HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272884(9) NOVEMBER 2000
MONITORING REPORT
YEAR #2
HOUSER WAY RELOCATION
PROJECT
WETLAND MITIGATION
RENTON, WASHINGTON
r /
ma
A D o L F S ® N
Prepared for.-
City of Renton
Public Works Department
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
Prepared by:
Adolfson Associates, Inc.
5309 Shilshole Ave. NW, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98107
' Houser Way Second Year Annual Monitoring Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' At the request of the City of Renton, Adolfson Associates, Inc. (Adolfson) has conducted
wetland monitoring at the Houser Way Relocation Project site. This report summarizes the
results of the 2000 (Second Year) monitoring visits. The Houser Way Relocation Project is
located at the toe of the steeply sloping, wooded western embankment of Interstate 405 (I-405)
in the City of Renton, Washington (Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 5 East). It extends
from North 81h Street south to Sunset Boulevard and lies between I-405 and the Burlington
Northern Railroad line (Figure 1).
One wetland, comprising 0.98 acre, was identified on the project site within and adjacent to a
drainage channel (Figure 2). Impacts resulting from construction of this project included fill of
the open drainage channel and excavation of the wetland adjacent to the drainage channel.
Mitigation for this project was accomplished in several ways. A grass-lined swale/ditch
approximately 1,600 feet long was constructed on the west side of the roadway to convey both
on-site flows and the regional flows entering the site. These flows are conveyed to a wetpond
constructed on the east side of the North 8' Street/Houser Way intersection. Additional flood
storage is provided in a created wetland adjacent to the wetpond on the north side that receives
' overflows from the wetpond during severe storm events. The wetpond discharges at Houser
Way and North 8`h Street to the existing storm drain system.
' Wetland and wildlife habitat is provided by creation of approximately 11,340 square feet of
palustrine wetland in a former upland area at the intersection of North 8`' Street and Houser
' Way. Additional habitat is also provided for in the wetpond area which was planted with
native trees and shrubs.
' Ten vegetation monitoring plots were established during the first monitoring visit (Figure 2).
The year 2000 data shows that native emergent species account for 34 percent of the aerial
cover in the monitoring plots. The success criteria for this project call for 80 percent emergent
cover by the third year. This the data may not be an accurate representation of the actual
native emergent cover in the wetland portion of the mitigation area (see explanation on page
5).
' Aerial cover of native shrubs was estimated at 46 percent, which is above the 30 percent
required success criteria for the second year shrub cover. Aerial cover of native trees, as
' measured in the data plots, is approximately one percent, which is well below the 20 percent
cover required by the success criteria. All of the trees that were planted in the mitigation area
are healthy and have grown quite a bit since they were planted. However, none of these trees
' happen to fall within the limits of the permanent monitoring plots, therefore the data shows less
tree cover than is actually present on the site.
' Himalayan blackberry and Scot's broom are encroaching on the mitigation plantings and
should be removed by hand before the next monitoring season.
Adolfson Associates,Inc.12/04/00 Page i
Project#98154 MP
' Houser Way Second Year Annual Monitoring Report
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i
PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF WORK............................................................1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................I
' Mitigation.............................................................................................................................I
Mitigation Goals and Success..............................................................................................2
MONITORINGMETHODS ...........................................................................................................2
Bi-Annual Monitoring Visits...............................................................................................2
Vegetation Monitoring......................................................................3
Wildlife........................................................................................3
Photo-Monitoring and General Observations...........................................3
MONITORING CALENDAR.........................................................................................................4
PROJECTSETUP ...........................................................................................................................4
' FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................4
Vegetation............................................................................................................................4
Emerge
' nts.....................................................................................4
Shrubs
Shrubs .5
Trees...........................................................................................5
Wildlife .........................................................................................................5
RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................5
PROJECT SUCCESS ......................................................................................................................5
' LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................7
FIGURES.........................................................................................................................................8
' APPENDIX A: MONITORING DATA.....................................................................................A-1
APPENDIX B: PHOTOS ............................................................................................................B-1
r
Adolfson Associates,Inc.12/04/00 Page ii
Project 498154 MP
r
' Houser Way Second Year Annual Monitoring Report
PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF WORK
' At the request of the City of Renton, Adolfson Associates, Inc. (Adolfson) has conducted
wetland monitoring at the Houser Way Relocation Project site. In accordance with the
' requirements of the Wetland Mitigation Concepts Report, Houser Way Relocation Project,
Renton, Washington (Adolfson Associates, Inc., 1994) bi-annual monitoring visits will be
conducted for a period of 3 years. This report summarizes the results of the second year
' monitoring visits conducted in 2000.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Houser Way Relocation Project is located at the toe of the steeply sloping, wooded
' western embankment of Interstate 405 (I-405) in the City of Renton, Washington (Section 8,
Township 23 North, Range 5 East). It extends from North 81" Street south to Sunset Boulevard
and lies between t I-405 and the Burlington Northern Railroad line (Figure 1).
' Within the project area, a vegetated drainage channel is located at the bottom of the steep slope
of the western embankment of I-405. The channel conveys surface and storm water flows
' north approximately 1,600 feet north along the toe of the embankment to a 42-inch concrete
storm drain along North 8' Street. The flows then travel 900 feet west in this system to a 72-
inch concrete storm drain along Garden Avenue North to Park Avenue North. At the south
' side of Park Avenue North, the flows join other storm flows and are conveyed through Gene
Coulon Park in a low gradient, open channel known as Johns Creek. This creek ultimately
discharges to Lake Washington.
' One wetland, comprising 0.98 acre, was identified on the project site within and adjacent to the
drainage channel (Figure 2). Impacts resulting from construction of this project included fill of
' the open drainage channel and excavation of the wetland adjacent to the drainage channel.
Mitigation
' Mitigation for this project was accomplished in several ways. A grass-lined swale/ditch
g P P Y
' approximately 1,600 feet long was constructed on the west side of the roadway to convey both
on-site flows and the regional flows entering the site. These flows are conveyed to a wetpond
constructed on the east side of the North 8`' Street/Houser Way intersection.
' Additional flood storage is provided in a created wetland adjacent to the wetpond on the north
side which receives overflows from the wetpond during severe storm events. The wetpond
' discharges at Houser Way and North 8`' Street to the existing storm drain system.
Wetland and wildlife habitat is provided by creation of approximately 11,340 square feet of
' palustrine wetland in a former upland area at the intersection of North 8`'' Street and Houser
Way. Additional habitat is also provided for in the wetpond area. The created wetland area is
Adolfson Associates,Inc.12/04/00 Page 1
Project#98154 MP
S
' Houser Way Second Year Annual Monitoring Report
' intended to contain a mosaic of habitat types, including emergent vegetation, shrubs and trees.
