HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001.09.00 - CT Pipeline Monitoring Report Year 3City of Port Townsend
CT Pipeline
IVlonitoring Report
September 2001
Year 3
Prepared for
City ofPort Townsend
l8l Quincy Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Prepared by
Dixie Llewellin
Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc.
856 50th Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
t
I
1
I
City of Port Townsend
CT Pipeline
Monitoring Report
September 2001
Year 3
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 B
Table 1. Plants Received and Planted November 7,2000
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Project Goals and Objectives
2.2 Monttoring Methodolory
2.2.1 Determining Survival Rates of Trees, Shrubs, and Emergents
2.2.2 Doclmenting Wetland Changes With Photographs
3.0 Monitoring Schedule
Table 2. Monitoring and Maintenance Schedule
4.0 Results and Discussron
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 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 Weedy Species
4.3 Recommendations For Replacements
4.4 Action [tems for Wetland A and Wetland B
t
I
i-l
I
I
l
rl
U
5.0 Summary
I
I Table Of Contents Continued
Appendix
lguresF
I. Location Map Wetland A and B
tr. Wetland A Monitoring Zones and Photopoint Locations
III Wetland B Monitoring Area and Photopoint Locations
Monitoring Forms
IV. Wetland A Zones I and 2
V. Wetland B
Photopoints
VI. Wetland A Photopoints 1-g
VII. WetlandAPhotopoints4 & 5
VItr. Wetland B Photopoints | &,2
IX. WetlandB Photopoints3 &4
J
I
1J
City of Port Townsend
CT Pipeline
Monitoring Report
September 2001
Year 3
1.0 lntroduction
The City of Port Townsend constructed a water supply pipeline in 1998 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. The initial mitigation plan, Citv Of Port Townsend Wetland Plan CT Pipeline Project
Macrow, CH2Mhill, April 1998) required the revegetation of two areas, henceforth referred to as
Wetland A (WL 16-01) and Wetland B (WL 11-01 and Il-02) in this report.
This monitoring report summarizes the mitigation compliance in 2001 for revegetation,
maintenance, and monitoring for Wetland A and Wetland B using the methodology outlined in
Citv of Port Townsend CT Pipeline Wetland Miti-eation Plan (Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc
January 1999).
The goal of monitoring Wetlands A and B is to determine whether the performance standards
identified in the plan have been 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 than80%o
desirable species at the end of the five years (2003). This report evaluates conditions during year
three ofthe project.
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 (fill-g 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
Oh'rnpic Wetland Resources- Inc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Report Page I
September 2001
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).
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 72,922 square feet in exchange for
the 9,595 square feet of buffer impacted from construction. A 1O-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, 18ft, 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. Remaining plants from the original list, 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, and 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 irrigating and weeding all plants. If the plants do not survive the contractor
is responsible for replacing all dead specimens. Records show that maintenance was never done.
The City Of Port Townsend Water Department watered only one area of Wetland A. The fall
monitoring of 1999 recorded survival rates well below the required percentage (serviceberry
llYo, Indian plum 7Yo, salmonberry 9oh, frrs 68%o, salal l7%).
Wetland \ Zone 2 which has been irrigated in the past was not irrigated in 2001 (conversation
with Bob Lacroix). In the created wetland, regular water is present year-round and wetland
species, (both planted and species existing prior to the site alteration) are successfully supported.
Olvmpic Wetland Resources. Inc.
CT Pipeline Wetiand Mitigation Report Page 2
September 2001
Matia Contractors returned on Novemb er 7, 2000 and replaced dead and dying plants. Table I
presents a list of plants replaced at that time
Table 1. CT Pipeline Vegetation Received and Planted November 7,,2000
Common Name Name
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 July 18, 2001.
2.1 Project Goals and Obiecfives
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'.1and 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 quahty of the wetland by upgrading the buffers.
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 by comparing numbers of plants observed against total
numbers planted. This number has been adjusted if survival of an individual plant has not been
Olympic Wetland Resources. Inc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigatron Report
6to1)
oclJUNN
r)iJ:_..)?JJJ-=& F = >
10 22AcercircinatuntVinemaple
8 88AmelanchieralnifoliaServiceberry
56 5656Cornu.ssericeado
25 2525HolodiscusdiscolorOceanspray
ZJ ZJz3LonicerainvolucrataBlacktwinberry
35 3l 314PhvsocarpuscapitatusNinebark
t7 J 11aJ20PinuscontortaShorepine
50106060PopulusbalsamiferaCottonwood
941313Populastremuloides
J 551813PseudotsugamenzesiiDouelasFir
Page 3
September 2001
I
1 present for two years. For example cottonwood has never survived even though live stakes have
been installed twice, therefore cottonwood is not included in the total survival rates.
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 (Figures IV and V).
2.2.1 Determining Survival Rates of Trees, Shrubs, and Emergents
Wetland A has been divided into two zones (Zone I and Zone 2) to facilitate documentation of
species. Quantitative data were 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 rate. Also reported is the presence and location of non-native invasive species including
Himalayan blackberries, 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 (fwo photopoints in Zone I and
three in Zone 2) and four photopoints in Wetland B have been established. Photopoint locations
and photographs are included in the Appendix (Figures II, IIL VI, VIL MII, and IX).
