strawberry plant park and pritchard park ......of eagle harbor, on a parcel owned by the city of...

YEAR 2 (2013/2014)

MONITORING RESULTS

STRAWBERRY PLANT PARK AND

PRITCHARD PARK EAST BLUFF

RESTORATION PROJECTS

Bainbridge Island, Washington

Prepared for the

City of Bainbridge Island

Prepared by

RIDOLFI Inc.

June 2014

Year 2 (2013/2014) Monitoring Results

Strawberry Plant Park and Pritchard Park East Bluff

Restoration Projects

Bainbridge Island, Washington

Prepared for

City of Bainbridge Island

Prepared by

RIDOLFI Inc.

June 2014


Strawberry Plant Park and Pritchard Park East Bluff Restoration Projects

330A_bainbridge_Year 2 report June 2014 Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Strawberry Plant Park and Pritchard Park East Bluff Restoration Project sites, managed by

the City of Bainbridge Island, were identified for habitat restoration efforts by the Elliott Bay

Trustee Council. The Trustees received funds for the projects to restore natural resources

injured by hazardous substances released from the Wyckoff facility in Eagle Harbor. The

restoration projects were designed to restore key habitats at the Sites including riparian, marsh,

intertidal flats, and forage fish spawning beaches. These restored habitats are intended to

support a variety of plants and animals, and in particular to provide beneficial habitat for juvenile

salmonids, forage fish and other migratory and resident fish species, as well as shore birds and

other wildlife.

Restoration activities were completed at the Sites in 2011, and the City, in collaboration with the

Trustees, developed a long-term monitoring program to guide monitoring activities to evaluate

the Sites and to inform adaptive management efforts at the Sites. Specific objectives of the

program are presented here and are the basis for the monitoring plan for the Site:

Measure the success of the restoration efforts

Identify adaptive management measures that may be beneficial at the Sites

Address monitoring requirements specified by permitting agencies

Serve as an outreach tool to disseminate project information to stakeholders

To meet these objectives, this monitoring report describes the Year 2 (2013/2014) monitoring

activities and field work, assesses progress toward meeting the success criteria, and

recommends adaptive management efforts for future monitoring years.

The monitoring results were analyzed to evaluate whether the Sites are meeting performance

objectives. Based on these analyses, the performance objectives for the riparian vegetation are

not being met at the Sites. The performance objectives for marsh vegetation at Strawberry Plant

Park is being met and the marsh area is quite robust and healthy. However, whether the

percent cover of riparian and marsh vegetation is remaining stable or increasing over time

cannot be assessed based on two years of monitoring.

Forage fish eggs were not observed in beach substrates at the Pritchard Park East Bluff site.

While a portion of the sampled beach substrates may be the appropriate size and at the

appropriate tidal elevations to support surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) spawning, the majority

of the sampled substrates were observed to be too fine. Additionally, the sampled substrates

were not of appropriate size and elevations for Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus).



330A_bainbridge_Year 2 report June 2014 Page ii

Adaptive Management Recommendations

Based on the Year 2 (2013/2014) monitoring results presented in this report, we have the

following recommendations:

Strawberry Plant Park

Continue planned monitoring efforts in Year 3 (2014/2015).

Determine if the irrigation system is functioning and determine a regular schedule for

irrigation.

Remove non-native or invasive species such as Scot’s broom, Himalayan blackberry,

white sweet-clover, field bindweed, butterfly bush, pea vine, Canada thistle, curly dock,

prickly lettuce, Queen Anne’s lace, and black locust tree seedlings.

Target weeding around plantings throughout the site to create a buffer and encourage

growth.

Apply mulch to the newly weeded areas around the native plants to suppress weeds and

retain moisture.

Conduct supplemental planting in areas where high mortality has occurred.

Continue to mow the meadow area to control Scot’s broom seed source.

Pritchard Park East Bluff


Determine if the irrigation system is functioning and determine a regular schedule for

irrigation.



prickly lettuce, Queen Anne’s lace, and English ivy.

Target weeding around plantings throughout the site to create a buffer and encourage

growth.


retain moisture.

Decommission construction access road and replant with native riparian vegetation.

Monitor erosion along riparian area bordering the beach.

Monitor grain size of substrates in the pocket beach that was created to support forage

fish spawning habitat.



330A_bainbridge_Year 2 report June 2014 Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. i

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background Information on the Sites ........................................................................ 2

1.2.1 Strawberry Plant Park ................................................................................. 2 1.2.2 Pritchard Park East Bluff ............................................................................. 2

2.0 METHODS .............................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Biological Success Criteria ....................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Riparian Vegetation Percent Coverage ....................................................... 4 2.1.2 Data Analysis .............................................................................................. 7 2.1.3 Marsh Development/Percent Coverage ...................................................... 8 2.1.4 Data Analysis .............................................................................................. 8 2.1.5 Forage Fish Access/Presence .................................................................... 9

2.2 Physical Success Criteria ....................................................................................... 10

2.2.1 Elevation and Morphology ........................................................................ 10 2.2.2 Photo Point Monitoring and Visual Inspections ......................................... 10

3.0 MONITORING RESULTS ..................................................................................... 12

3.1 Riparian Vegetation Percent Coverage ................................................................... 12

3.1.1 Strawberry Plant Park ............................................................................... 13 3.1.2 Pritchard Park East Bluff ........................................................................... 14

3.2 Marsh Development/Percent Coverage .................................................................. 15

3.2.1 Marsh Success Evaluation ........................................................................ 16

3.3 Forage Fish Access/Presence ................................................................................ 16 3.4 Topographic Survey ............................................................................................... 17 3.5 Photo Point Monitoring and Visual Inspection ......................................................... 17

4.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 19

4.1 Adaptive Management Recommendations ............................................................. 19

4.1.1 Strawberry Plant Park ............................................................................... 19 4.1.2 Pritchard Park East Bluff ........................................................................... 19

5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 20



330A_bainbridge_Year 2 report June 2014 Page iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Site Locations

Figure 2. Strawberry Plant Park Riparian Baselines and Transects, Marsh Quadrats, and

Photo Point Locations

Figure 3. Pritchard Park East Bluff Riparian Baseline and Transects, Forage Fish Survey

Transects, and Photo Point Locations

Figure 4. Transect FF-01 (7-9 ft MLLW) Grain Size Distribution Curve – December 2013



LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Strawberry Plant Park Crown Cover on Riparian Transects for Year 2

Table 2. Change in Strawberry Plant Park Crown Cover on Riparian Transects for Year 1

and 2 (2012-2013)

Table 3. Strawberry Plant Park Groundcover on Riparian Transects for Year 2

Table 4. Pritchard Park Canopy Cover on Riparian Transects for Year 2

Table 5. Change in Pritchard Park Crown Cover on Riparian Transects for Year 1 and 2 (2012-2013)

Table 6. Pritchard Park Groundcover on Riparian Transects for Year 2

Table 7. Strawberry Plant Park Percent Coverage on Marsh Quadrats for Year 2

Table 8. Change in Strawberry Plant Park Crown Cover on Marsh Quadrats for Year 1 and 2

(2012-2013)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendices are provided on CD, located in a pocket at the inside back cover of this report.