Shrubs and trees are planted along the margins of the wetland and the wetpond to provide
' shade and moderate water temperature.
Due to limited space within the project area, the full 25-foot required buffer for the wetland
was not available. However, the wetland will still be effectively buffered from intrusion and
' disturbance through buffer plantings such as hawthorn, currant and rose.
Mitigation Goals and Success
The goals of this mitigation project, as described in the Wetland Mitigation Concepts Report,
' Houser Way Relocation Project (Adolfson 1994) are to compensate for lost area and functions
of the wetland that was impacted during construction in 1997 and 1998. The mitigation area is
intended to provide flood storage/desynchronization, water quality improvement, and wildlife
' habitat.
The success of this mitigation project is based upon:
' • 80 percent cover of emergent species after three years; and
' • At least 20 percent cover of shrub species after the first year, 30 percent after the second
year, and 45 percent after the third year; and
' • At least 10 percent cover of tree species after the first year, 20 percent after the second
year, and 45 percent after the third year; and
• 95 percent plant survival rate after the first year, as guaranteed by the landscaping
contractor. After the first year, a maximum of 20 percent mortality will be allowed.
' Any plant species with a 30 percent or greater mortality rate after two growing seasons will be
replaced with either the same or a more appropriate approved species. Replacements made by
a landscaper will be subject to the same conditions and will meet the same survival standards
' as specified for the original planting.
' MONITORING METHODS
The following describes the standard methods used to monitor the success of the wetland
mitigation project.
Bi-Annual Monitoring Visits
' Two monitoring site visits will be conducted each year for a period of three years. During the
first of these bi-annual site visits, vegetation monitoring plots as well as photo monitoring
points were established. During each of the bi-annual site visits, vegetation, water and soil
conditions in the mitigation area are assessed.
' Adolfson Associates,Inc.12/04/00 Page 2
Project#98154 MP
' Houser Way Second Year Annual Monitoring Report
Vegetation Monitoring
An installed species count was conducted only in the first year of monitoring. After the first
year, permanent vegetation monitoring plots are used to measure plant growth and changes in
species composition over the three-year monitoring period. A baseline is established along the
' edge of the mitigation project area and transects are established across the wetlands and/or
buffers to include all vegetation communities. Permanent plots measuring 10 feet in diameter
are established along the transects and marked with permanent stakes.
Vegetation is assessed in terms of percent cover. Percent cover is estimated for each species
' within each of the permanent vegetation monitoring plots. Three vegetation layers (canopy,
shrub and ground cover/submerged) may be present at a given location, and each may
constitute up to 100 percent cover; therefore, the cumulative percent cover of the combined
layers may exceed 100 percent.
Grasses were identified to species to the extent possible. Unidentified grass species are
1 recorded as a separate mixed native and non-native grasses category. Both native and non-
native grasses provide ground cover for the site, reducing erosion and impeding run-off rates.
Average Percent Cover of native species and non-native species and for mixed grasses are
calculated for the monitoring plots within each wetland or buffer mitigation area. These
numbers are compared with the success criteria to determine the progress of the mitigation
' project.
Wildlife
Wildlife species which are readily observable will be identified and recorded during each
monitoring visit. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations
' include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. The kinds and locations of the
habitat with greatest use by each species will be noted, as will any breeding or nesting
' activities.
Photo-Monitoring and General Observations
Ground-level photographs are taken from the established photo monitoring points during each
site visit and will become part of the project's permanent monitoring record (Appendix B).
' General descriptive assessments of the development and status of the mitigation project are also
recorded for each site visit.
' Adolfson Associates,Inc.12/04/00 Page 3
Project#98154 MP
' Houser Way Second Year Annual Monitoring Report
MONITORING CALENDAR
' Table 1. Performance Monitoring
Year 1 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall
7/1/99 10/26/99 4/20/00 10/31/00 tbd tbd
PROJECT SETUP
' Ten vegetation monitoring plots were established during the first monitoring visit (Figure 2).
Half of the plots are located in the wetland area and half are located in the wetland buffer.
Results of the assessment of the ten permanent plots are presented in Appendix A, Tables A1-
A3.
' Five photo points were also established to document the vegetation in the permanent plots and
the buffer plantings (Figure 2). Photos are presented in Appendix B at the end of this report.
' FINDINGS
' Vegetation
The vegetation findings are discussed in terms of Percent Cover. Table 1 shows the average
' percent cover of native and non-native emergents, shrubs and trees, as measured in the
monitoring plots. The average percent cover of each species was calculated based on the
percent cover estimates shown in the tables in Appendix A.
Table 2. Average Total Percent Cover and Native Cover, Year 2
Vegetation Type Average 'ercent Native Average Percent Non-native`'
Cover Cover
Emergents 34 9
Shrubs 46 6
Trees 1 0
Emergents
The average native/installed emergent cover in the mitigation area is 34 percent. There are a
' variety of native rushes and sedges including softstem bullrush (Scirpus tabernaemontanii),
sawbeak sedge (Carex stipata), soft rush (Juncus effusus), slough sedge (Carex obnupta), and
Adolfson Associates,Inc.12/04/00 Page 4
Project#98154 MP
' Houser Way Second Year Annual Monitoring Report
tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa). Average cover of non-native emergents is 9 percent.
The non-natives are not prevalent in the mitigation area because much of the shrub planting
' area has been mulched with standard bark mulch.
Shrubs
The average native/installed shrub cover is 46 percent. The installed shrubs are large and
generally appear to be healthy. Non-native shrub cover is six percent and is comprised mainly
' of Himalayan blackberry and Scot's broom.
Trees
The average native/installed tree cover in the monitoring plots is one percent. However, all of
the installed trees are thriving and providing cover in the mitigation area. The monitoring plot
data does not accurately reflect the overall cover provided by native tree species.
Wildlife
No wildlife was observed during the site visit. The site visit was conducted during the middle
of the day, which may be the reason no wildlife was observed using the site.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Himalayan blackberry and Scot's broom are encroaching on the mitigation area and should be
removed by hand from the mitigation area before the next monitoring season.
' PROJECT SUCCESS
The goals of this mitigation project are to compensate for lost area and functions of the wetland
that was impacted during construction. The mitigation area is intended to provide flood
storage/desynchronization, water quality improvement, and wildlife habitat.
