Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001.09.00 - Wetland Revegatation Monitoring Report Year 4I I I I ,l I I Froggy Bottoms San Juan Retention Basin Wetland Revegetation Monitoring Report September 2001 Year 4 l "t J J J J J J Prepared for: City of Port Townsend Waterman &KatzBuilding 181 Quincy Street, 2"d Floor Port Townsend, WA 98368 Prepared by: Dixie Llewellin Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc. 856 50d'Street Port Townsend, WAn 98368 I I -l I I Froggy Bottoms San Juan Retention Basin Wetland Revegetation Monitoring Report September 2001 Year 4 Table of Contents I 0 Introduction 1.1 Project History 1.1.1 Volunteer 1.1.2 Maintenance and Irrigation 1.1.3 Hydrology 2.0 Methodology 2.1 Project Goals and Objectives Table l. [nstallatioq Maintenance, and Monitoring Schedule 2.2 Montoring Methods 2.2.I Determining Survival Rates of Trees, Shrubs, and Emergents 2.2.2 Documenting Wetland Changes With Photogrdphs 2.2.3 Performance Standards 3.0 Results and Discussion 3.1 Survivorship of Planted Species 3. 1. I Forested Survival 3.1.2 Scrub/Shrub Survival 3.1.3 Emergent Survival 3.1.4 Interpretive Area 3.2 Action [tems 3.2.1 Weedy Species 4.0 Summary Appendix I. Monitoring Zones and Photopoints II. Forested Monitoring Form III. Scrub/Shrub Monitoring Form IV. Emergent Monitoring Form V. Photopoints#1, #2, and #3 VI. Photopoints #4 and #5 VII. Photopoint #6 and Emergent Area VIII. Chronology 1997 through 2001 Figures \J Froggy Boffoms San Juan Retention Basin Wetland Revegetafion Monitoring Report September 2001 Year 4 1.0 Introduction This report documents the compliance to perfonnance standards established in the Froggy Bottoms, San Juan Retention Basin Wetland Revegetation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan, April 1998. It represents the revegetation-monitoring component of the project and summarizes the findings from the Wetland Revegetation Monitoring of this plan for 2001. Monitoring was conducted on August 14, 200r 1.1 Project History In lggT the City of Port Townsend constructed a stormwater retention pond from a 65,800 square foot Category III wetland called Froggy Bottoms. As part of the San Juan Street Tmprovement Project, stormwater was also directed towards this retention basin after passing through a settling pond. Additional street runofffrom Cedar Street and Pacific Avenue also enters the constructed stormwater pond through bio-filtration swales. 1.1.1 Volunteers Through extensive volunteer effort (over 600 hours) in 1998 and 1999 the site has been re-vegetated with native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species. [n an area that once consisted primarily of weedy species, over 200 trees, 400 shrubs, and 500 emergent/herbaceous plants were planted. In addition to diversifying plant species, habitat structures of downed logs and woody debris were added in 1998. 1.1.2 Maintenance and lrrigation Maintenance of the site was conducted by volunteers in 1997, 1998, and 1999. Major weed removal and heavy mowing could not be expected of volunteers but the planted species were maintained. Resources Renewal Inc., Quitcene WA, removed the majority of large weeds with weed eaters and mowers in July of 2000. Many shrubs and trees were completely covered with weedy vines and towering poison hemlock. City crews mowed the areas accessible to the large mower in August of 2001 A drip irrigation system was installed in June 1998 and was operated by timers. Volunteers watered the plants with hoses prior to the irrigation system. The irrigation system was not operated in 1999 or 2000 until mid to late August. During the 2001 season irrigation was not activated. A chronology of plantings, and maintenance of the site is included in the Appendix (Figure VIII). 