3.0 Monitoring Schedule
This report represents the third year of monitoring following plant installation in December 19981
January 1999 and November 2000 Monitoring will continue for 5 years (until the year 2003).
The Monitoring and Maintenance Schedule is outlined in Table 1:
Table 2. Monito and Maintenance Schedule
Olympic Wetland Resources- Inc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Report
Fall
1 998
Spring Fall
1999 1999
Spring Fall Sp.iog
2000 2000 2001
Fall
2001
Spring Fall
2002 2002
Spring Fall
20032003Maintenance
I 1/812l1a&15lNone
None None
NoneMay-Oct May-None None
NO Yes
Planting
Maintenance
Irrigation
Replace plants as needed
Morutoring
9/0071018199
9/0071078199
9/009l019/99
Vegetation and Habitat
Photopoint
Annual Report
ffif;ififi._ffi.#$f;
Page 4
September 2001
4.0 Results and Discussion
Total success rates of plants introduced to Wetland A (Zone I and Zone 2) has increased from
24Yo to 77o/o, d:ue to the planting in November 2000. Success rates have aiso increased in
Wetland B from 43Yo rn2000 to 77Yo n 200I. The higher percent rate also reflects removing
species, which never survived the first year from the calculations. Monitoring forms for Wetland
A and B are included in the Appendix (Figure IV and Figure V).
4.1 Wetland A
4.'1.1 Mixed Upland Forest Survival
The survival rate in the mixed upland forest (Zone I and2) was good, at 84yo. Some native
populations, including red alder and salal, are spreading. Ninebark, planted in 2000, is very
healthy and adapting to the naturally wet areas in the lowJying regions. The shore pines and
Douglas firs are hardy even though several trees blew over and had to be staked in January 2001
Sword fern has a very low survival rate,2o/o; and replanting is not recommended.
4.1.2 Scrub/Shrub Wetland Survival
The overall survival rate within the scrub/shrub wetland (Zone 2) was moderate, at 74o/o. Aspen
planted in 2000 was present but had been heavily grazed by deer. Chokecherries and cottonwood
were not present and have not survived the initial planting. The willows, planted as live stakes,
have had a very good success rate in the wet areas bordering the standing water, trees are from 5
to 10 feet tall. Pruning and removing willows along the retaining wall has impacted the success at
this location. Red cedars and ocean spray had l00o success rate to date.
4.1.3 Scrub/Shrub Upland Survival
Findings reveal a low to moderate survival rate of 50oh of species in the Scrub/Shrub Upland
plant community, even after the replanting in 2000. Conditions on the exposed hillside directly
below the parking area of Wetland A (Zone 1) are harsh and dry when there is no maintenance or
watering done. Even native shrubs cannot be expected to survive without minimal weeding and
watering after planting. Over 50 salmonberry and 40 Indian plums were planted and there are no
survivors. Individual snowberry plants are present but they appeared stressed due to lack of
water. The dominant species at this location is grass (planted fescue and tufted hairgrass) and the
slope is stabilized. Amongst the grasses, the planted shore pines and firs are surviving. Even
though the survival rate of planted species is less than 800%, the site meets performance standards
as over 80% of the plant cover is desirable.
4.1.4 Weedy Species
Weedy species identified on site include Himalayan blackberry, Canadian thistle, and Scot's
broom. Weedy species represent less than 10olo cover; this is in compliance with performance
standards and project goals.
Ol1'mpic Wetland Resources. Inc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Report Page 5
September 2001
4,2 Wetland B
Wetland B has been re-vegetated 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.
4.2.1 Mixed UPland Forest Survival
Survival rate for the mixed upland forest layer is 94Yo for plants planted. Additional Douglas fir
was planted in 2000 and most trees were dead or stressed. Native popuiations of alder are filling
in open areas and salal is spreading to the dry locations. The 25 sword fern, 5 cottonwood and l0
elderberry planted did not survive. Three of the twelve ninebark survived in the wet area and
were thriving. Aspen planted in November 2000 were all healthy.
4.2.2 Scrub/Shrub Wetland Survival
There was 830% survival rate in this plant community; hawthorns and serviceberry were both
present but stressed by the drought conditions.
4.2.3 Scrub/Shrub UPland Survival
All plants observed were healthy, with a 52Yo survival rate. Snowberry is becoming established
and the Indian plum was healthy. Only one Hookers' willow was observed this year although l0
were planted.
4.2.4 Weedy SPecies
Weedy species identified include Himalayan blackberry, Canadian thistle, and Scot's broom.
Scot's broom should be removed since the dry roadway is a prime habitat for this invasive weed.
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 Recom men dations for Replacem ents
Pre-construction edge vegetation (including alders, thimbleberry, and salal) is spreading to
disturbed areas in both Wetland A and Wetland B. Replacement planting in either wetland is not
recommended unless a maintenance and watering plan will be followed. The plant communities
that have had the lowest success rate are the upland shrub (Wetland A: 50o/o and Wetland B
52%). Even though appropriate upland natives are chosen for these sites they still need minimal
water and care for the first two or three years to survive.