The year 2000 data shows that native emergent species account for 34 percent of the aerial
cover in the monitoring plots. The success criteria for this project call for 80 percent emergent
cover by the third year. Although the data shows that emergent cover falls short of this criteria
at this time, emergent species are prevalent in the lower, wetter areas of the mitigation area,
and there are a variety of emergent species providing good diversity on the site. Therefore,
the data may not be an accurate representation of the actual native emergent cover in the
wetland portion of the mitigation area.
Aerial cover of native shrubs was estimated at 46 percent, which is above the 30 percent
required success criteria for the second year shrub cover. Aerial cover of native trees, as
' measured in the data plots, is approximately one percent, which is well below the 20 percent
cover required by the success criteria. All of the trees that were planted in the mitigation area
Adolfson Associates,Inc.12/04/00 Page 5
Project#98154 MP
' Houser Way Second Year Annual Monitoring Report
' are healthy have grown quite a bit since they were planted. However, none of these trees
happen to fall within the limits of the permanent monitoring plots, therefore the data shows less
' tree cover than is actually present on the site.
' LIMITATIONS
It is recognized that determining the success of wetland mitigation plans is an inexact science
' as individuals will often disagree on the functional level or value of a mitigated wetland.
Typically, wetland mitigation success is "demonstrated" by achieving the success criteria
proposed in the mitigation plan. However, functionally valuable wetlands may be created,
restored, or enhanced that do not meet some or all of the success criteria outlined therein.
Likewise, wetlands may be created, restored, or enhanced that meet all approved success
criteria but are not functionally valuable. The final determination of wetland mitigation
' success is the responsibility of the City of Renton.
Within the limitations of schedule, budget, and scope-of-work, we warrant that this monitoring
' study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted wetland mitigation monitoring
practices. The results and conclusions of this report represent actual measurements as well as
the authors' best professional judgment. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
1
' Adolfson Associates,Inc.12/04/00 Page 6
Project#98154 MP
Houser Way Second Year Annual Monitoring Report
' REFERENCES
' Adolfson Associates, Inc. Summary of Resource Protection Issues, Houser Way Relocation
Project, Renton, Washington. June 1994.
' Adolfson Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Concepts Report, Houser Way Relocation
Project, Renton, Washington. April 1994.
' Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of
Washington Press, Seattle.
' Reed, P.B., Jr. 1997. Revision of the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands:
National Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 253 pages.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification
and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No.
96-94.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1994.. Wetlands Regulations Guidebook.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 88-5.
Adolfson Associates,Inc.12/04/00 Page 7
Project#98154 MP
' Houser Way Second Year Annual Monitoring Report
r
' FIGURES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' Adolfson Associates,Inc.12/04/00 Page 8
Project#98154 MP
J
c3
Q
ilr t+uIAYU
I L I--Z- —J L �J(-4"1 L) io
IULIVd v(�
1�, Lv"svnv�
r -f.
i W AY 311IY I UJ �
IIJ3d,3UY tJ NAY —
1 l rr��ll NR3daJTUY
�3alirrun � Chu Aia�iian. '0
-1
cj
ii7Av—v— IA5FVjA 0
� � N Ar t13d2lYO NAY .d f13UHYd �"
w�? FI AV NUYJ Ar RNYd N nY NllYd
ll W \\\ hY AIUJ ti A7 k11Jd
NY s 113'A
. 11l x
11 nv snl= �1--, nv sny IIM UL S--
1 l l l It AV IIVuu
l u l l K- LOW AY 5
o- t7l
m � �-- —�1� � o. � s AY 5�
. 11 � llll
d �
c z
rr rr r� rr r rlf r r �r r rr rr rr rr r rr rr rr rr
2Q1 202 203
PP2_ C9)SR •-, - )WP4
RASS "a HERB MI% SCt-VH ET 92
IOTRn+ <t+»(A <IP)RP «k(A P5 (S)AA
2 e.
1 3 5 DCD CD
S < CD CD CD CD
K
CDC SL SL C ° SL S AC K AC AC CD PS PS •,�
AC A A A K AC AC
TPK ,({ TP AC K t20)l_1 10 PS Y PS iv TP
4 <13>A!
TP AC (27)S AC TN TP TP TP TP TP AC
TP TP TP 6 T TH iH <16>SS TP T? TP
TP iP 7P
(17)YS TP TP (11X)C (4)SA Q6 T TP (l•)SR TN
PP1 TN TH (MRS C6)bC 7P Tv TP TH
TP TP
TP PM PM TP TP TP PM - PM TH i . .. �...• TP
._ AN TP AM Al PM Pti a -
PM PN TH TP TP TP TP TP
�_ PM ..,('.... AN�AM PM PM PN PM TP TP PH pM PH TP TPP3H TH
TYPICAL. (9)l1 HYDMSEEDED GRAS1SES 1-1ALL DIST BED AREAS i 1H AM AH 7P
A.. 9'
N —
1 - 405
Photo Point
Q Monitoring Plot
File name:98154monilor.p65 FIGURE 2.
" NORTH EEOriinal di9sby9�phicby:ACT
J MONITORING PLOTS AND PHOTO POINTS
No Scale Date:lrz8/00
SOURCE: City of Renton Planning,Building,and Public HOUSER WAY RELOCATION MONITORING
• works Department, Houser Way N., Landscaping Plan. RENTON,WASHINGTON
Houser Way Second Year Annual Monitoring Report
APPENDIX A: MONITORING DATA
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
' Adolfson Associates, Inc.12/04/00 Page A-1
Project#98154 MP
Table 1: Permanent Plot 1 Wetland
COMMON I
# 1 1 "' I "' I 1 III 1 111
softstem bullrush Scirpus tabernaemontanu 5% 25% 20% 20%
sawbeak sedge Carex stipata 15% 5% 5% 15%
' common cattail Typha latifolia trace 5% 2% -
tufted hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa 10% 5% 5%
duckweed Lemna minor 15% 20% 25% 40%
' horsetail Equisetum spp. - - trace -
Pacific willow Salix lucida 5% 10% 15% 15%
small-fruited bullrush Scirpus microcarpus 5%
vine maple Acer circinatum - 10% -
Sitka willow Salix sitchensis 15°0 200r6 15% 30%
Percept Cover Nativelinstalled t? etaltai l.