1.1.3 Hydrology Site conditions have changed drastically over the 4-year monitoring period. The major change has been the lack of water in the ponded area. Photographs taken during monitoring in 1998 reveal a large pond covering the majority of Zone 5. The standing water was shallow but pond dimensions were I Olvmpic Wetla.ncl Resources. Inc. Septembcr 2001 $a1 .luan Retention Basin Wetland Revcsretation Monitoring Report Yeer -l approximately 100 X 100 feet. In August of 1999 the pond was smaller but standing water was still the major feature of the lower portions of the site. August 2000 standing water was reduced to a small area near the water gauge (north end of low area) but there was surface saturation. This year the site is completely dry and the valley floor is baked and cracked. The well-established wetland tolerant vegetation is stressed and dying and weedy species are spreading This is due to natural conditions. 2.0 Methodology 2.1 Project Goals and Objectives One of the primary goals of the Froggy Bottoms Revegetation Project is to use native plants to create a diverse habitat, which over time will encourage additional use by wildlife. Native vegetation was selected, g"i"g priority to species that benefit wildlife and can withstand local climatic conditions. Long-range goals include enhancing open space and utilizing biofiltration as a creative solution to stormwater problems. A gravel trail to the interpretative sign has been built to facilitate human interaction with the site. A number of informal dirt foot trails traverse the site, especially around the perimeter of the pond, due to its proximity to Blue Heron Middle school and residential neighborhoods. These informal trails do not have any detrimental effects on the plantings. The project has been done using a phased installation process as indicate$ in the maintenance and monitoring schedule outlined in Table l. Table 1. Installation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Schedule Installation & Maintenance + Mowing by contract to Resource Renewal in 2000, city crews 2001 **Irrigation ended 200 I 2 Olvmpic Wetland Resourccs. lnc San Juan Retention Basin Wetland Revegetation Monitoring Report Year -l Fall Sprittg FaIl Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spnng 1998 1999 1999 2000 200 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 0 Planting (Phase I, II, m) Maintenance* lrrigation ** Replace plants as needed t0/97 71018/00 8/00 none opt.opt. l 0/98 1 0/98 6/98 6/98 4/99 8/99 1/99 Fall Fall 200 20034 Fall 1997 Spnng I 998 3/98.-rl98. 6'98 Momtonng 8/99 8/00 8/0t1 0/98 3/99 9/98 I 0/98 9199 8/00 8rc1 10/98 9199 9/00 9i0 1 Vegetation and Habitat Hydrology Water Quality Photopoint Annual Report i..ll[l September 2001 2.2 Monitoring Methods The site was divided into 5 zones, each having distinct plant communities. Wooden stakes were installed to define the boundaries of each zone. Water meters, the staffgauge, and other permanent landmarks further define Zone boundaries. A map of the location of the monitoring Zones is included in the Appendix (Figure I). 2.2.1 Determining Survival Rates of Trees,, Shrubs, and Emergents Monitoring data sheets were used to determine plant survivorship and to record conditions of planted trees, shrubs, and emergents. These data sheets are included in the Appendix (Figures II, III and IV). The site is divided into 5 different zones and individual plants were counted and compared with the numbers originally planted. Since all trees were planted in specific zones and were of significant size, counting individual trees was possible. Shrubs were somewhat more difficult to locate due to their smaller size. The majority of emergents were planted in or near the pond rnZone 5. Mortality and health of individuals was also evaluated and discussed on the aforementioned data sheets. 2.2.2 Documenting Wetland Changes With Photographs Photographic monitoring provides a visual record of the restoration efficrt and is an excellent way to qualitatively document plant community changes. Six permanent photopoints were established in 1998 An additional photopoint was added in 1999 to document the establishment of vegetation in the emergent zone. Amap showing the photopoint locations and direction photographs were taken is included in the Appendix (Figure I). Photopoint photographs are included in the Appendix (Figures V, W, and VII). 