Appendix A. Riparian Information

Appendix B. Marsh Information

Appendix C. Forage Fish Information

Appendix D. Photo Point Information



330A_bainbridge_Year 2 report June 2014 Page v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

City City of Bainbridge Island

GPS Global Positioning System

Ridolfi RIDOLFI Inc.

MLLW Mean Lower Low Water

NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment

PVC polyvinyl chloride

Sites Strawberry Plant Park and Pritchard Park East Bluff Restoration

Projects

Trustees Elliott Bay Trustee Council

WDFW Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife



330A_bainbridge_Year 2 report June 2014 Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This monitoring results report has been prepared on behalf of the City of Bainbridge Island (the

City) to provide a summary of the results of Year 2 (2013/2014) monitoring at the Strawberry

Plant Park and Pritchard Park East Bluff Restoration Project sites [Figure 1; (the Sites)]. The

Sites, managed by the City, were identified for habitat restoration efforts by the Elliott Bay

Trustee Council (Trustees)1. The Trustees received funds for the projects to restore natural

resources injured by hazardous substances released from the Wyckoff facility in Eagle Harbor.

The restoration projects were designed to restore key habitats at the Sites including riparian,

marsh, intertidal flats, and forage fish spawning beaches. These restored habitats are intended

to support a variety of plants and animals, and in particular to provide beneficial habitat for

juvenile salmonids, forage fish and other migratory and resident fish species, as well as shore

birds and other wildlife. Restoration activities were completed at the Sites in 2011, and the City,

in collaboration with the Trustees, developed a long-term monitoring program to guide

monitoring activities to evaluate the Sites and to inform adaptive management efforts at the

Sites.

The long-term monitoring program will occur over a ten year period with monitoring events

scheduled for Years 1,2,3,5, 7, and 10. Year 1 monitoring results serve as the baseline against

which all other monitoring events conducted over the 10-year program will be compared. Based

on the results of Years 1, 2, and 3, monitoring activities for Years 5, 7, and 10 may be modified.

This Year 2 monitoring results report presents findings for the second year of monitoring and the

resulting adaptive management recommendations.

1.1 Project Objectives

The purpose of this monitoring effort was to satisfy the objectives of the long-term monitoring

program for the Strawberry Plant Park and the Pritchard Park East Bluff shoreline restoration

projects. The long-term monitoring program includes physical and biological monitoring to

evaluate site conditions and effectiveness of those conditions in meeting the original intent of

restoration objectives for the Sites.

1 The Elliott Bay Trustee Council (Trustees) includes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), the

Suquamish Tribe, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.




The objectives of the monitoring efforts described in the monitoring plan were developed in part

by referencing the Commencement Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA)

Monitoring Program (CB Trustees, 2000). Those objectives are presented here and are the

basis for the monitoring program for the Sites:

Measure the success of the restoration efforts

Identify adaptive management measures that may be beneficial at the Sites

Address monitoring requirements specified by permitting agencies

Serve as an outreach tool to disseminate project information to stakeholders

To meet these objectives, this monitoring report describes the Year 2 (2013/2014) monitoring

activities and field work, assesses progress toward meeting the success criteria, and

recommends adaptive management efforts for future monitoring years.

1.2 Background Information on the Sites

1.2.1 Strawberry Plant Park

The Strawberry Plant Park site is in the southern portion of Section 27, Township 25 North,

Range 2 East (Figure 1). The Strawberry Plant Park site is located at 240 Weaver Road,

Bainbridge Island, WA 98110. The Strawberry Plant Park site is situated on the northern shore

of Eagle Harbor, on a parcel owned by the City of Bainbridge Island, with a parcel ID number of

27250240062000. The parcel size totals 3.9 acres.

The Strawberry Plant Park Restoration Project is intended to create salt marsh habitat from

approximately +10 to +13 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) and riparian buffer habitat from

approximately +13 feet and greater MLLW to benefit juvenile salmonids and other species

(Figure 2).

The project will improve habitat for juvenile salmonids and forage fish by increasing areas for

rearing and foraging, as well as by enhancing conditions for important prey resources, such as

resident fish and terrestrial insects. Revegetation of the area with native plants will provide

wildlife habitat for insects, small mammals, and migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. The

proposed project will also provide a link between other restoration projects in the Eagle Harbor

area.

1.2.2 Pritchard Park East Bluff

The Pritchard Park East Bluff site is located in the eastern region of Section 36, Township 25

North, Range 2 East (Figure 1). The Pritchard Park East Bluff site is located at 5300 Creosote

Place N.E., Bainbridge Island, WA 98110. The Pritchard Park East Bluff site is situated on




shore of the Puget Sound, and appears to include portions of several tax parcels. The majority

of the Pritchard Park East Bluff site is encompassed by parcel ID 35250210342002, owned by

the City of Bainbridge Island. This parcel has a total acreage of 22.96 acres, although the

restored portion of the Pritchard Park East Bluff site itself is approximately 2.2 acres in size.

The Pritchard Park East Bluff Restoration Project is intended to create riparian buffer habitat

from approximately +13 to +18 feet MLLW including the upland areas of the property to benefit

juvenile salmonids, forage fish and other species (Figure 3).

Below +13 MLLW, a pocket beach was created to provide intertidal habitat for salmonids and

spawning areas for forage fish. The project will improve habitat for juvenile salmonids and

forage fish by increasing areas for rearing and foraging, as well as by enhancing conditions for

important prey resources, such as resident fish and terrestrial insects. Revegetation of the area

with native plants will provide wildlife habitat for insects, small mammals, and migratory

waterfowl and shorebirds. The proposed project will also provide a link between other

restoration projects in the Eagle Harbor area.




2.0 METHODS

This section describes the methods that were used to monitor the physical and biological

success of the restoration sites. A summary of the primary objectives and methods for each of

the monitoring tasks is provided in the following sections of this results report. The primary

objectives were developed in part by referencing the Commencement Bay NRDA Restoration

Monitoring Program (CB Trustees, 2000). More specific information on monitoring methods is

provided in the monitoring plan developed for the Sites (Ridolfi, 2012).

Year 1 monitoring results serve as the baseline against which all other monitoring events

conducted over the 10-year monitoring program will be compared. The monitoring plan was

developed to include the first three years of monitoring. This annual monitoring report is the

second of three that will be produced for each monitoring year. The Year 3 monitoring report

will include a recommendation for continued monitoring based on progress toward the Year 10

goals as outlined in this monitoring plan. Based on the results of Years 1, 2, and 3, monitoring

activities in Years 5, 7, and 10 may be modified.