x65AM
meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis trace - trace
' S'ONO
t
mixed grasses A Y ¢ - 25% [30�%
' . Tat`�1.��±ce�f�l�ar� .. ,Y�.Y'�'�4.....�.�.�a�3.,'�_'�' ',.. .. ...e.. a........ ... ,,,,'�,���•.3, �;tF.`��+,`a� E
Table 2: Permanent Plot 2 Buffer
COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PERCENT COVER
1 I "' I "' I' 1 III I 111
Sitka willow Salix sitchensis 30% 35% 50% 50%
Pacific willow Salix lucida 55% 60% 50% 50%
ootka rose Rosa nutkana 3% 10% 20% 20%
red-osier dogwood Cornus sericea 2% 10% 10% -
horsetail Equisetum sp. 25% 30% 15% 15%
Watson's willow-weed F,pdobium watsonii trace trace trace -
Percent Cover Nativeftnst�lletl
common velvetgrass Holcus lanatus trace trace trace
Percent Cover Non-'native Vegetation" 0a �= ' ' 0°l0 ' 0"/a.:.. 0"0
mixed grasses 10% 15% 5%
TO ti"', m
Table 3:Permanent Plot 3 Wetland
COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PERCENT COVER
1 I "' I "' 1 I III I 111
salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 15% 25% 35% -
red-osier dogwood Cornus sericea 5% 25% 25% 30%
Pacific willow Salix lucida 15% 50% 50% 40%
softstem bullrush Scirpus tabernaemontanii 30% 30% 20% 25%
small-fruited bullrush Scirpus microcarpus 30% 10% 10% -
soft rush Juncus effusus 5% 5% 5%
duckweed Lemna minor 10%
horsetail Equisetum sp. trace - -
PercentCovier_.Nativ etatorr ` 10Q°� 150� 5 a 951 ..E
Himalayan blackberry Rubus procerus trace 5% 40%
Percent Cover Non-native Vegetation 01l0' Safo 4U°lo
Total Percent Cover 100% 145% 160% 135%
Table 4: Permanent Plot 4 Buffer
COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PERCENT COVER
I I "' I "' 1 I III 1 III
IN
' Pacific willow Salix lucida 60% 80% 85% 85%
Douglas'spiraea Spiraea douglasii 10% 30% 30% 30%
small-fruited bullrush Scirpus microcarpus 15% 15% 10% 60%
horsetail Equisetum sp. 25% 15% 20% -
fireweed Epilobium arvense 5% 101%,
Watson's willow-weed Epilobium watsonii 2% 5% 5%
Percent',Cover 1 NativetInstalled 'egetafa 3=n� '. 45°z'r, 155%.:,
,. s
' v
d
meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 2% 5% 5%
Himalayan blackberry Rubus procerus 3% 15% 15% 30%
' 'terCen> over Non native Vegctatton 5°l£ 1j°
mixed grasses 5% 5%
Total Percent Cover, 122.et. _ . `a
' 16 _ s- W - 1
1
Table 5: Permanent Plot 5 Wetland
COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PERCENT COVER
I 1 "' I "' 14 1 III I I I I
slough sedge Carex obnupta 20% 35% 30% 60%
duckweed Lemna minor 8% 10% 5% 5%
horsetail Eguisetum sp. 3% - 5% -
Watson's willow-weed Epilobium icalsonn trace 15% 15% 10%
Percentt over Nahv tit I VegetsltIon ..
MEW
Himalayan blackberry Rubus procerus 10% trace
Scot's broom Cyt:sus scoparius - 10% -
meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 2% - - -
speedwell Veronica sp. 20% 10% 10% _
fescue Festuca sp. 5% 20% 2%
common velvetgrass Holcus lanatus 40% 20% 15% -
mixed nnidentifiablc��rass s - 40%
Percent Cover Non ' W/0 67 g!
Total Percen -Fo*%r �_. 91°la 110% All _:_ 1 - e rlw, :
' Table 6:Permanent Plot 6 Buffer
COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PERCENT COVER
' I I "' I "' 1 I 111 I 111
black twinberry Lonicera involucrata 10% 10% 20%
' vine maple Acer circinatum 15% 15% 30% -
western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 25% 30% 35%
horsetail Eguisetum sp. 20% - trace trace
fireweed Epilobium arvense - 3% 3%
Watson's willow-weed Epilobium watsonii trace trace trace
.. "plow,
Scot's broom Cytisus scoparius 10% 15% 15% _
Himalayan blackberry Rubus procerus 3%
mixed unidentifiable grasses 10% 15% trace trace
Percent Cov o>ifa ►v - go 30% 18d/o
r
' Table 7:Permanent Plot 7 Wetland
COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PERCENT COVER
I I "' I "' 1 1 III 1 111
0"pi
swamp laurel Kalinin occidentalis 30% 25% 15%^ 20/
' clustered rose Rosa pisocarpa 60% 70% 50% 75%
salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 5% 5% 5%
horsetail v y Equisetum sp. 5% 5% 10% 10%
"�f;
WMM
common velvetgrass 11olcus lanatus 15% 20% 10%
clover Trifolium sp. 5% - -
white clover Trifolium repens trace trace 5% -
Scot's broom Cytisus scoparius 20%
bull thistle Cirsium vulgare 20% 3% 3% -
Htmalayan blackberry Rubus procerus true trace
3 � 20%
OF
mixed grasses 5%
r a
Total Percent Cover�° a 128% 1 13% 160%
Table 8:Permanent Plot 8 Buffer
COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PERCENT COVER
1 1 "' 1 "' I I III 1 111
y.e of .v iM
Aa(°rNIa
' red alder" Alnusrubra - - 10% 10%
soft rush Juncus effusus 10% 15% 25% 25%
fireweed Epilobium arvense 10% 25% 2% 5%
' common cattail Typha latifolia trace 15% 10% 20%
duckweed Lemna minor 4% 5% 50% 15%
horsetail Equisetum sp. 4% 5% 10% -
17��� 1(
_ e ... M
common velvetgrass Holcus lanatus 60% 20% -
Scofs broom Cytisus scoparius - - 15% -
Himalayan blackberry Rubus procerus 5% 15% 15%
on
mixed grasses ]0% 50% 25%
Table 9: Permanent Plot 9 Wetland
COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PERCENT COVER
I 1 "' 1 "' I I III 1 111
clustered rose Rosa pisocarpa 5% 10% 5% -
salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 2% 15% 5% 5%
red-osier dogwood Cornus sericea 10% trace 5%
fireweed Epilobium angustifolium - 5% 5% 5%
i vetch Vicia spp. _ - trace -
Watson's willow-weed Epilobium watsonii trace
horsetail Equisetum sp. 4% rt trace y
! �r
common velvetgrass Holcus lanatus 90% 90% 35%
sweet white clover - 5% 5% -
i meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 5% 15% 15% -
mixed unidentified grasses 40% 15%
�{} •gyp -, �-.:.
