Site Assessment and Restoration Planning

1. Site Assessment and Restoration Planning April 25, 2019

2. Site Assessment and Restoration Planning • Agenda • GSP existing data collection • Site specific data collection • Restoration planning • Target System comparisons • Introduction to Rapid Assessment protocols • Protocol Overview • Site characteristics • Vegetation data • Restoration priorities

3. GSP Data Collection • Work Logs & Volunteer Logs • Collected by Contractors & Volunteers through CEDAR • Give us an idea of program activities • Forest Monitoring • Collected by Forest Monitoring Team • In-depth sampling shows ecological outcomes • Precise info on a few areas • Inventory & Phase Mapping • Collected by professionals • Provide an idea of conditions & initial outcomes • General info on many areas

5. Forest Monitoring Program • Baseline Data: First year data collection, before restoration has begun. • Plot Information • Plot Characteristics • Vegetation Inventory • Tree Inventory • Monitoring Data: Return every 5 years or after significant change has occurred (Invasive removal/planting).

6. 74.5 feet 37.25 feet Plot Setup and Monitoring Methods • Permanent circular plots 1/10 acre in size • Collect site information, vegetation cover, and tree density data • Used to track changes and trends in the structure and composition of forested parklands over time on a city-wide scale.

8. Restoration Process

9. Restoration Process • Identify a site in need of restoration • Assess the site and need for action • Identify goals and objectives • Design and implement treatments • Monitor and evaluate success and progress • Implement adaptive management (Bradshaw 1997, Jackson et al. 1995, Keane and Arno 2001)

10. Restoration Plans Site Level Assessments and Restoration Plans • Site Description • Current Site Conditions • Restoration Project Strategies • Invasive Species Management and Control • Native Plant Installation

11. Restoration Design Plan Current Site Conditions • Use GSP Reference Map and Data • Refer to your site assessment results for • Site characteristics (soil, canopy cover, woody debris) • Current vegetation inventory • Rapid Assessment results

12. Restoration Design Plan Restoration Strategies • Site access • Ecological restoration • Invasive species list and BMPs • Target Forest Type (TFT) general description • Native plant installation list • Rapid Assessment results

13. Restoration Design Plan Native Plant Installation – guided by Rapid Assessment results

14. Target Systems Reference Ecosystems • Determine the Target System designated for your Zone • Review the Target Forest Types associated with your system and determine which ones have been recommended for your Zone • Use the GSP Reference Map!

15. Field Practicum

16. Target Systems

19. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPecoreports

20. Target Systems

21. Target Systems

22. Target Systems https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPecologicalsys

23. Target Systems

24. Target Systems

25. Target Systems Reference Ecosystems • Valuable tool for understanding the general site conditions associated with your reference system including: • Typical vegetation • Ecological processes • Distribution throughout WA • Associated Forest Types

26. Target Systems Vegetation: Overstory canopy is dominated by Pseudotsugamenziesii, Tsugaheterophylla, and/or Thujaplicata. Abiesgrandisoften can be codominant. Acer macrophyllumand Alnusrubra(the latter primarily where there has been historical logging disturbance) are commonly found as canopy or subcanopycodominants, especially at lower elevations. In a natural landscape, small patches can be dominated by these same broadleaf trees for several decades after a severe fire. Late seral stands typically have an abundance of large coniferous trees, a multi-layered canopy structure, large snags, and many large logs on the ground. Early seral stands typically have smaller trees, single-storied canopies, and may be dominated by conifers, broadleaf trees, or both. Young stands may lack Tsugaheterophyllaor Thujaplicata, especially in the Puget Lowland. Tsugaheterophyllais generally the dominant regenerating tree species. Polystichummunitum(over 40% cover), Oxalis oregana, Rubusspectabilis, and Oplopanaxhorridustypify the poor to well-developed understory layers. Gaultheria shallon, Mahonia nervosa, Rhododendron macrophyllum, and Vacciniumovatumare often present but are generally not as abundant as the aforementioned indicators. Acer circinatumis a very common codominant as a tall shrub. Mosses are often a major ground cover. Lichens are abundant in the canopy of old stands.