2.2.3 Performance Standards The revegetation monitoring goal is to determine whether the performance standards identified on the Froggy Bottoms Wetland Revegetation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan" April 1998 are met. Performance standards require that the site be dominated by a cover of 85% "desirable species" with less than 1504 weed species 3 years after final planting. The final planting was in the spring of 1999; therefore, performance standards are set for the year 2002. Survivorship of tree and shrub species is expected to be 80% or greater after 5 years (2004). 3.0 Results and Discussion Dixie Llewellin of Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc has been retained to collect data for this monitoring project. Fieldwork was conducted on August 14, 2001. Vegetation was planted and weeded rn 1997 and 1998 by volunteers. The entire site has only been mowed once (Resource Renewal, Inc 2000) The dominant vegetation cover, especially in locations were the soil was disturbed, is a well-established weed population that is spreading. Weedy species far exceed the performance standard for this project (Zone 1 along Cedar, Zone 2 along San Juan and upland hillside). A portion of the site, where native soils were retained, is dominated by a healthy grass cover and planted trees and shrubs (Zone l, near aspen, Zone 3 grassy field with evergreens, and along eastern edge ofpond). 3 Olrrnpic Wetland Resourccs. hrc. San Juan Retention Basin Wetland Revegetation Monitonng Report Year -l September 2001 3.1 Survivorship of Planted Species Survival rates were calculated by comparing live plants counted dunng the survey to the total numbers planted. Monitoring forms for each of the plant communities are included in the Appendix (Figure II, III, and IV) 3.1.1 Forested Survival The survival rate for trees is moderate (78%). Several individuals, especially the deciduous trees (mountain ash, maples, serviceberry) are stressed due to the dry condition. Douglas firs in the upland area of Zone 2 were stressed because they were completely buried in weeds. Most trees did not survive along San Juan due to weed competition and lack of irrigation. The cedars planted along Cedar Street are healthy. Along the pond perimeter, Pacific willow seedlings (which were present in 1998) are very numerous but also show signs of stress from lack of water. Aspen and cottonwood, which u7s1g frnnsplanted from the airport population in 1997, are green and hardy. All the evergreen species (shore pine, cedar, Sitka spruce, and fir,) are thriving and healthy. In the area of the interpretive sign, the Garry oak is struggling due to weed competition but appears healthy. 3. 1.2 Scrub/Shrub Survival The survival rate is 35o/o for shrubs when comparing the number counted to the number planted. Shrub survival varies throughout the site according to soil types and maintenance. Heavy clay soils were brought to the surface during the pond construction and few planted species have ever survived in the northeast corner (along Cedar Street). Shrubs planted along San Juan have also had a very poor survival rate due to soil conditions, lack of maintenance, and the dominance of large weedy species. 3.1.3 Emergent Survival In the pond (Zone 5) and along the water's edge the emergent vegetation is suffering from drought conditions. Survival rate is strll95o/o for this plant community but may fall drastically if the area remains dry. Populations of bulrush have spread throughout the pond but will not survive without some water. Planted emergents (hardstem rush, sedges, American bulrush and willows) in addition to volunteer wetland species (Pacific willow, cattails, spikerush (2 species), and foxtail) meet the required performance standards of over 8570 cover by desirable species. 3. 1.4 Interpretive Area The interpretive area (Zone 4) accessed via a gravel trail from Pacific Avenue has had little maintenance and consists of invasive populations of poison hemlock and curly dock. The shore pines and ninebark were completely buried under weeds and are stressed. The Garry oaks are green and healthy and with minimal weeding will someday become large trees. At the end of the gravel path the City installed an interpretative sign under a kiosk explaining the value of the City of Port Townsend Stormwater project. 