Table 10: Permanent Plot 10 Buffer
COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PERCENT COVER
1 1 "` I . "' 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1
black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii 35% 50% 70%
salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 5% 5% 5% 5%
red elderberry Sambucus racemosa 8% 10% 10% 10%
' Pacific willow Salix lucida - trace - _
fireweed Epilobium angustifolium 3% 5% 5%
spreading wood fern Dgopteris expansa 3% trace
�-' 3 ,g r `� o
Pot �� e ,111#�v+�lInstailet#� +�?Tr r ,.. 0 20 jo.
i A
bentgrass Agrostissp. 5% 10% 10%
mixed unidentifiable grasses - 15% 15%
1
i
i
i
' Houser Way Second Year Annual Monitoring Report
APPENDIX B: PHOTOS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' Adolfson Associates,Inc.12/04/00 Page 13-1
Project#98154 MP
reAr
;�. F :. -t r �• it r'�b •'Y` 'Sk. INNS, :.r 1 �� .+ ••�;.
or
pr
-140
sLi mall I�.. a'Ie.~•�3.\..� ��1 �` �'�_ S� ,
--
Yn� hcf `:JsA { _rs. , ,J��/' y �1'/�M r'• y • .
I
`.I� ' ` r�� 7� r Irk �!�.. ""'� �,� k' �, a•`'.
a
.. ��1 Its�•fr •
ti •b t �� • 1 k, kMC, ,+ ! •
• `.•� ;gib�� .��� •� � yr ,.` •�. �yG�� Qr r.. ;1 _.
O
� � 1 rho r '�£'� �. R � ., rk � .. �,•�.
I if
AW
rPHOTO POINT 3
• ram, . ` �`��'t '�•r 'ram ' .
it!�jar__
Y
L
. .� `• a J' _ 4, � �1 • t ` y� �1
� J
' PHOTO POINT
•�ti v�
'�'�• � '�' ,.tt`,.+ _- .mac .• � •� �+�.� �� ,1� � .. � g_
.��• ..f t �.� � ••.ram-' ��• ! p _ }.�+Y�' �� � .r '�
JANUARY 1999
MONITORING REPORT
YEAR #1
HOUSER WAY RELOCATION PROJECT
WETLAND MITIGATION
RENTON, WASHINGTON
j
r /
A D O L F S O N
Prepared for: FEB - 9 2000
City of Renton Transportation Systems Div.
Public Works Department
Renton, Washington
Prepared by:
Adolfson Associates, Inc.
5309 Shilshole Ave. NW, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98107
Houser Way First Year Annual Monitoring Report
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' At the request of the City of Renton, Adolfson Associates, Inc. (Adolfson) has conducted the
q Y
1999 wetland monitoring at the Houser Way Relocation Project site. This report summarizes the
' results of the 1999 (First Year) monitoring visits. The Houser Way Relocation Project is located
at the toe of the steeply sloping, wooded western embankment of Interstate 405 (I-405) in the
t City of Renton, Washington (Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 5 East). It extends from
North 8`h Street south to Sunset Boulevard and lies between I-405 and the Burlington Northern
Railroad line (Figure 1).
' One wetland, comprising 0.98 acres, was identified on the project site within and adjacent to a
drainage channel (Figure 2). Impacts resulting from construction of this project included fill of
' the open drainage channel and excavation of the wetland adjacent to the drainage channel.
Mitigation for this project was accomplished in several ways. A grass-lined swale/ditch
approximately 1,600 feet long was constructed on the west side of the roadway to convey both
on-site flows and the regional flows entering the end of the site. These flows are conveyed to a
wetpond constructed on the east side of the North 8`h Street/Houser Way intersection. Additional
' flood storage is provided in a created wetland adjacent to the wetpond on the north side which
receives overflows from the wetpond during severe storm events. The wetpond discharges at
Houser Way and North 8`h Street to the existing storm drain system.
' Wetland and wildlife habitat is provided by creation of approximately 11,340 square feet of
palustrine wetland in an existing upland area at the intersection of North 8th Street and Houser
' Way. Additional habitat is also provided for in the wetpond area which was planted with native
trees and shrubs.
' Ten vegetation monitoring plots were established during the first monitoring visit (Figure 2).
The 1999 data shows that native emergent species account for 31 percent of the aerial cover in
the mitigation area. The success criteria for this project call for 80 percent emergent cover by the
' third year. There are a variety of emergent species providing good diversity on the site. It is
possible that if the native emergent species continue to spread, this criteria will be achieved.
' Aerial cover of native shrubs was estimated at 46 percent, which is above the 20-30 percent
required success criteria for the first year shrub cover. Aerial cover of native trees, as measured
in the data plots, is approximately twelve percent, which is between the 10-20 percent cover
' required by the success criteria.
There are no recommendations for maintenance at this time. If the mitigation plantings continue
' to thrive, this project is likely to meet the success criteria after the third year of monitoring.
Adolfson Associates,Inc.01/27/00 Page i
' Project#98154 MP
Houser Way First Year Annual Monitoring Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................I
PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF WORK............................................................ 1
' PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 1
Mitigation............................................................................................................................ 1
Mitigation Goals and Success .............................................................................................2
' MONITORING METHODS...........................................................................................................2
Bi-Annual Monitoring Visits ..............................................................................................2
VegetationMonitoring............................................................................................ 3
' Wildlife ...................................................................................................................3
Photo-Monitoring and General Observations..........................................................3
MONITORINGCALENDAR.........................................................................................................4
' PROJECT SETUP...........................................................................................................................4
FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................4
Vegetation ...........................................................................................................................4
' Emergents................................................................................................................4
Shrubs......................................................................................................................5
Trees........................................................................................................................5
' Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................5
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................5
PROJECTSUCCESS .....................................................................................................................5
' LIMITATIONS ...............................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7
' FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................8
APPENDIXA: MONITORING DATA.......................................................................................... 1
APPENDIXB: PHOTOS................................................................................................................ 1
Adolfson Associates, Inc.01/27/00 Page ii
tProject#98154 MP
Houser Way First Year Annual Monitoring Report
' PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF WORK
At the request of the City of Renton, Adolfson Associates, Inc. (Adolfson) has conducted the
1999 wetland monitoring at the Houser Way Relocation Project site. In accordance with the
trequirements of the Wetland Mitigation Concepts Report, Houser Way Relocation Project,
Renton, Washington (Adolfson Associates, Inc., 1994) bi-annual monitoring visits will be
' conducted for a period of 3 years. This report summarizes the results of the first year monitoring
visits conducted in 1999.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Houser Way Relocation Project is located at the toe of the steeply sloping, wooded western
embankment of Interstate 405 (I-405) in the City of Renton, Washington (Section 8, Township
23 North, Range 5 East). It extends from North 8th Street south to Sunset Boulevard and lies
' between t I-405 and the Burlington Northern Railroad line (Figure 1).