4.4 Action ltems For Wetland A and Wetland B
Weed/mow invasive weeds, especially around plants (fa11)
Remove all Scot's broom (annually)
Re-evaluate goals and re-vegetation plan according to current success rates
Determine whether current vegetation cover is adequate or more plants should be included
Olympic Wetland Resources. Inc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mrtigation Report Page 6
September 2001
I
5.0 Summary
This report represents year three 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 80o/o or greater of all planted species with an
overall plant cover of 80% or greater of desirable planted or volunteer species.
Goals for this re-vegetation project should be re-evaluated. In some locations, trees are healthy
yet the shrub layer is not surviving. Findings after year three reveal a moderate overall survival
rate for Wetland A(77%). Wetland B has a moderate survival rate (77Yo) for plants planted after
the replacement planting in November of 2000. These rates have been calculated by averaging
each habitat type and then eliminating species that did not survive the original planting or have not
been present for two years. Results are less favorable in reviewing numbers of individuals planted
for both restoration sites. In Wetland d 353of thel063 individuals planted were observed alive
and of the 146 plants planted in Wetland B, only 69 were observed alive. Many of these plants
were stressed due to lack of maintenance or water.
The "weed species" constitute far less Ihan l\Yo aerial cover at either restoration site and conform
to performance standards. Both Scot's broom and Himalayan blackberry should be eliminated
not just cut) since they can overcome planted species. Most areas are dominated by grass from
the original seed mix spread after the initial project construction.
Olrupic Wetland Resources. Inc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Report Page 7
September 2001
Figures
Appendix
I Location MaP Wetland A and B
II wetland A Monitoring zones and Photopoint Locations
III Wetland B Monitoring Area and Photopoint Locations
Monitoring Forms
IV WetlandAZones I and2
V Wetland B
Photopoinas
VI Wetland A PhotoPoints 1-3
VII WetlandAPhotoPoints 4 &5
VIII Wetland B PhotoPoints 1 &2
IX WetlandB PhotoPoints 3 &4
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
Figure VL
Photopoint #1
Photopont#2
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Monitoring ?001
Wetland A Photopoints 1-3 July L7, 2001
I
l
l
l
I
J
I
IJ
0lynpit lletlond krourter, lnc
Photopont#3
Figure VI.
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
Figure VII.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Monitoring 2001
Wetldnd A Photopoints 4 and 5 July L7,2001
t
I
Photopointl*4
I
ilJ
IJ
0lyak Ycllond flelourcu, lnc
Photopoint#5
Figure VII.
Figure VIII.
Photopoint#I
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation-Monitoring 200 1
Weiland B Photopoints land 2 July 17,200L
0lympic ltdlond Ranurco, lnc'
Photopokrt#2
Figure VIII.
I
I
I
I
t
I
l
l
t
it
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation
WetGnd B PhotoPoints 3 and 4200tFigureDL
July 17,1
I
Photopoint#3
I
I
l
J
J
I
J
j
IJ
I
J
0lynpic kllurd lenurer, lnc
Photopontl#r
Figure IX.
Photopoint # 4
Figure II.
Wetland A Monitoring Zones
and
Photopoint Locations
Photopoint # 3
Photopoint # 2
qtFr
I
r4a
4
E at
fL &tJ ..-
6 fgcx
NffS /)3awrcr'a-
I
I
DET
NrS
o
t!
PLAN
Ti#otopoint# I
Photopoints
Fo
e
litle
flPipelinerL
leilond A iloniloring'Zoner ond Photopoin| * Figure tr'
t€phmber 2001
hb #:
rEle Jhel
tliml:
Porl lJa 98358
t ./;'
1. :.
Porl bvnueril, llA 98368
360 38t6432
0lympr c lletlcd Rerouno,
856 $lh Sheet
titv o{ Po* Ioumrend, lllA
52.10 Kuhn
Figure III.
Wetland B Monitoring Area
and
Photopoint Locations
Monitoring Area
Photopoint
Photopoint # 3
I
gos€ED
UPBED
Photopoint # I
4
sRJA/gRLrA
PteTrryGS
WETLAND B 4JFFER MITIGATION
PLAN
t'.29
hotopoint # 2
GAVEL ROAD
5{vac6 PLSTS d -"mSrRrcTtOlJ ZONE-
WEIJAIID,E
qC^
lt!'
r]l
020EXgiit
Photopoints
NEw OR Silvlcgo
FTR TRE:E.S
i;esIt-
CIympit liletlril Rerourer, lnc
856 50lh lheel
Porl hwnrmd, llA 98368
360 385.6432
Iille
fi Pioeline
Wellond B ilonilorinj Areo ond Pholopointr
htembcr Z00l
lla
98368
ccls
FigureOola
tligl]r o{Iownlen IlA
hb *..0 l(uhn
Porl