4 Ol-v.'mpic Wetlarid Resources- lnc. San Juan Retention Basin Wetland Revegetation Monitonng Report Year 4 September 2001 3.2 Action ltems Weed/mow invasive weeds (spring/fall) l. Zone 7 and 2 along San Juan Avenue (curly dock and hemlock) 2. Interpretive area (curly dock and hemiock) 3. Along Cedar Street (Scot's broom) Remove all Scot's broom (annually) observed along Cedar Street Remove all reed canarygrass (annually) betweenZone2 andZone3 Remove blackberries l.Continue to mow southeast corner of Zone 3 (mowed by Resource Renewal2000 and city crew 2001) 2.Other locations where blackberries are growing (near old fence line and near old buildings) 3.2.1 Weedy Species Weed invasion is a major problem in areas where soils were altered during construction. Prior to the project large populations of hemlock already existed around the old buildings near San Juan Avenue. The disturbed soils offered fertile ground and populations have spread rapidly. Weedy species throughout the site include tansy ragwort, Senecio iacobaea, Canadian thistle, Cirsium arvense, poison hemloclg Conium maculatum, Himalayan blackberry, Rubus discolor and curly dock, Rumex crispus. Scot's broonr, Cytisus scoparuis, and reed canarygrass " Phalaris arundinaceo, extremely invasive weeds, were located in a few locations and should be removed. The city contracted the cuning and removal of weeds in the problem areas last year and a large patch of Himalayan blackberry was removed using chain saws. Scot's broom and tansy ragwort were hand cut or pulled and thistle and poison hemlock were mowed. This work improved the overall appearance of the site. This year the city road crew mowed accessible areas but much of the site still requires hand cutting with a weed-eater In the area adjacent to San Juan Avenue and throughout the interpretive zone the non-native weeds (curly dock and poison hemlock) are the dominant cover. Experienced staff should do weed removal. This should be done on a bi-annual basis after the trees and shrubs have been hand weeded so smaller shrubs are not cut and the base of trees not damaged. 4.0 Summary Baseline monitoring for four years reveals a moderate success rate for trees (78Yo), a poor success rate for shrubs (35oA), and a good success rate for emergents (100%). Trees and shrubs that did not survive through the first year were replanted in 1999 with larger stoch and appear to be healthy. Within the emergent zone, vegetation is spreading and exceeds perficrmance standards but is showing signs of stress from lack of hydrology. This is the first year since 1997 that standing water or surface saturation was not observed during the August monitoring. When comparing photopoints from monitoring in 1998 this is the most drastic change. Aggressive weeds existed on site prior to the project and populations are continuing to spread. Compliance with performance standards for this revegetation project is to be evaluated three years after the final planting (2002). However, this progress report shows a declining survival rate in all zones and 5 Olvmpic Wetland Resources. hc. Szm Juan Retention Basin Wetland Revegetation Monitoring Report Year 4 September 2001 I I I I vegetation layers for species planted. This is due to increasing weed population and natural drought conditions in the ponded area. The ground cover in Zone I (along Cedar Street), Zone 2 (near San Juan Avenue), and in the interpretive area is dominated by greater than 50%;o undesirable "weed species". The goal of perficrmance standards after 3 years is to have less than l\Yo"weed species". Continued maintenance and weeding of the site will help the project meet the compliance standards by the year 2002. Replacement of planted species that did not survive should only be done if a maintenance plan can be followed. 6 Olympic Wetland Resources- Inc. San Juan Retention Basin Wetland Revegetation Monitoring Report Year -l I l J .J J i Ll September 2001 Figures Appendix Monitoring Zones and PhotoPoints Forested Monitoring Form Scrub/Shrub Monitoring Form IV. Emergent Monitoring Form V. Photopoints #1, #2, and#3 \/I. Photopoint s #4 and #5 VII. Photopoint #6 andEmergent Area Vm. Chronolo gy 1997 through 2001 I. II. ru. L..