints
GFly€( FoAo
Olympir llellcd Rerourcer, lnc
856 50lh llreel
Porl lownrend, l{,l 9836S
360 385.6432
lills
CI Pipeline
Weflond B /rtoniforinj Areo ond Pholopoinh
ftolc Jhegl
Dqta
feplember 2000\t,A
0
flia[
Porl
l(uhn
llla 9836S
hil:
Figure IX.CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Mgaitoriqg 2000
Weiland B Photopoints 3 and 4 September 2000
': i.ii.' '.. ti;. .).J
Photopoint #3
Olympic llcllond Rerourcel lnc.
Photopoirrt#4 Figure IX.
Figure VII.CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Monitoring 2000
Wetland A Photopoints 4 and 5 September 2000
Photopont#4
Olympk llellond Relourcer, lnc
Photopoint #5
Figure VII.
Figure VIII.CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Monitoring 2000
Wet=land B Photopoints land2 September 2000
Photopoint #l
0lyrnpic [etlond Rerourcel lnt.
Photopoint#2
Figure VIII.
Figure VI.CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Monitoring 2000
Wetland A Photopoints 1-3 September 2000
Photopoint #1
Photopont#2
0lpnpic lletlond Retourq lnc.Photopolrnlt#3 Figure VI.
Figure IV. Wetland A ZONES # 1 and # 2CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Monitoring FormalEcCagff Co*-on Name Species NameMixed Und Forest12198r/991219812198U9912198TotalScrub/Shrub Wetland12t981219812198N/A12198t21981219812198t2198t2198** replace with larger plants than originaTotalEc)Edg6las{)c)q,q!oscoc{e)o\o\o\q)(aA<)q)qU):$fq)o3o>91cl1=-0)ol+hF]zoNltF]9ZxoFNDate: September 4. 20002520352082015185720Observer: D.Llewellin760 lSVoComments2l013t2029IJRed elderberrySSambucus racemosa2Douglas FirJTPseudotsuga menzesii10Sword Fern12HPolvstichum munitumNinebarkPhysocarpus capitatus00SSalalGaultheria shallon2SRed alderTAlnus rubraI2notwell to this site4%r00%2048deadmust bes2%57%l3t725willwell to sitet0%r00%t22119Noobserved0%N/A0778stressed2%r00%220119Alders thriving and spreading near large aldgl {qq{-2t%25%Jl3I4Western cedar, redTThuia plicata5Scouler's willowTSalix scoulerana20Pacific willow2015SSalix lucida var. lasrunaWestern crabapple2TPyrus fuscaChokecherryPrunus virgiana00SQuaking aspenTPopulus tremuloides20CottonwoodTPopulus balsamifera00Black twinberryt2SLonicera involucrata6Douglas hawthorn5SCrataegus douglasii2Red-osier dogwood15SCornus sericea5Some of thecedars are stressed63%7t%588live will stakes37%l00Yo205454live will stakes65%rc0%3s5454twoare25%100%228ot0%N/A0I8dead stickst8%20%221lNot present0o/oN/A0011Stressed from lack of water and grazing32%s5%l8l056Stressed from lack of water and64%58%7111lStressed from lack of water and grazing4s%100%202044planted760/0 35o/oFigure IV.
Figure IV. ContinuedWetland A ZONES # 1 and#Z12198t21981219812198r21981219812198TotalSurvival of sPecies observedSurvival of sPecies Planted(D6ta6lv)-oo\(l)()0€oql.U)soOalE(l)o)o3o:lto\6o\(uE6te{€orEIq)Q(nItc)o3d>9d= E AolltfrlzoNltH9ZxoFNCommentsCommon Name SPecies NameScrub/Shrub UIand3526aJl5l302zone#ris on the south side of wetland A and includes all the area south of the bioswale (Paulas creek)'zone#2is on the north side of wetland A and includes all the area north of the bioswale'List all invasive non nativesreedCanadianScotsseen on site withN/A Does not aPPIYTotalsl00oh 23Volocation:Figure IV.g40h24'hSnowberrySSymphoricarPgt !U!t35willowSalix hookerianaS26RubusSJWild clustered roseSRosa pisocarPa15ootka rose3SRosa nutkanal0Indian-plum0SOemleria0Service-berryAmelanchier alnifulia0S2923535l00o/o38%the stress of no water or maintenanceCan withstand462646100%s7%live stakes556J100%5%individuals seen105615t00%27%and wellwill1056t00%l323%areas and will become establishedon4l0JN/A0%otl822t00%tt%individualsthe retaining wallbeneathand Canadian thistle are growingblackberry
€()GIa6l0-oc\q)oaoGa-oo\eeNtta)tq)a!o:thio\Io\PrEEttrci9B.Eu)<:* :$hEI E Ea)aF!)6la(DdAF'igure V. Wetland B Date: September4.2000CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Monitoring FormCommon Name Species NameMixed Upland ForestTotalsScrub/Shrub WetlandSCrataegus douglasiiDouglas hawthornSAmelanchier alnifoliaServiceberryTotalsScrub/Shrub UplandObserver: D.Llewellin80Vo zOYol00%o 42ohComments12t98U99t2198t2/98N/At2/98t/9912198l2/98t2/98t2/9812t98t2/98SSymphoricarpos albusSnowberrySSalix hookerianaHookers willowSOemleria cerasiformisIndian-plum152t2Totals l00oh 67o*Substitiutions from original plan include: ninebark=currant, elderberry=Oregon grape, snowberry=ocean sprayList all invasive non natives: Himalayan blackberry, Canadian thistle, and Scot's broomN/A Does not applyTotals Survival rate of species observed 93ohSurvival of species planted 43o0644000042sSambucus racemosa*Red elderberryTPseudotsuga menzesiiDouglas FirTPopulus tremuloidesQuakine aspenTPopulus balsamiferaCottonwoodHPolystichum munitumSword FernSP hys o c ar pus c apit atus *NinebarkSGaultheria shallonSalalTAlnus rubraRed alderNot present0%N/A04l0Many large dead standing trees40v,40o/o4610All plants died0%N/A004Not present0%N/A005Not present0%N/A0I25Not present0o/oN/A0Il5Transplants did not survive wellr6%100%4625Many new saplings are sprouting from existing populationt00%rcO%22250Plants healthy83%100%566Not present0%N/A022Adapts well to dry sites100%t00%l5l515Plants healthy20%r00%21010Plants thriving80%rcO%1212l5Figure V.