Within the project area, a vegetated drainage channel is located at the bottom of the steep slope
of the western embankment of I-405. The channel conveys surface and storm water flows north
' approximately 1,600 feet north along the toe of the embankment to a 42-inch concrete storm
drain along North 8th Street. The flows then travel 900 feet west in this system to a 72-inch
concrete storm drain along Garden Avenue North to Park Avenue North. At the south side of
' Park Avenue North, the flows join other storm flows and are conveyed through Gene Coulon
Park in a low gradient, open channel known as Johns Creek. This creek ultimately discharges to
' Lake Washington.
One wetland, comprising 0.98 acres, was identified on the project site within and adjacent to the
' drainage channel (Figure 2). Impacts resulting from construction of this project include fill of the
open drainage channel and excavation of the wetland adjacent to the drainage channel.
Mitigation
Mitigation for this project was accomplished in several ways. A grass-lined swale/ditch
' approximately 1,600 feet long was constructed on the west side of the roadway to convey both
on-site flows and the regional flows entering the end of the site. These flows are conveyed to a
wetpond constructed on the east side of the North 8`h Street/Houser Way intersection.
' Additional flood storage is provided in a created wetland adjacent to the wetpond on the north
side which receives overflows from the wetpond during severe storm events. The wetpond
' discharges at Houser Way and North 81h Street to the existing storm drain system.
Wetland and wildlife habitat is provided by creation of approximately 11,340 square feet of
palustrine wetland in an existing upland area at the intersection of North 8`h Street and Houser
' Way. Additional habitat is also provided for in the wetpond area. The created wetland area is
intended to contain a mosaic of habitat types, including emergent vegetation, shrubs and trees.
Adolfson Associates,Inc.01/27/00 Page 1
Project#98154 MP
r
Houser Way First Year Annual Monitoring Report
r
Shrubs and trees are planted along the margins of the wetland and the wetpond to provide shade
rand moderate water temperature.
Due to limited space within the project area, the full 25-foot required buffer for the wetland was
r not available. However, the wetland will still be effectively buffered from intrusion and
disturbance through buffer plantings such as hawthorn, currant and rose.
rMitigation Goals and Success
The goals of this mitigation project, as described in the Wetland Mitigation Concepts Report,
r Houser Way Relocation Project(Adolfson 1994) are to compensate for lost area and functions of
the wetland that was impacted during construction in 1997 and 1998. The mitigation area is
intended to provide flood storage/desynchronization, water quality improvement, and wildlife
rhabitat.
The success of this mitigation project is based upon:
r • 80 percent cover of emergent species after three years; and
e At least 20 percent cover of shrub species after the first year, 30 percent after the second year,
rand 45 percent after the third year-, and
r • At least 10 percent cover of tree species after the first year, 20 percent after the second year,
and 45 percent after the third year•, and
• 95 percent plant survival rate after the first year, as guaranteed by the landscaping contractor.
rAfter the first year, a maximum of 20 percent mortality will be allowed.
r Any plant species with a 30 percent or greater mortality rate after two growing seasons will be
replaced with either the same or a more appropriate approved species. Replacements made by a
landscaper will be subject to the same conditions and will meet the same survival standards as
specified for the original planting.
r
rMONITORING METHODS
The following describes the standard methods used to monitor the success of the wetland
rmitigation project.
Bi-Annual Monitoring Visits
r Two monitor�--!Uhi
ite v' ' s will be conduc d each year for a period of three years. During the
first of these site visits, vegetati n monitoring plots as well as photo monitoring points
were established. During each of the 1-ann 1 site visits, vegetation, water and soil conditions
rin the mitigation area are assessed.
r
Adolfson Associates,Inc.01/27/00 Page 2
rProject#98154 MP
Houser Way First Year Annual Monitoring Report
Vegetation Monitoring
' An installed species count is conducted only in the first year of monitoring. After the first year,
permanent vegetation monitoring plots are used to measure plant growth and changes in species
' composition over the three-year monitoring period. A baseline is established along the edge of
the mitigation project area and transects are established across the wetlands and/or buffers to
include all vegetation communities. Permanent plots measuring 10 feet in diameter are
' established along the transects and marked with permanent stakes.
Vegetation is assessed in terms of percent cover. Percent cover is estimated for each species
within each of the permanent vegetation monitoring plots. Three vegetation layers (canopy,
shrub and ground cover/submerged) may be present at a given location, and each may constitute
' up to 100 percent cover; therefore, the cumulative percent cover of the combined layers may
exceed 100 percent.
Grasses were identified to species to the extent possible. Unidentified grass species are recorded
as a separate mixed native and non-native grasses category. Both native and non-native grasses
provide ground cover for the site, reducing erosion and impeding run-off rates.
' Average Percent Cover of native species and non-native species and for mixed grasses are
calculated for the monitoring plots within each wetland or buffer mitigation area. These numbers
are compared with the success criteria to determine the progress of the mitigation project.
Wildlife
' Wildlife species which are readily observable will be identified and recorded during each
monitoring visit. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations
' include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. The kinds and locations of the habitat
with greatest use by each species will be noted, as will any breeding or nesting activities.
' Photo-Monitoring and General Observations
Ground-level photographs are taken from the established photo monitoring points during each.
site visit and will become part of the project's permanent monitoring record (Appendix B).
' General descriptive assessments of the development and status of the mitigation project are also
recorded for each site visit.
Adolfson Associates,Inc.01/27/00 Page 3
' Project#98154 MP
Houser Wav First Year Annual Monitoring Report
MONITORING CALENDAR
' Table 1. Performance Monitoring
Year 1 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring
' Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall
' 7/1/99 10/26/99
' PROJECT SETUP
Ten vegetation monitoring plots were established during the first monitoring visit (Figure 2).
' Half of the plots are located in the wetland area and half are located in the wetland buffer.
Results of the assessment of the ten permanent plots are presented in Appendix A, Tables A1-
A3.
' Five photo points were also established to document the vegetation in the permanent plots and
the buffer plantings (Figure 2). Photos are presented in Appendix B at the end of this report.
FINDINGS
' Vegetation
The vegetation findings are discussed in terms of Percent Cover. Table 1 shows the average
' percent cover of native and non-native plant species for each mitigation area of the project. The
average percent cover of each species was calculated based on the percent cover estimates shown
in the tables in Appendix A.