Vegetation monitoring was conducted in late summer/early fall 2013. Topographic surveys

were conducted by the City in late summer/early fall 2012. Forage fish beach surveys were

conducted in December 2013 at the appropriate tide. Photo point monitoring and visual

observations were conducted in late summer/early fall in conjunction with the vegetation

monitoring, and were repeated in late April 2014.

2.1 Biological Success Criteria

2.1.1 Riparian Vegetation Percent Coverage

Primary objective: Percent cover of native trees, shrubs, herbs, and other riparian

vegetation should be stable or increasing over time, and cover not less than 90 percent

of the upland vegetated area of the project after 10 years. Invasive plant coverage

should be minimal; species of special concern include Rubus procerus (Himalayan

blackberry), Cystisus scoparius (Scot’s broom), Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese

knotweed), and Lepidium latifolium (perennial pepperweed) (CB Trustees, 2000).

In this task, the percent cover of riparian vegetation was measured at both Sites in early

October. This was done using the line intercept sampling method to measure crown cover,

species dominance, and canopy structure. Groundcover was estimated using mean visual

estimates from two quadrats (Elzinga et al., 1998).




At each Site, 45-foot transects approximately 100 feet apart were permanently marked relative

to a baseline. A total of seven transects were marked at the Strawberry Plant Park site

(Figure 2) and a total of seven transects were marked at the Pritchard Park East Bluff site

(Figure 3).

For the Strawberry Plant Park site, two baselines were formed by the lawn-like meadow that

borders the site to the north and by the gravel path that bisects the eastern portions of the site

(Figure 2). The meadow baseline is approximately 300 feet long and begins at the northwest

corner of the meadow, continuing south along the meadow before turning at the southwest

corner of the meadow where it continues east across the site and stops at the intersection of the

gravel path. The gravel path baseline is approximately 200 feet long and begins at the

southeast corner of the parking lot, continuing generally south across the site and stopping just

south of a park bench (Figure 2).

For the Pritchard Park East Bluff site, one baseline, approximately 600 feet in length, is formed

by the asphalt and gravel path that borders the site to the west. The baseline begins at the

southern end of the asphalt path in the vicinity of the southern parking area and continues north

along the path before turning south and stopping near the large tree and water viewing area

(Figure 3).

For both the Sites, random sampling locations were generated using an automated process

within Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software. In some instances, the results of the

randomly selected transects were altered to ensure a comprehensive coverage of the site. The

approach began with the generation of a 1 by 1-meter grid for both sites, with each cell being

assigned both a unique numerical identification and habitat type value (e.g. riparian, marsh,

etc.). This grid serves as an input for both the generation of randomly selected marsh quadrats

as well as riparian transects.

For each site, each permanent 45-foot transect generally follows contour running parallel to the

baseline. Transect locations were established randomly between the baseline and the lowest

point of the upland riparian area (above +13 feet MLLW) to measure crown cover and

groundcover. Each transect was considered a single observation. Crown cover was measured

along each of the transects. To measure groundcover, two 2-meter by 0.5-meter quadrats were

placed on the bayside of each transect at the 15-foot and 30-foot marks.

The transects were established during the October 2012 Year 1 monitoring events and did not

change in Year 2. For the Strawberry Plant Park site, a map depicting the locations of the two

baselines and transects is provided in Figure 2. For the Pritchard Park East Bluff site, a map

depicting the locations of the baseline and transects is provided in Figure 3. Appendices A-1

and A-2 provide the distance along the baselines and the distance of the offset from the

baseline for the first point of each transect.




A GPS unit and a measuring tape were used to set the transects. Plastic stakes were inserted

along the baselines to permanently mark the 100-foot offset transects. Once the baseline and

100 foot marks along the baseline were established, a measuring tape was used to set the

45-foot transects. Each 45-foot transect was permanently marked at the beginning and end

with wooden stakes and flagging. The wooden stake marking the beginning was painted blue

and the wooden stake marking the end was painted red. A permanent marker was used to label

flagging with an identification number at each beginning point (e.g., Transect 1 = T-1). The

hand-measured distances and recorded survey points were used to create a map for this

monitoring event and to use as an aid for locating transects during subsequent monitoring

events (Figures 2 and 3; Appendix A).

2.1.1.1 Crown Cover

The line intercept sampling method was used to measure percent crown cover of woody

species (Ridolfi, 2012). Crown cover was measured along each transect using a measuring

tape. Only the canopy of woody species was measured. A measuring tape was extended 45

feet along contour from the first wooden stake of the transect to the end rebar of the transect. A

field team member walked along the landward side of the tape until coming to a woody species.

Each woody species that was encountered along the transect had its canopy measured at the

start point and the end point of where its dripline or overhang intersected the transect. If two or

more woody species overlapped along the transect, they were measured as one unit. Each

woody species encountered along the transect was identified to species. To estimate the

percent canopy cover for each transect, the lengths of the individual canopy intercepts were

added and then divided by 45 feet. The percent canopy cover was calculated by averaging the

canopy cover measured for each transect.

2.1.1.2 Groundcover

Percent groundcover was visually estimated from two quadrats placed at the 15- and 30-foot

mark of each transect (Ridolfi, 2012). A measuring tape was used to find the appropriate

sample points. Measurements started at the first rebar marker of each transect. A quadrat

template constructed with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe measuring 2 meters long by 0.5 meter

wide was placed on the bayside of each transect at the 15-foot and 30-foot mark. Each quadrat

was situated so that the corner of the quadrat closest to the first wooden marker was touching

the sample point with the remainder of the quadrat extending towards the end point of the

transect. Each quadrat was subdivided into four grids measuring 0.5 meter by 0.5 meter.

Percent coverage of living and non-living groundcover plants present within the grids was

visually estimated along with the percent of non-plant cover (leaf litter, moss, mulch, large wood,

and detritus) and bare ground to determine the percent cover for each quadrat. Woody, native,

and invasive plants were identified to species. Estimations for each of the three classes (plant,

non-plant, and bare ground) were totaled and averaged to determine percent groundcover.




2.1.2 Data Analysis

Crown Cover

Seven random riparian transects were sampled at both the Strawberry Plant Park and Pritchard

Park East Bluff sites.

For each species, the average cover for the site is given by:

7

7

1

i

ic

c ,

Where ci is the percent cover for the species for transect i.

Most species were not observed at most sites, so the default distributions of individual species

is assumed to be zero-modified log-normal distribution, with mean estimates and confidence

intervals estimated as discussed for marsh quadrats in Section 2.1.4.