- r _- L.*- t _ (, _ |II _._j 't 'tFigure V.froggy Bottomr Photopoinh #1, #2, & #3 Augurl 2001Photopoint #2 Eorl View, Iettling PondPhotopoint #l forl fiew from Goroge$rnpkktlcdlerons,lncPholopoint #3 North Sew, Wotar freter #5Figure V. I Figure Vl. froggy Boltomr Pholopoinh #4 snd #5 Augurl 2001 Photoooint #4 Uetl View Bibfiltrolion lwole I.l I ,J I .J I IJ I Pholoooinl # 5 Xbd tar lnlerprelive Areo 0lynryir Utllond krurer, lm. Figure Vl. Figure Vllfroggy Bottomr Photopoinl #6 And [mergent AresAug'urt 2001Pholopoint #6 South View Woter ileter #l0lympic Yellond Reiourcer. lnc[mergenl AreoFigure Vll Figure VIII. Froggy Bottoms Chronotogy 1997 October ll Planted grass seed, red fescue, hairgrass, bentgrass, clover, vetch, and lupine October 22 Planted emergent 75 Carexobnupta, 40 C stipata, T5 water parsley, 40 Scirpus acutus, 150 S. microcarpos, 40 Juncus balticus 40 J. ensifolius, 75 Cornus stolonifera, 40 Salix sitichensis October 23 Planted Regreen october 30 Planted annual wildflowers (Flanders poppy, scarlet flug wallflower) November I Transplanted 35 aspen from ort 1998 March 7 April 11 May 6 llay 12 June l0 June 12 June 15 June 16 August August 31 October 31 November 13 November 20 Planted l0 Cedars, 15 Nootka Rose, 15 Hawthorn, 40 Twinberry 30 Ninebark, 25 Red-osier dogwood, 15 salmonberry, 15 Spirea, 15 oalq l0 Spruce, l0 Hazelnut, 10 oceanspray, 10 Indian plum, 20 Snowberry, l0 Serviceberryr, 20 ilderberry,I Manzantta Watered and weeded Watered and weeded Irrigation and water tap installed 4 Shore Pines, 1 Firs, 3 Maples, 8 Currents, 13 Spirea, 15 salmonberry In pots at capillary beds not planted . . .6 pine, 2 Douglas firs, 12 current, 3 maples, 5 salmonberry,2 spirea Salvaged plants from CT pipeline to site+l6 Douglas fus, I Buffalo berry, survival rate verylow due to time of year for transplant and large size of trees Irrigation faucets working Watering begins every other week Vegetation monitoring Volunteer planting Volunteers planted 300 hardstem bulrush, 50 slough sedge. Volunteers planted 50 slough sedge, 200 small fruited bulrush, 150 baltic rush 1999 April 17 1l oregon ash, 12 Shore pines, 1 Douglas Fir, 6 Mountain ash, 5 Sitka alders, 20 Snowbush, 43 Red-osier dogwood, 13 Hazelnut, 8 Hawthorns, l9 Ocean-spray, 9 Western crabapple, 5 Wax myrtle, 10 Indian-plum,24 Pacific ninebark, 20 Nootka.or., s Elderberry, 9Hardhack,24 Snowberry Volunteers weeded tbroughout 1999 2000 Minimal mamtenance on site, irrigation system used after August 2000. Site mowed and large blackberypatchcut by Resource Renewal in July 2000 200t No clty mowers cut some edge vegetation and cut blackberry patch, drought conditions on site 0lympic Wetland Resources Dixie Llewellin, Pilncipal 850 50* Street Pofi Townsend, WA 98368 360 385-6432 dllewell@olympus,net September 4,2001 Judy Serber 181 Quincy Street Port Townsend, lVA 98368 Dear Judy, The fourth year monitoring for the Froggy Bottoms (San Juan Retention Basin) Wetland Revegetation Project is complete. The enclosed report assesses the survival and condition of planted species, which were installed over several years by volunteers (over 520 volunteer hours). In summary, the monitoring reveals a moderate to poor level of success of trees, shrubs, and emergent species (75%,35o/o, and l\Oyo respectively) In some locations vegetation is adapting to the site and is out-competing weeds. However, in other locations weedy species exceed the l5Yo cover allowed for this project. Weeding has been minimal since 1999 when the volunteers were involved and many trees were completely covered in weeds. ln selected locations weeds were mowed (by Resource Renewal Inc.) during August 2000. This made a major difference in the health of the planted species as well as the appearance of the site. This year city crews mowed the edges with the street mower but weed eaters still need to be used along San Juan and Cedar Streets. I highly recommend weeding twice ayear