' Table 2. Average Total Percent Cover and Native Cover
Vegetation Type Average Percent Native Average Percent Non-native
Cover Cover
Emergents 31 20*
' Shrubs 46 5
' Trees 12 0
*The majority of the plots have very little non-native cover,with the exception of Plot 9 which was estimated to have
' approximately 110 percent aerial cover of non-native emergent,.
Emergents
' The average native/installed emergent cover in the mitigation area is 31 percent. There are a
variety of native rushes and sedges including softstem bullrush (Scirpus tabernaemontanii),
sawbeak sedge (Carex stipata), soft rush (Juncus effusus), slough sedge (Carex obnupta), and
Adolfson Associates,Inc.01/27/00 Page 4
' Project#98154 MP
Houser Way First Year Annual Monitoring Report
tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa). Average cover of non-native emergents is 20 percent.
' The majority of the plots support very little non-native emergent cover(between 0 and 32
percent), with the exception of Plot 9 which was estimated to contain up to 110 percent non-
native emergent cover. The non-natives are not prevalent in the mitigation area because much of
the shrub planting area has been mulched with standard bark mulch.
Shrubs
tThe average native/installed shrub cover is 46 percent. The installed shrubs are large and
generally appear to be healthy. Non-native shrub cover is five percent and is comprised mainly
of Himalayan blackberry. The blackberry is not prevalent and does not require removal at this
time. If the blackberry continues to spread in the area, removal may be suggested at a later date.
' Trees
The average native/installed tree cover in the mitigation area is twelve percent. Only two
' species were categorized as trees in this report, black hawthorn and western hemlock. Aerial
cover of these species was only recorded in four plots. Average aerial cover of these trees is
likely greater than 12 percent throughout the entire site. There were no non-native trees
' observed in the monitoring area.
Wildlife
' No wildlife were observed during the site visit. The site visit was conducted during the middle
of the day which may be the reason no wildlife was observed using the site.
RECOMMENDATIONS
' There are no recommendations for maintenance at this time. If the Himalayan blackberry begins
to spread, removal may be recommended after the next monitoring visit to prevent the blackberry
' from inhibiting growth of installed species and desirable native recruits.
PROJECT SUCCESS
' The goals of this mitigation project are to compensate for lost area and functions of the wetland
that was impacted during construction. The mitigation area is intended to provide flood
' storage/desynchronization, water quality improvement, and wildlife habitat.
The 1999 data shows that native emergent species account for 31 percent of the aerial cover in
' the mitigation area. The success criteria for this project call for 80 percent emergent cover by the
third year. It is likely that if the native emergent species continue to spread, this criteria will be
achieved. There are a variety of emergent species providing good diversity on the site.
Adolfson Associates,Inc.01/27/00 Page 5
' Project#98154 MP
Houser Way First Year Annual Monitoring Report
Aerial cover of native shrubs was estimated at 46 percent, which is above the 20-30 percent
' required success criteria for the first year shrub cover. Aerial cover of native trees, as measured
in the data plots, is approximately twelve percent, which is close to the 10-20 percent cover
required by the success criteria.
LIMITATIONS
' It is recognized that determining the success of wetland mitigation plans is an inexact science as
individuals will often disagree on the functional level or value of a mitigated wetland. Typically,
' wetland mitigation success is "demonstrated" by achieving the success criteria proposed in the
mitigation plan. However, functionally valuable wetlands may be created, restored, or enhanced
that do not meet some or all of the success criteria outlined therein. Likewise, wetlands may be
' created, restored, or enhanced that meet all approved success criteria but are not functionally
valuable. The final determination of wetland mitigation success is the responsibility of the City
of Renton.
' Within the limitations of schedule, budget, and scope-of-work, we warrant that this monitoring
study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted wetland mitigation monitoring
' practices. The results and conclusions of this report represent actual measurements as well as the
authors' best professional judgment. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Adolfson Associates,Inc.01/27/00 Page 6
' Project#98154 MP
Houser Way First Year Annual Monitoring Report
REFERENCES
' Adolfson Associates, Inc. Summary of Resource Protection.Issues, Houser Way Relocation
Project, Renton, Washington. June 1994.
Adolfson Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Concepts Report, Houser Way Relocation Project,
Renton, Washington. April 1994.
' Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of Washington
Press, Seattle.
' Reed, P.B., Jr. 1997. Revision of the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands:
National Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 253 pages.
' Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identifccation and
Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 96-94.
' Washington State Department of Ecology. 1994.. Wetlands Regulations Guidebook.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 88-5.
1
Adolfson Associates,Inc.01/27/00 Page 7
' Project#98154 MP
Houser Way First Year Annual Monitoring Report
1
FIGURES
1
1
i
1
1
1
Adolfson Associates, Inc.01/27/00 Page 8
1 Project#98154 MP
J
`-" o ai
AY NUTAVU
IIUlm In EY SY►lY� < �"
� m rn a'
5 w �-C
W AV 31 Ili Y I fiU {�
IIJ3UN3UY NAY II13U8JUY a1�4,
13NA1tUlt CCU A]83111U11 'O
CL
cj
IIIUUNII / � � ^L
Y
f cis��,1
..^� ''
vp
O
$ ze
N AV �N3UWJ HAY N3UHY9 CL
\\ N AV NNYJ Av sera NAY
A7— � �
A'v S 1 1J++ �ICID�, AY S 11311 --'
AY SnY111M UL
N AY IIYUU I
LUCNI AY 5 U� 3y
11 �'� n TtfttTT`TTTTTT(TT[T (a7 �'^
CL
7C �(tTt{fTttT{tT{ Q. N (J / J
132 ��i f' t� TTtTtTtcTTtTTT{ ( _ ^'
. l l l l l l�l TtTT{tTTTTTttTttTTttTT{{ttt(TT{t�� � -..{1, f I/ � `V
aim m
0
z
2 l 202 203
(9)SR AQAS9 AND HCRp MI% SEA•S-,WET 92
IDHtN� (14)HA (12)RP <7k(A (21) RN <14) HA (2a) RT (27) RHt P5 (D)KA (13MT
�.: 7 I3)SA I�
2 •b
D CD CD
CD S � C CD AC AC CD CD CD
f0 C it tt, SL C D TC SL AC AC CD PS PS ,T
AC A SL AC �TP� iP (10>Ll y O <i3)Ar PS T PS TP TP
TP TP TP TP ACG <27)S AC TH TP TP TP TP TP AC !1>SS
V T TH TM (16 SS TP TP (14)SR
PP1 t17)fI iP TPA (11Tf7C TH (A)fa TP T TP TP TP TP iN TH
TP T <29)Rf <6)OC IP Tp TP
TP TP iP
(10)CS 4 ��PN Pt( TP TP TP PN pM TN TP
AH
AH a
PN PN TH Tp 1 TP TP TP TP
Y B • PP3 C971�'..._._�.-�, .<�..- AH A)t PH PH PN PH TP TP - PH PH PH P TP 7H NN
T TPICAL �a\, HYMSMED GRASSES �t•ALl DIST ➢ED AREAS T TH AH µ
1 - 405
sPhoto Point
0 Monitoring Plot
File name:98154monitor.p65 FIGURE 2.