Groundcover

Two quadrats on each riparian transect were visually sampled for total percent plant and non-

plant cover, as well as for bare ground. Since the random samples were transects (i.e., not

quadrats), the results for the two quadrats were averaged to provide one groundcover result for

each transect. There was 100 percent herbaceous cover in all quadrats at the Pritchard Park

East Bluff site, so confidence intervals could not be formed. At the Strawberry Plant Park site,

the herbaceous cover was very near 100 percent and the distribution could not be transformed

into anything approximating normality. However, approximate confidence intervals were formed

using the zero-modified log-normal distribution assumption for the non-plant cover values and

subtracting these confidence limits from one to form intervals for percent herbaceous cover.

Annual Differences

The change in percent cover from 2012 to 2013 was assessed using the nonparametric sign

test (Conover, 1980), which compares the number of quadrats (for riparian transects) or the

number of transects (for riparian canopy cover) with increasing versus decreasing cover. Tests

were not performed if there were fewer than three quadrats (or transects for riparian) with non-

zero changes.




2.1.3 Marsh Development/Percent Coverage

Primary objective: The percent cover of vegetation should be stable or increasing within

portions of the project within elevations suitable to marsh establishment (CB Trustees,

2000).

In this task, percent cover of marsh vegetation at the Strawberry Plant Park site was estimated

using mean visual estimates from 25 quadrats (Elzinga et al., 1998). The percent cover of

marsh vegetation was measured from randomly selected sampling points within the marsh

habitat area. Sampling was conducted in early October 2013. Quadrat templates constructed

with PVC pipe measuring 0.5 meter by 0.5 meter were placed at random locations within the

salt marsh area between +10 to +13 feet MLLW. The purpose for randomly positioning the

quadrats was to make sure the sampling is not biased toward lower or upper marsh habitat.

The sampling points were established and permanently marked with a wooden stake during the

first monitoring event. Each permanent point at the Site was entered into a GPS unit with a

horizontal accuracy of approximately 1 meter. This information was used to create a map for

future monitoring events. The locations for each marsh quadrat are shown on Figure 2.

Coordinates for each quadrat are provided in Appendix B.

Percent coverage of each plant species present within each quadrat was visually estimated

along with the percent of non-plant cover and bare ground to determine the percent cover for

each quadrat. Native and invasive taxa were identified to species. Non-plant cover was

classified as large wood, litter, moss, or soil. Estimations for each class (plant, non-plant, and

bare ground) were totaled and averaged to determine percent cover of marsh vegetation for

each quadrat and the Sites.

2.1.4 Data Analysis

The marsh boundary area at the Strawberry Plant Park site was approximately 0.33 acres.

Twenty-five quadrats (0.5 by 0.5 m) were randomly placed within the boundary area and

sampled for percent cover of native and non-native marsh species. There are many quadrats

with zero cover for particular species and the distribution of percent cover tends to be

skewed. In this case, using the arithmetic mean of cover in each quadrat as an estimate of the

average cover for the site is a biased estimate of the population mean. Instead, we assume a

zero-modified log-normal distribution of percent cover among quadrats, unless there is evidence

that this distribution is a poor fit.

Unbiased means and confidence intervals for the zero-modified log-normal distributions are

estimated using the function ezmlnorm in package EnvStats (Millard, 2013) in R (R Core Team

2013, version 3.02), using the mean-variance-unbiased estimation method (mvue), and the

normal approximation confidence interval.




For totals (e.g., all native species or common species), the assumption of zero-modified log-

normal distribution may be a poor fit. The following selected alternatives were used in the cases

noted here:

1) If there are no quadrats with zero cover, but the distribution is still right skewed, log-normal distribution is assumed, and mean and confidence intervals (Land’s method) are formed using function elnormAlt.

2) If the distribution is left-skewed, the proportion data are arcsine-transformed, and normal distribution is assumed on the transformed data. The mean and confidence intervals are formed using the simple mean and t-intervals in the transformed space, then back-transformed to original units.

3) If the distribution is not skewed, normal distribution is assumed, and the mean and confidence intervals are formed using the arithmetic mean and standard t-intervals.

2.1.5 Forage Fish Access/Presence

Primary objective; Forage fish will access the project with increasing utilization for

spawning. Forage fish egg presence within the project should be comparable to that of

appropriate reference sites at the end of 10 years (adapted from CB Trustees, 2000).

This task was performed at the Pritchard Park East Bluff site. For Year 2, the surveys occurred

in December 2013 at an appropriate tide. Survey crews followed the protocols outlined by the

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and provided in the monitoring plan

(Ridolfi, 2012).

During the event, three 100-foot transects were surveyed for forage fish (Figure 3). Two

transects, designated for the identification of surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), were located

between +7 and +9 feet above the MLLW mark. A third transect, designated for the

identification of Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), was located between +5 and +8

feet MLLW. A map depicting the locations of the transects is provided in Figure 3. Starting and

ending coordinates for each transect are provided in Appendix C.

Samples were collected every 25 feet along each transect for a total of four samples per

transect. Sediment was surveyed and analyzed for grain size using standard stacked sieves.

The presence of sand lance and surf smelt eggs was evaluated by viewing the sediment

samples through a dissecting microscope. Results were discussed with WDFW for quality

control/quality assurance. The survey work was done under a Scientific Collection Permit that is

obtained annually, prior to each year’s first monitoring event.




2.2 Physical Success Criteria

2.2.1 Elevation and Morphology

Primary objective: No evidence of erosion that threatens restoration project goals,

property, infrastructure, or is otherwise unacceptable is observed after a period of initial

site stabilization (CB Trustees, 2000).

The City performed topographic surveying at each site based on guidance provided by Ridolfi.

At each site, the surveyor established five to eight transects by installing stakes in the riparian

zone. Profiles were then shot perpendicular to the shoreline from each stake, measuring

elevations at approximately 10-foot intervals or where there was a noticeable break in slope.

The survey was conducted with +/- 0.1 feet horizontal accuracy was and +/- 0.05 feet vertical

accuracy. To evaluate elevations and morphology in subsequent years, the transects will be

reoccupied beginning at the stakes installed this year. The deliverable for this task will be

cross-section plots showing elevation profiles for the different monitoring events. The

deliverable will be provided to support evaluation of both Sites’ physical structure for

subsequent Annual Monitoring reports.

2.2.2 Photo Point Monitoring and Visual Inspections

Primary objective: Photo point monitoring will be conducted to monitor changes in plant

cover, invasives, species composition, and disturbances in the riparian and salt marsh

vegetation habitat at the Site (CB Trustees, 2000).

Photo point monitoring was conducted at both Sites in conjunction with the vegetation

monitoring in early October 2013, and during a second event in April 2014. For the Strawberry

Park Plant site, six photo points were established at approximately +13 feet MLLW in the

riparian and salt marsh habitat transition zone (Figure 2). For the Pritchard Park East Bluff site,

five photo points were established along the asphalt and gravel path and at approximately +13

feet MLLW in the riparian and forage fish beach habitat transition zone (Figure 3). Placing the

photo points in front of the riparian zone ensured that photographs were not blocked by foliage

in the later years of the monitoring program. Photo point locations were established during the

first scheduled monitoring event and were permanently marked with a wooden stake. Each

permanent photo point was entered into a GPS unit with a horizontal accuracy of one meter or

better. This information was used to create a map showing the photo point locations for future

monitoring events. Coordinates for each photo point are provided in Appendix D.