for the health of the planted trees and shrubs and to improve the appearance of the site. Growth in the emergent zone has been excellent in the past but this year due to the drought vegetation is stressed. The survival of these water-loving plants will depend on increased rainfall to survive. When comparing the photopclints from previous monitorings the absence of ponded water is the major change at Froggy Bottoms. I would like to schedule a meeting, after you review this report, and discuss compliance of performance standard by the city for this project. Thank you for your continued awareness and concerns for the Froggy Bottoms project. Sincerely Dixie Llewellin N['r,,'\, ),r-r c lQo"ntn gr KAA 41-Darz.sX Maintenance and inigation Drip inigation was installed during the month of June 1999 but was not activated until August 20,1999. The spring maintenance included weeding parties that attempted to eliminate the poison hemlock. X Monitor vegetation and photo-point Field work for monitoring and photo-documentation of the vegetation was complete August I 1, 1999, X Monitor hydrology Hydrology was monitored March 1999 through May 1999. Phase IV (continued 2000 to 2004) Replace dead or dying plant material (through 2000) Maintenance and inigation (through 2004 as per original plan, April 1998) Monitor vegetation and photo-point monitoring Monitor hydrology The project has been done using a phased installation process as indicated in the maintenance and monitoring schedule outlined in Table 1. Table L. Installation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Schedule Installation & Maintenance *Maintenance and irrigation, May through late September 2.1.2 Other Hubitat Enhancement Activities Woody debris has been introduced to the site. A log approximately 2.5 feet in diameter and 35 feet in length was donated by a Port Ludlow resident and moved to the site and installed using a boom truck. I It was transported in three sections and later spiked together. Several other loads of woody Olympic Wetland Resources, [nc. .San Juan Retention Basin Wetland Year 2 Fall t997 Sprine 1998 Fdl 1998 Spring Fall t999 1999 Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Fall 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2Q02 2003 2003 2004 Planting (Phase I, tr, m)t0/97 Ut97 10/98 4/99688 6/98 4/99 {.6/98 8/99 optional opt. plants as needed l0/98 Monitoring Vegetation and Habitat Hydrology Water Quality Photopoint Annual Report l0/98 8199 3/99 9/98 t0/98 9t99 10/98 9t99 Revegetation Report September 1999 Figure IV. Emergent Cover Common Name Wetland Habitat 97 /98 Slough sedge ('urex obnupttt 97 Sawbeak sedge Carex stipata 97 Tapered rush .luncus acuntinulul; 97 Baltic rr"rsh ,luncus bullicus 98 Water-parsley Oenunthe sarmenllsa 97198 Hardstem bulrush Scirpu,v ac'ulu,s 91/98 Small-fruited bulrush Sc irpu:; nticroc urpus Total Froggy Bottoms Vegetation Monitoring Form Observer: D.Llewellin, Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc. Date: August 14,2001 otq) o)€ €!l t a s N tr ro c)tq) u) It Nq o l- 6)a o :+h a\o\o\ c)too)E + €55i : t!t) (t) l,:sh lt q)aaoLa q) tr cn q) cl Species Name d6lc)Comments .) 95V" Surival rate high due to spreading populations. Wetland dependant plants in the emergent zone are all suffering due to the lack of hydrology Native s ecies, that wcre not the site X X X X X X X 60 0 0 0 60 1000/f,Dry 30 0 0 0 0 0% 30 0 10 50 50 1670h Drv 50 0 0 0 0 0% 30 I 0 0 0 IVo 50 50 85 >200 200 400Y"Dry 100 0 0 0 0 IYo Scirpu,s americunus99American bulrush Tvphq lutifolicr99Cattail E I c oc ha r i:; pa I u.r I r i s99Creeping spikerush Water foxtail Al ope curus ge nic ul a lus99 P otentil lcr pulus I r i,;2000 Marsh cinquefoil 60 60 Drv 0 10 20 100 Drv 20 60 >500 s00 Dry >500 500 Drv >100 500 Drv Figure IV. Figure II. Forested Planted Common Name Wetland Habitats Froggy Bottoms Vegetation Monitoring Form Species Name Observer: D.Llewellin, Olympic Wetland Resourceso Inc. Date: August l4r 200l Comments l5 l5 ll 1l ll 73%Healtlty o (l c! L 0 N o {)0 lt N o Lq)a! + o\o\o\ c) q)o oIt ao\o\ tr d)to.t + I!gv>o2oaEd>gjcq- = l.'t a) tl tq) N -N?Oooq) oooNNN U Habitats