NORTH Original graphic by:ACT
No Scale Edts112
Dale:
MONITORING PLOTS AND PHOTO POINTS
MIN SOURCE: City of Renton Planning,Building,and Public HOUSER WAY RELOCATION MONITORING
A o 0 L••0• Works Department, Houser Way N., Landscaping Plan. RENTON,WASHINGTON
Houser Way First Year Annual Monitoring Report
1
APPENDIX A: MONITORING DATA
Adolfson Associates,Inc.01/27/00 Page A-1
' Project#98154 MP
Houser Way First Year Annual Monitoring Report
Table Al Aerial Emergent Cover
COMMON 1PLOTS
' 10 Cover
Native/Install litergerrts z*'
softstem bullrush Scirpus tabernaemontanii 25% - 30%
sawbeak sedge Carex stipata 5% -
common cattail Typha latifolia 5% - - - - - - 15% - - 10%
tufted hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa 5% - - - - - - - - 5%
small-fruited bullrush Scirpus microcarpus - - 10% 15% - - - - - - 13%
soft rush Juneus effusus - - 5% - - - - 15% - - 10%
duckweed Lemna minor 20% - - - 10% - - 5% - - 12%
fireweed Epilobium arvense - - - - - - 25% 5% 15%
Watson's willow-weed Epilobium watsonii - trace - 5% 15% trace - - - 10%
slough sedge Carex obnupta - - - - 35% - - - 35%
horsetail E uisetum sp. - 30% 15% - - 5 5% - 14%
Percent Cover Native/Installed Elinergents 60% 30% 45% 35% 60% 0% 5% 65% 5% 0% 31%
Noft- the Engrg ;s
meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis tracc - - 5% - - - 15% - 10%
speedwell Veronica Sp.. - - - 10% - - - - - 10%
fescue Festuca sp. - - - 2% - - - - - 2%
bentgrass Agrostis sp. - - - - - - - 10% 10%
white clover Trifolium repens - - - - - trace - 5% - 5%
common velvetgrass Holcus lanatus trace - 20% - 20% - 90% - 43%
bull thistle Cirsium vulgare - - - 3% - - - 3%
mixed unidentifiable grasses - 10% - - - 5% 10% - - 8%
Percent Cover Non-native Emergents 0% 0% 0% 5% 32% 0% 28% 10% 110% 10% 20%
TOTAL PERCENT COVER 6017 3011, 45% 40% 92% 0% 33% 75% 115% 10% 50%
Adolfson Associates, Inc. 01/27/00
Project#98154- MP A2
Houser Way First Year Annual Monitoring Report
Table A2 Aerial Shrub Cover
COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PERCENT COVER
Average
Plot I Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 4 Plot 5 Plot 6 Plot 7 Plot 8 Plot 9 Plot 10 Cover
Native F7
ME41,
N,
A
Pacific willow Salix hicida 10% 60% 50% 80% 50%
Sitka willow Salix sitchensis 20% 35% - - 28%
Nootka rose Rosa nutkana - 10% - - 10%
Douglas'spiraea Spiraea douglasii - - - 30% 30%
black twinberry Lonicera involucrata - - - - - 10% - - - 10%
vine maple Acer circination - - - - - 15% - - - 15%
swamp laurel Kalmia occidentalis - - - - - - 25% - - - 25%
clustered rose Rosa pisocarpa - - - - - - 70% - 10% - 40%
red-osier dogwood Cornits sericea - 10% 25% - - - - - - - 18%
salmonberry Rubus spectabilis - - - - - - 5% - 15% 5% 8%
red elderberry Sambucus racemosa - - - - - - - - - 10% 10%
Percent Cover Native/Installed Shrubs 30% 115% 75% 110% 0% 25% 100% 0% 25% 15% 50%
-= 7
5W"
-Xqn-native Shrubs._ 77.
Himalayan blackberry Rubus procents 15% - - - 15% 15%
Scot's broom Cytisits scoparius - - 15% - - 15%
Percent Cover Non-native Shrubs 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 15% 0% 15% 0% 0% 5%
TOTAL PERCENT COVER 30% 115% 1 75% 125% 1, 0% 40% 1 100% 15% 25% 15% 54%
Table A3 Aerial Tree Cover
COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PERCENT COVER
Average
e Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 4 Plot 5 Plot 6 Plot 7 Plot 8 Plot 9 Plot 10 Cover
Native/Installed Trees
71 MR
",
western Tsuga hete"rophyfla 301/( - 301/(,
black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii - 50(7( 5011(
TOTAL PERCENT COVER 0% % % 30 c;"c 0% 0% 0% 50% 8%
Adolfson Associates, Inc. 01/27/00
Project#98154 - MP A3
Houser Way First Year Annual Monitoring Report
1
1
' APPENDIX B: PHOTOS
1
1
1
1
1
1
Adolfson Associates,Inc.01127/00 Page B-1
' Project#98154 MP
p
,
R ,
, yq
.,
J
ie-
t• _ 9
Al
VW
if�Jl •11f'
_ \ - '�. _ a-��M1 1 ��r 1,-`+` / I � ♦ �i � (�-ri+ 4 ,G` /�111/ �M •y��,y�l� !"
•�' *� �s'hf�H +Yja,+ `� lY• ��� „c�1 _-",arm r.A .,.,�
�: '•� F fir+!' a �r �., ,u •!
a\� � ' , • �'�i 7r�Y t' 1,,
R
y¢; � �+�',1'"' .�I:�il'��M"""' •h4�' f� 't J r t sr �,'. :� � ��, F `f, � .a
'"�' �.. S`,r rF �."� �Y M j• iil! T� _ i�`,` V'�f.y���� } e� -
a ♦a�� � � yr ti
� N
4 r
• M
' I I
y 'fir
GSA.
h � r
ip
xx ti ,Xt
IPj
' .
Ik
off
44
41
m�ro
t�, V
_�L-