At each photo point, a field team member took a series of photographs every 45 degrees in a

full circle so that the entire site was represented. Photographs were taken with a digital camera

at a minimum resolution of 2200 by 1704 pixels or approximately 3.7 megapixels. A photo log




was filled out for each monitoring event. Data recorded included names of field personnel, date,

time, file name, site, orientation, and photo point location

Monitoring staff also made observations regarding general site conditions. These observations

included presence of erosional features, prevalence of dead or dying plants, accumulation of

trash or flotsam, indications of vandalism, or signs of animal use or grazing of vegetation.




3.0 MONITORING RESULTS

This section describes monitoring results for Year 2 (2013/2014). Ridolfi performed riparian and

marsh vegetation monitoring, forage fish spawning surveys, and photo point monitoring at the

Site. Statistical analysis for riparian and marsh vegetation was performed by R2 Resource

Consultants, Inc. The City performed topographical surveys at the Sites. Biological and

physical observations were recorded on data forms in the field and then entered into a database

developed for the project. Ridolfi personnel performed the data entry and spot-checked entries

for quality control. The database was queried to generate the site-specific summary tables

discussed in this section. Year 1 (2012/2013) was the first year that the newly constructed Sites

were sampled. The results from Year 1 serve as baseline information for the Sites.

The sampling methods functioned as intended and were conducted as described in Section 2.0.

Statistical analyses were conducted as described in Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.4. Figures 2 and 3

shows the points of interest at both Sites including the riparian baselines, riparian transects,

marsh quadrats, forage fish survey transects, and photo point monitoring locations. Appendix A

through D provides additional information for the riparian, marsh, forage fish survey, and photo

point monitoring activities, respectively.

3.1 Riparian Vegetation Percent Coverage

The Sites were sampled for riparian vegetation and areal coverage in early October 2013.

Percent cover of tree and shrub species and of non-native or invasive (NNI) vegetation were

measured from seven line intercept transects located within the riparian area of both Sites

(Figure 2 and 3). Additionally, groundcover was evaluated at two points along each of the

riparian transects to measure native and NNI species, bare ground, and non-plant matter.

Table 1 shows the results for the Strawberry Plant Park site for the riparian crown cover

including the number of transects with non-cover, average percent cover, and 90 percent

confidence intervals calculated by species from the data. Table 2 shows the results for the

Strawberry Plant Park Site for the change in crown cover on riparian transects for Year 1 and

Year 2 including percent of quadrats with decreased or increased cover and percent of quadrats

with no change. Table 3 shows the results for the Strawberry Plant Park site for the riparian

groundcover including number of transects with plants observed, the average percent cover,

and the 90 percent confidence intervals calculated by plant species and other non-plant matter

from the data. Tables 4, 5, and 6 show results for the parameters above for the Pritchard Park

East Bluff Park site. Appendix B provides the raw data for riparian crown cover and riparian

groundcover for both Sites.





Crown Cover

Using the statistical methods described in Section 2.1.2, the riparian data for the Site were

tabulated and evaluated as shown in Table 1. Statistical analysis indicates a mean crown cover

of 5.6 percent native shrubs, 7.9 percent native trees, and 0 percent NNI species. A total of 14

native plant species were observed along the seven transects; six shrub species and eight tree

species. The dominant native tree and native shrub species were red alder and Nootka rose,

respectively. All species were sparse and many had died or showed signs of stress primarily

due to lack of water.

As shown in Table 2, 29 percent of quadrats showed a decrease in crown cover for total native

species between Year 1 and Year 2, while 71 percent showed an increase. All quadrats

showed some amount of change in crown cover for native species over the two monitoring

years.

Groundcover

Using the statistical methods described in Section 2.1.2, groundcover data for the Site were

tabulated and evaluated at two points along each of the riparian transects. The groundcover

results are shown in Table 3. Statistical analysis indicates a mean groundcover of 96 percent

plant species (native and NNI), 3.9 percent non-plant matter, and 0 percent bareground. A mix

of herbaceous, shrub, and grass species were observed along the transects; eight native

species, and eleven NNI species. Native species included willowherb, kinnikinnick, lupine,

common snowberry, and common rush. NNI species included aster, prickly lettuce, common St.

John’s wort, Queen Anne’s lace, white clover, Himalayan blackberry, and unclassified grasses.

Non-plant matter included a log and rocks and cobble.

3.1.1.1 Riparian Success Evaluation

Under the primary objective for riparian vegetation, restoration of the riparian zone is considered

successful if the percent cover of shrubs and trees is stable or increasing over time.

Additionally by Year 5, the shrub and tree areal cover should exceed 50 percent and 40 percent,

respectively; and the bare ground and NNI cover should be less than 10 percent and 5 percent,

respectively.

The analysis shows that the shrub and tree cover criterion is not being met at the Site (Table 1).

For crown canopy there were no NNI sampled. However, NNI species were observed in the

groundcover quadrats along the transects; therefore the NNI criterion for the Site is partially

met. The majority of the ground surface in the upland areas is covered with native and NNI

plants or non-plant matter (Table 3). The bare ground criterion is being met.




The irrigation system at the Site appears to not be used or is not working, resulting in many

plants dying or experiencing stress due to lack of water. Additionally, the Site was thick with

willowherb, unclassified grasses, and Scot’s broom, which were covering and crowding out the

newly planted native plants. In early winter, after the Year 1 monitoring event, the Site was

weeded and mulched and several new native plants were planted in areas throughout the Site.

Similar maintenance efforts will be conducted over the next few winters.

In summary, the performance of the riparian vegetation as defined in Section 2.0 is not being

met at the Site. However, whether the percent cover of riparian vegetation is remaining stable

or increasing over time cannot be assessed based on a two years of monitoring.


Crown Cover

Using the statistical methods described in Section 2.1.2, the riparian data for the Site were

tabulated and evaluated as shown in Table 4. Statistical analysis indicates a mean crown cover

of 12 percent native shrubs, 1.3 percent native trees, and 0 percent NNI species. A total of 10

native plant species were observed along the seven transects; six shrub species and four tree

species. The dominant native shrub species were snowberry and Nootka rose. The dominant

tree species was grand fir. However, all species were sparse and many had died or showed

signs of stress primarily due to lack of water. Additionally, a construction access road, related to

a bulkhead construction project, has been built through the center of the Site. The road remains

in place and devoid of the native riparian vegetation that was originally planted in the area.

As shown in Table 5, 29 percent of quadrats showed a decrease in crown cover for total native

species between Year 1 and Year 2, while 71 percent showed an increase. All quadrats

showed some amount of change in crown cover for native species over the two monitoring

years.

