1. WNPS Native Plant Stewardship Program
Site Assessment and Restoration Planning
April 20, 2018

2. Site Assessment and Restoration Planning
Agenda
GSP existing data collection
Site specific data collection
Restoration plan
Target System comparisons
Introduction to Rapid Assessment protocols
Field practicum
Site characteristics
Vegetation data
Restoration priorities

3. GSP Data Collection Work Logs & Volunteer Logs Forest Monitoring
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. 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.
37.25 feet
74.5 feet

8. 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)

9. Restoration Plans Site Level Assessments and Restoration Plans
Site Description
Current Site Conditions
Restoration Project Strategies
Invasive Species
Native Plant Installation

10. Restoration Design Plan
Current Site Conditions
Add GSP Reference Map Image and Table
Refer to your site assessment results for
Site characteristics (soil, canopy cover, woody debris)
Current vegetation inventory
Rapid Assessment results

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

12. Restoration Design Plan
Native Plant Installation – guided by
Rapid Assessment results
Plant Installation Table
Growth Habit
Species
Stock-type
Zone(s)
Density (#ft. oc)
Quantity Requested
Trees
Shrubs
*Stock-type refers to whether pot, plug, bare root, or live stake plant.

13. 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!

14. Target Systems

15. Target Systems

16. Target Systems

17. Target Systems

18. 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

19. Target Systems
Vegetation: Overstory canopy is dominated by Pseudotsuga menziesii, Tsuga heterophylla, and/or Thuja plicata. Abies grandis often can be codominant. Acer macrophyllum and Alnus rubra (the latter primarily where there has been historical logging disturbance) are commonly found as canopy or subcanopy codominants, 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 Tsuga heterophylla or Thuja plicata, especially in the Puget Lowland. Tsuga heterophylla is generally the dominant regenerating tree species. Polystichum munitum (over 40% cover), Oxalis oregana, Rubus spectabilis, and Oplopanax horridus typify the poor to well-developed understory layers. Gaultheria shallon, Mahonia nervosa, Rhododendron macrophyllum, and Vaccinium ovatum are often present but are generally not as abundant as the aforementioned indicators. Acer circinatum is a very common codominant as a tall shrub. Mosses are often a major ground cover. Lichens are abundant in the canopy of old stands.

20. Target Systems
Vegetation: Overstory canopy is dominated by Pseudotsuga menziesii, Tsuga heterophylla, and/or Thuja plicata. Abies grandis often can be codominant. Acer macrophyllum and Alnus rubra (the latter primarily where there has been historical logging disturbance) are commonly found as canopy or subcanopy codominants, 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 Tsuga heterophylla or Thuja plicata, especially in the Puget Lowland. Tsuga heterophylla is generally the dominant regenerating tree species. Polystichum munitum (over 40% cover), Oxalis oregana, Rubus spectabilis, and Oplopanax horridus typify the poor to well-developed understory layers. Gaultheria shallon, Mahonia nervosa, Rhododendron macrophyllum, and Vaccinium ovatum are often present but are generally not as abundant as the aforementioned indicators. Acer circinatum is a very common codominant as a tall shrub. Mosses are often a major ground cover. Lichens are abundant in the canopy of old stands.

21. Target Systems

22. Target Systems

24. Target Systems

25. Target Systems

26. Plot Monitoring Vs. Site Assessment
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

27. 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

28. Increasing pressures of urbanization: forest fragmentation, loss of structural diversity, altered hydrology, non-native invasive species… Need to move towards more healthy, diverse, resilient forests and natural areas.

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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%.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 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%.

36. Rapid Assessment Protocols
Vegetation Data:

37. 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

38. 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

39. Photo Monitoring
Kincaid Ravine Natural Area

40. Field Practicum
Review Rapid Assessment data collection protocols at Camp Long – Let’s go outside!

41. Field Practicum

42. WNPS Native Plant Stewardship Program
Thank You!
April 20, 2018