Prairie Grassland 4llll98 Garry oak Quercus gurcyenl I Totals: Average survival rate of species planted 78" I I t4 9 l0 J 17 5 18 50 ll ll 10131199 Big-leaf maple Acer mucrophyllunt I 317198 Ilawthorn OrqtqeRus clouglutsii l4 4n7199 Oregon ash Fruxinus luti/bliu 4111198 Sitka spruce Picea silchensis 10 6n2198 Shore pine Pinus conlorlct yur. conlorlct 4 3 10131199 Cottonwood Populus halsumif'cru I 2 2 n lv97 Quaking aspen Populus trentuloide:;l8 4lt1l98 Pacific willow Sulix lucida vur. lulsiandrcr 150 50 100 317198 Western cedar, red Thuia pliccrtct 9 1 J N/A J J I 33%Healthy but grazed by deer l5 l3 l5 l5 14 93%Healthy, end of dry season 9 N/A 9 9 9 t00%Healthy and green l0 10 l0 l0 10 100%Tips dying on some trees tl 4 l7 16 t7 100%Extremely healthy and vigorous 5 N/A 5 5 5 l00Yo Healthy 22 22 l8 l7 18 82%Creen, healthy and well established 50 100 300 300 50 100%Death of small trees due to drorrght l5 l0 il 10 l1 73%Healthy Amelanchier alni/bliaService-berry411t 198 9 lPseudolsuga menzesiiDouglas Fir6lt2l98 Sorbus scopulinaMountain ash4ll7l99 I 11 6 J l0 6 I I I t0%Stressed 20 6 6 6 ll 55%Covered by weeds but healtlrY 6 N/A 6 6 6 100%Vely dry Figure II. Figure I ftoggy Bollomr, ton lg.on.Ratenlion Borin, Wallond Revegelolion ttloniloring Reporl Yeor 4 /rtoriil6ring Zonar ond Pholopoinh Augud 2001 r a I I_t I _t v o0SERVATlottAREA I ()vE Rtr ova (wooov X*'"u,,l' I Pollt) ff#5 l ,lt UAIIR,v tE?ARS ,1 5NusrlF,., ) )t'tr IJAP.II IIA-I IVE 5Al FLsjBgg&y ( [0tAtl / 5\41OK!l-f,FKflffi !UI\R,r\,^!:nt . s--(i- 1' CI Pholopo inl #lrd> CEQA8. ;Et OF RnERRYA5EEE. e#4 FE *JP x RF _llAdzaxlTA U3 sE t inl #5 nl #4 .g6ir; *Eo-eE €d 5I .q =jLJ Ttl.l ?T sIrT (a Twc=J*ca-f 4 c- sf hYlc€ QERKj xJ-E&- c €6Hs€i63 -r*o- = tEnE-06S HE} v <F99E "Fsa NNFB, (HEIIILY *'htsh.ej'e"' 0lJt0 fi r00 150 flonilonnq Zonar lone #l Ar pa-n/ lwi nberry lone #2 Sdruca/ Pi nelCu rronl Zone #3 tllillow/Dogwood/tldarberry lone #4 0ok/0brarvolion Arao lone #5 [mergenl ond Pond Photopointr #l [olt'View trom Gorooc #2 Eo.c Viaw. Sclllino P6nd #3 North View, \rlofeifiol er #5 #4 Warl Viaw, Biofillrolion Swole #5 \tlarl Viaw, lnlerorativa Arao #6 South Viaw, \rlofbr rtleler #l [mcrgcnf Arao Figure I Figure III. Scrub-Shrub Cover Plnnted Common Name Wetland Habitats l l 1 J Froggy Bottoms Vegetation Monitoring Form Species Name Observer: D.Llewellin, Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc. Date: August 14,2001 Commcnts E6) tr a d t as €O\eFo\o\o€,o\o\ec.t-l Fl N FltrtrECl 4€'t5dE.)9996tiEr ., 6)eZAda6rl)EE,&Eo o o o+:$h+:th:fr 6Cq,) c)OoI a tt)I N ?a OF N N c)HoN q) E N 24 24 17 28 25 l5 I t0 l5 l0 U land Habitats 4111198 Red-osier dogwood Ciornu,v ,sericect 317198 Black twinberry Ltnicera inwtlucrolct 4ln l98 Pacific ninebark P h 1ts o g 6n' rt t,s c ct p i I ctl t r :; 317198 Nootka rose Roscr ttulkunct 411l198 Salmonberry Ruhus speclubilis 4llll98 Hooker willow Sqlix hookeriancr 4ll1l98 Hardhack Spiroeo duglcrsii 65 l8 24 24 24 37Yo Planls appear to be dying due to drougltt 40 24 l5 l5 17 43%Established 30 22 28 28 28 93%Stressed due to drought l5 1 5 10 l5 100%Plants established and spreading 25 17 20 20 4%Does not colnpete well with weeds 30 l0 l0 l0 l0 33%Healthy 30 21 30 30 l5 50%Planls stressed due to lack of water Acer circittctlunt6lt2l98Vine maple Alnus ,silchensis4117199Sika alders (-.eanothus velatinus4lt7lgeSnowbush Ciorylus corruta4111198Hazelnut Hoktdiscus di,scoktr4lt1legOcean-spray Oem ler i o cerasi form i,s4lt1legIndian-plum Ribes sonquineunt6112198Red-flowering currant Samhtctts rctcentosct411ve\Elderberry SheperrJiu canadensis7l1sl98Buffalo berry Symphoricurpos qlhus411vegSnowberry I -t 2 0 7 2 4 7 4 I I 1s l5 3 9 6 4 7%Drought stressed 5 0 5 I 2 40%Healthy l0 0 l0 aJ 0 0%Did not survive since last year, Ioo weedy 20 7 7 l1 7 3s%Stressed by drought 20 1 6 aJ 2 10%Plants ltealthy 20 I I J 4 20%Plants healthy and out cotnpeting grasses 20 8 8 7 7 35%Planls healthy and not effected by drougltt 28 0 5 2 4 14%Two plants cut to ground bul still alive 3 I 1 2 I 33%Stressed by drought 35 9 l0 l5 t5 43%Dry but still healtlty Totals: Average survival rate of species planted 35'h, Figure III.