Groundcover

Using the statistical methods described in Section 2.1.2, groundcover data for the Site were

tabulated and evaluated at two points along each of the riparian transects. The groundcover

results are shown in Table 6. Statistical analysis indicates a mean groundcover of 100 percent

plant species (native and NNI), 0 percent non-plant matter, and 0 percent bareground. A mix of

herbaceous, shrub, and grass species were observed along the transects; two native species

and thirteen NNI species. Native species included willowherb and redwood sorrel. NNI species

included butterfly bush, English ivy, broadleaved pepperweed, Queen Anne’s lace, foxglove,

white clover, common plantain, Himalayan blackberry, and unclassified grasses.




3.1.2.1 Riparian Success Evaluation

Under the primary objective for riparian vegetation, restoration of the riparian zone is considered

successful if the percent cover of shrubs and trees is stable or increasing over time. Additionally

by Year 5, the shrub and tree areal cover should exceed 50 percent and 40 percent,

respectively; and the bare ground and NNI cover should be less than 10 percent and 5 percent,

respectively.

The analysis shows that the shrub and tree cover criterion is not being met at the Site (Table 4).

For crown canopy there were no NNI sampled. However, numerous NNI species were

observed in the groundcover quadrats along the transects; therefore the NNI criterion for the

Site is partially met. The majority of the ground surface in the upland areas is covered with

native and NNI plants (Table 6). The bare ground cover criterion is being met.

The irrigation system at the Site has been severally damaged due to erosion and wave action,

resulting in many plants dying or experience stress due to lack of water. Additionally, the Site

was thick with willowherb, unclassified grasses, and Himalayan blackberry and other NNI

species mentioned above, which were covering and crowding out the newly planted native

plants. In late winter, after the Year 1 monitoring event, the Site was weeded and mulched and

several new native plants were planted in areas throughout the Site. Similar maintenance

efforts will be conducted over the next few winters. The construction access road, built through

the center of the Site, has reduced the amount of riparian vegetation cover.

In summary, the performance of the riparian vegetation as defined in Section 2.0 is not being

met at the Site. However, whether the percent cover of riparian vegetation is remaining stable

or increasing over time cannot be assessed based on two years of monitoring.

3.2 Marsh Development/Percent Coverage

The Site was successfully sampled for marsh plant development and species composition.

Sampling occurred in early October 2013 during low tide. A total of 25 quadrats were sampled.

Marsh quadrat locations are shown on Figure 2. Table 7 provides a summary of monitoring

results for each quadrat. Table 8 provides a change in cover on marsh quadrats for Year 1 and

Year 2. Appendix B provides the raw data and photos of each sampled quadrat to use for

comparison to future monitoring events.

All 25 marsh quadrats sampled at the Site had vegetation in Year 2. Ten native plant species

were identified. While some unclassified grasses were observed in one of the quadrats in the

upper elevations of the marsh, no NNI species were observed in the other 24 quadrats. Native

species represented approximately 81 percent average cover in Year 2, while NNI species were

not observed, with the exception of the unclassified grasses, which represented 0.63 percent




cover. The remainder of the ground in the quadrats was bare. The most prevalent native

species observed, based on the average unbiased cover estimate, was pickleweed at 46

percent (Table 7). Pickleweed was thick and robust throughout the marsh area. The next two

most frequently observed species were fat-hen saltbush and fleshy jaumea.

As presented in Table 8, 28 percent of quadrats showed a decrease in crown cover for total

native species between Year 1 and Year 2, while 56 percent showed an increase. Sixteen

percent of the quadrats showed no change in cover for total native species.

3.2.1 Marsh Success Evaluation

According to the primary objective for marsh plant development and species composition,

success at the Site is evaluated by percent cover of native marsh plant species that remains

stable or increases over time and whether percent cover of NNI species is less than 5 percent.

Based on the Year 2 monitoring, marsh development for percent cover of native plant species is

being met, primarily due the robust presence of pickleweed and nine other marsh plant species

over the majority of the Site. The percent cover for NNI species was 0.63 percent, well below

the target of 5 percent. Unclassified grasses were the only NNI species observed, in only 1 of

25 quadrats (Table 7). However, whether the percent cover of native marsh plant species is

remaining stable or increasing over time cannot be assessed based on two years of monitoring.

3.3 Forage Fish Access/Presence

Grain size analysis using standard stacked sieves was performed on beach substrate collected

from three transects at Pritchard Park East Bluff between +7 and +9 feet above the MLLW

(transects FF-01 and FF-03); and between +5 and +8 MLLW elevation (transect FF-02) in

December 2013. Grain size analysis of the three samples determined the following:

Sand, ranging in size from 0.125 millimeters (mm) to 2 mm, made up between

approximately 50 percent of the samples from transects FF-01 and FF-03 by mass. This

is a reduction from 2013, when all the samples collected included a greater sand

fraction. (Note: transect FF-02 was not sampled in 2012.)

Virtually no silt-sized (0.063 mm) or finer material was present in any sample.

Gravel, ranging from 2 mm to 4 mm or larger in diameter made up between

approximately 8 and 50 percent of the 3 samples by mass. Transects FF-01 and FF-02

both had gravel fractions in the 50 percent range.

Transect FF-03 had a significantly smaller gravel fraction than transects FF-01 and FF-

02, with 92 percent of the sample (by mass) passing the 2 mm sieve.




Grain size distribution curves for each of the transects that were sampled are presented in

Figures 4 through 6. Target grain size distributions for surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) fall

almost exclusively within the range of 1 to 10 mm in diameter (95 percent of samples by

weight). Samples from transects FF-01 and FF-03 in the surf smelt target tidal range, contain

approximately 30-percent to 65-percent material respectively with a grain size diameter in the

target range. These distributions generally indicate that the beach substrate at the Site remains

finer than is optimum for surf smelt spawning in the tidal ranges sampled.

Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) grain size distributions identified by Pentilla (2012)

included 67 percent of sampled material falling between 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm diameter, and 25

percent of sampled material falling between 1 and 7 mm diameter. Observation of the sand

lance spawning elevations between +5 and +8 feet above MLLW (transect FF-02) at Prichard

Park found that this transect had changed some from the conditions observed in 2012 when an

armor layer was observed. The 2013 grain size distribution still includes a majority of material

with a diameter greater than 1 mm (approximately 70 percent of the sample by mass), with the

remainder of the material falling between 1 mm and 0.25 mm. While improved from 2012, the

observed distribution still remains too coarse for sand lance to spawn within this elevation

range.

3.4 Topographic Survey

The City performed a topographic survey of the Site in conjunction with the riparian and marsh

vegetation monitoring in early October 2012. The results of the survey are still pending and will

be compared with the design configuration or as-built drawings for each Site at a later date.

The results from the Year 1 survey will also serve as the baseline for comparison to all future

surveys.