27. Target Systems Vegetation: Overstory canopy is dominated by Pseudotsugamenziesii, Tsugaheterophylla, and/or Thujaplicata. Abiesgrandisoften can be codominant. Acer macrophyllumand Alnusrubra(the latter primarily where there has been historical logging disturbance) are commonly found as canopy or subcanopycodominants, especially at lower elevations. In a natural landscape, small patches can be dominated by these same broadleaf trees for several decades after a severe fire. Late seral stands typically have an abundance of large coniferous trees, a multi-layered canopy structure, large snags, and many large logs on the ground. Early seral stands typically have smaller trees, single-storied canopies, and may be dominated by conifers, broadleaf trees, or both. Young stands may lack Tsugaheterophyllaor Thujaplicata, especially in the Puget Lowland. Tsugaheterophyllais generally the dominant regenerating tree species. Polystichummunitum(over 40% cover), Oxalis oregana, Rubusspectabilis, and Oplopanaxhorridustypify the poor to well-developed understory layers. Gaultheria shallon, Mahonia nervosa, Rhododendron macrophyllum, and Vacciniumovatumare often present but are generally not as abundant as the aforementioned indicators. Acer circinatumis a very common codominant as a tall shrub. Mosses are often a major ground cover. Lichens are abundant in the canopy of old stands.

28. Target Systems

29. Target Systems

30. Plot Monitoring Vs. Site Assessment Plot Monitoring • Focuses on a single area (or series of areas) within your site • Collects in-depth quantitative vegetation data • Intended to monitor and detect change (at a given level of precision) over time

31. Plot Monitoring Vs. Site Assessment Site Assessments • Provides an overview of the site characteristics of the entire assessment area • Uses standardized data collection protocols to conduct a qualitative visual assessment of the area • Intended to provide specific information regarding the existing structure and composition of your site in order to determine restoration priorities • While this approach does not necessarily provide precise data measurements, it is designed to be repeatable and can be used to track progress over the course of restoration

33. Rapid Assessment Protocols • Designed as a tool to collect and organize site characteristics, vegetation information, and restoration priorities • Using a standard protocol helps to collect consistent data across your site and can be compared at different scales – and to other GSP data sets • Can be useful in creating both initial and long-term management strategies and work plans

34. Rapid Assessment Protocols General site characteristics: • Slope/aspect • Soil type, moisture, compaction, etc. • Litter depth and areas of bare ground • Snag density and Coarse Woody Debris • Habitat Type

35. Rapid Assessment Protocols Vegetation Data: Trees Overstory Canopy Cover - The total percent of overstory tree (DBH*>5”) canopy cover present in the management unit is estimated visually. The following categories are used: 0%, 0-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, >75%.

36. Rapid Assessment Protocols Vegetation Data: Tree Density - The relative densities of overstory (>5 inches DBH*) and regenerating trees (<5 inches DBH) are estimated. The approximate stems per acre and spacing are used to determine tree density according to the table below. Tree density is recorded as none, low, medium, or high.

37. Rapid Assessment Protocols Vegetation Data: Dominance - Dominance refers to the species of greatest prevalence/biomass and has the most influence on the plant community. Indicate dominance by assigning a number between 1 and 3 to each species noted above, with 1 being most dominant. Species sharing a value of 1 are co-dominant. A value of 2 refers to a prevalent but not dominant species, and a 3 is considered least prevalent. List all dominant or noteworthy trees, shrubs, or herbaceous plants for each category.

38. Rapid Assessment Protocols Vegetation Data: Shrub Cover - The area covered by native and invasive shrub species is visually estimated and expressed as a percentage of the total area and recorded in the following categories: 0%, 0-5%, 6-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, >76%. Low-growing woody shrubs, such as salal or low Oregon-grape, are generally included in this category.

39. Rapid Assessment Protocols Vegetation Data: Herbaceous Cover - For the purpose of this assessment, the herbaceous layer includes herbaceous plants, graminoids (grasses, rushes, and sedges), trailing and liana species, and ferns. The percentage cover of native and invasive species in the herbaceous layer is visually estimated and recorded as 0%, 0-5%, 6-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, >76%.

40. Rapid Assessment Protocols Vegetation Data:

41. Rapid Assessment Protocols • Collect data independently for each area of “contiguous habitat” or specific restoration area on your site (you may need to further divide your GSP Management Zones) • The less structural and/or topographical diversity there is within your designated assessment area, the more accurate your data collection and follow up monitoring may be • Make sure to separate wetlands or riparian areas into their own assessment areas

42. Photo Monitoring • Establish photo point locations and mark for easy relocation • At least one photo point is recommended for each Assessment Area 2011 2013 Sandpoint Head North Slope, Warren G. Magnuson Park

43. Kincaid Ravine Natural Area

44. Other Planting Considerations • Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

45. Other Planting Considerations • Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

46. Green Seattle Partnership Thank You! April 25, 2019