3.5 Photo Point Monitoring and Visual Inspection

Photo point monitoring was conducted in early October 2013 in conjunction with the riparian and

marsh vegetation monitoring and again in April 2014. Six photo points at Strawberry Plant Park

site and five photo points were established at the Pritchard Park East Bluff site. Locations for

the photo points are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The photo points were placed in front of the

riparian zone to ensure that photos will not be blocked by foliage in the later years of the

monitoring program. The photo points established in Year 1 serve as the baseline for all future

monitoring. Appendix D includes the photos and photo log from this Year 2 event.

Monitoring personnel also made observations regarding general conditions at both Sites. As

stated above, both Sites are dry with several dying or dead plants. It is unclear if the irrigation

system at Strawberry Plant Park is in disrepair or is just not used. The irrigation system at

Pritchard Park East Bluff is severely damaged due to erosion and wave action.




Both Sites are also heavily infested with willowherb, unclassified grasses, and several NNI

species, which are crowding out young native plants planted during restoration activities. A

Volunteer Maintenance Day was held in early winter 2013 at Strawberry Plant Park site and in

late winter at the Pritchard Park East Bluff site. The work efforts at both sites focused on general

cleanup, weeding, planting, and mulching. Additionally, a construction access road, related to a

bulkhead construction project, was built through the center of the Pritchard Park East Bluff site.

The road remains intact and the area has not been replanted resulting in a reduction of overall

native riparian vegetation.

The marsh area ringing the Strawberry Plant Park site is quite robust and healthy. The removal

of the goose exclusion fencing during the 2012 Volunteer Maintenance Day appears to have

facilitated the growth of marsh vegetation outside of the removed fence line. Litter at both Sites

was minimal and was generally found in the tidal wrack-line.

The lower elevations of the Pritchard Park East Bluff site are dominated with large cobbles. It

appears that the finer-grained (sand and gravel) beach substrate placed in the lower elevations

at the Pritchard Park East Bluff site to support sand lance spawning habitat has been

transported off site due to erosion and wave action. Further analyses of the topographical

survey and photos taken during construction are needed to determine if this has occurred. In

addition the riparian bank that originally sloped to the beach has been eroded and damaged due

to wave action which appears to have been quite significant during the winter months.




4.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Adaptive Management Recommendations

Based on the Year 2 monitoring results presented in this report, we have the following

recommendations:



Determine if the irrigation system is functioning and determine the schedule for irrigation.



prickly lettuce, Queen Anne’s lace, and black locust tree seedlings.

Target weeding around the plantings throughout site to create a buffer and encourage

growth.


retain moisture.

Conduct supplemental planting in areas where high mortality has occurred.

Continue to mow the meadow area to control Scot’s broom seed source.



Determine if the irrigation system is functioning and determine the schedule for irrigation.



prickly lettuce, Queen Anne’s lace, and English ivy.

Target weeding around the plantings throughout the site to create a buffer and

encourage growth.


retain moisture.

Decommission construction access road and replant with native riparian vegetation.

Monitor erosion along riparian area bordering the beach.

Monitor grain size of substrates in the pocket beach that was created to support forage

fish spawning habitat.




5.0 REFERENCES

Commencement Bay Natural Resource Trustees (Trustees). 2000. Commencement Bay

Natural Resource Damage Assessment Restoration Monitoring Plan. Prepared by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Department of Interior and

the State of Washington.

Conover, W. J.. 1980. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons,

New York.

Elzinga, C.L., D.W. Salzer, J.W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring Plant

Populations. U.S. Department of the Interior. July.

Millard SP (2013). EnvStats: An R Package for Environmental Statistics. Springer-Verlag, New

York.

Pentilla, D. 2012. Forage Fish Spawning Substrate Sediment Grain-size Data for Cornet Bay

Beach Restoration Project. September 6 memorandum to Colin Wagoner.

R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for

Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/.

RIDOLFI Inc. (Ridolfi). 2012. Monitoring Plan for the Strawberry Plant Park and Pritchard Park

East Bluff Restoration Projects, Bainbridge Island, Washington. Prepared for the City of

Bainbridge. August.

http://www.r-project.org/

FIGURES

Year 2 Monitoring Results for the Strawberry Plant Parkand Pritchard Park East Bluff Restoration Projects

Prepared for the City of Bainbridge Island

Figure 1July 2014

Site Locations

Strawberry Plant Park(Weaver Road NW)

Pritchard ParkEast Bluff(Northeast OldCreosote Hill Road)

E A G L EH A R B O R

OLYMP ICDR IVE

SE

EAGLE HARBORDRIVENE EAGLE HARBOR DRIVE NE

WINSLOW WAY W

BAINBRIDGE ISLANDFERRY TERMINAL

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

File Path: M:\Projects\330A_Bainbridge\Mapfiles\Results_Report_2014\Figure_1.mxd

SEATTLEBAINBRIDGE

ISLAND

PORTORCHARD

BREMERTON

EDMONDS

BURIEN

MAP EXEN T

± 0 1,000 2,000Feet

Figure 2July 2014Strawberry Plant Park

Riparian Baselines and Transects,Marsh Quadrats, and Photo Point Locations

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!( !( !(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

RIPARIANBASELINE

START

RIPARIANBASELINE

END

RIPARIANBASELINESTART

RIPARIANBASELINE

END

0'

100'200'

0'

100'

205'

294'

T-03 RB-02T-03 RB-01

T-02 RB-02

T-04 RB-01

T-02 R

B-01

T-01 RB-02

T-01 R

B-01

RB-02

RB-01

PP-03

PP-04

PP-05

PP-02

PP-01

PP-06

M-22

M-23

M-24

M-10

M-11M-15

M-13M-09

M-02

M-16

M-08

M-07

M-06M-05

M-01

M-12

M-03 M-04 M-18M-17

M-20M-19M-14

M-21

M-25

File Path: M:\Projects\330A_Bainbridge\Mapfiles\Results_Report_2014\Figure_2_Strawberry_Park.mxd



Legend!( Marsh Quadrats

!( Photo Points

Riparian Baseline

Riparian Transects ± 0 20 40Feet

Figure 3July 2014Pritchard Park East Bluff

Riparian Baseline and Transects,Forage Fish Survey Transects, and

Photo Point LocationsFile Path: M:\Projects\330A_Bainbridge\Mapfiles\Results_Report_2014\Figure_3_Pritchard_Park.mxd

Legend!( Photo Points

Forage Fish Survey Transects

Riparian Baseline

Riparian Transects



± 0 20 40Feet

Units

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

July 2014Pritchard Park East Bluff Monitoring

Figure 4

Transect FF-01 (7-9 ft MLLW)

Grain Size Distribution Curve --

December 2013Prepared for the City of Bainbridge Island

Very Fine Sand 0.063 - 0.125 0.0%

Coarse Silt & Fines <0.063 0.0%

Medium Sand 0.25 - 0.5 2.6%

Fine Sand 0.125 - 0.25 0.1%

Gravel 2 - 4 55.5%

Coarse Sand 0.5 - 2 12.4%

Grainsize Analysis Effective Diameter (mm) Percent Passing

Coarse Gravel >4 66.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.031250.06250.1250.250.5124

Perc

en

t o

f S

am

ple

Passin

g

Grainsize in millimeters

Grain Size Distribution

Units

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

July 2014



December 2013

Figure 5

0.0%

Pritchard Park East Bluff Monitoring


Grainsize Analysis

Coarse Gravel

Gravel

Coarse Sand

Medium Sand

Fine Sand

Very Fine Sand

Coarse Silt & Fines

0.125 - 0.25

0.063 - 0.125

<0.063

0.0%

0.0%

Effective Diameter (mm)

>4

2 - 4

0.5 - 2

0.25 - 0.5

Percent Passing

63.1%

49.2%

8.1%

1.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.031250.06250.1250.250.5124

Perc

en

t o

f S

am

ple

Passin

g



Units

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

July 2014

Grainsize Analysis Effective Diameter (mm) Percent Passing

Coarse Gravel >4 95.8%

Gravel 2 - 4 92.0%

Coarse Sand 0.5 - 2 42.5%

Medium Sand 0.25 - 0.5 6.3%

Fine Sand 0.125 - 0.25 0.0%

Very Fine Sand 0.063 - 0.125 0.0%

Coarse Silt & Fines <0.063 0.0%

Pritchard Park East Bluff MonitoringFigure 6



December 2013Prepared for the City of Bainbridge Island

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.031250.06250.1250.250.5124

Perc

en

t o

f S

am

ple

Passin

g



TABLES

Table 1. Strawberry Plant Park Crown Cover on Riparian Transects for Year 2

Cover

Class Common Name Scientific Name

Number of

Transects

with non-

zero cover

(out of 7)

Average

% Cover

Median %

Cover

Distributional

Assumption for

Estimating

Mean

Unbiased

Mean

Estimate

% Cover

Lower

90% CL

Upper

90% CL

Native

kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 1 0.54 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

oceanspray Holodiscus discolor 2 0.72 0 ZMLN 0.72 0 16

lupine Lupinus sp. 1 0.30 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

tall Oregon grape Mahonia aquifolium 1 0.018 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Nootka rose Rosa nutkana 3 4.3 0 ZMLN 4.1 0 12

red elderberry Sambucus racemosa 1 0.10 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total Native Shrubs 6 6.0 3.9 ZMLN 5.6 0.87 10

red alder Alnus rubra 3 6.5 0 ZMLN 7.4 0 738

red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera 1 0.13 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 1 0.048 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 0.071 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

cascara Rhamnus purshiana 1 1.4 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Pacific willow Salix lasiandra 2 0.038 0 ZMLN 0.038 0 0.083

Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana 4 0.48 0.33 ZMLN 0.47 0 1.0

Western red cedar Thuja plicata 2 0.51 0 ZMLN 0.51 0 1.1

Total Native Trees 5 9.2 0.69 ZMLN 7.9 0 83

Total Native Species 7 15 7.8 LN 14 7.7 80

Total All Species 7 15 7.8 LN 14 7.7 80

Notes:

CL = confidence level

n/a = not available

ZMLN = Zero-modified lognormal distribution; LN=log-normal distribution

Shrubs

Trees

Year 2 Monitoring Results

Strawberry Park and

Pritchard Park East Bluff Restoration Projects

July 2014 Page 1 of 8140619_Yr 2 Results Report Tables

Table 2. Change in Strawberry Plant Park Crown Cover on Riparian Transects for Year 1 and 2 (2012-2013)

Common Namea

Scientific Name

Percent of

Quadrats with

Decreased Cover

Percent of

Quadrats with No

Change

Percent of

Quadrats with

Increased Cover

Statistical

Resultb

Native

kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 14% 86% 0% No Test

lupine Lupinus sp. 0% 86% 14% No Test

tall Oregon grape Mahonia aquifolium 14% 71% 14% No Test

Nootka rose Rosa nutkana 0% 57% 43%

red elderberry Sambucus racemosa 14% 86% 0% No Test

Total Native Shrubs 71% 14% 14%

red alder Alnus rubra 43% 43% 14%

red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera 14% 86% 0% No Test

Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 14% 86% 0% No Test

cascara Rhamnus purshiana 0% 86% 14% No Test

Pacific willow Salix lasiandra 14% 71% 14% No Test

Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana 14% 43% 43%

Western red cedar Thuja plicata 0% 71% 29% No Test

Total Native Trees 57% 14% 29%

Total Native Species 29% 0% 71%

Notes:a Displayed species are species observed in both years - Total Native includes

species observed in either year.b Species with less than three non-zero changes could not be statistically tested.

Shrubs

Trees


Strawberry Park and



Table 3. Strawberry Plant Park Groundcover on Riparian Transects for Year 2

Type of Species Cover Class Common Name Scientific Name

Number of

Transects (out of 7)

with Species

Observed

Number of

Transects with

non-zero cover

Distributional

Assumption for

Mean % Cover

Average

Percent

Cover

90%

Lower CL

90%

Upper CL

horsetail Equisetum sp. 1

kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 1

lupine Lupinus sp. 1

rush Juncus sp. 1

strawberry Fragaria sp. 1

willowherb Epilobium sp. 4

American dunegrass Leymus mollis 1

common rush Juncus effusus 1

aster Aster sp. 4

birds-foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus 2

bull thistle Cirsium vulgare 1

common plantain Plantago major 3

common St. John's-wort Hypericum perforatum 1

geranium Geranium sp. 3

prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola 2

Queen Anne's lace Daucus carota 5

vetch Vicia sp. 4

white clover Trifolium repens 7

Shrub Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor 1

Unclassified Gram Unclassified-grass Unclassified-grass 7

Non-Plant Cover 2 ZMLN 3.9% 0 36%

Bare Ground 0 n/a 0% n/a n/a

Notes:aConfidence intervals for mean plant cover found by subtraction from non-plant cover intervals


n/a = not available

ZMLN=Zero-modified lognormal distribution; LN=log-normal distribution

64% 100%

Gram

Non-Native or

Invasive

Herb

96%Plant Cover

Native

Herb

7 n/aa


Strawberry Park and



Table 4. Pritchard Park Crown Cover on Riparian Transects for Year 2

Cover

Class Common Name Scientific Name

Number of

Transects

with non-

zero cover

(out of 7)

Average

% Cover

Median %

Cover

Distributional

Assumption

for Estimating

Mean

Unbiased

Mean

Estimate

% Cover

Lower

90% CL

Upper

90% CL

Native

kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 1 0.61 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

oceanspray Holodiscus discolor 5 2.1 1.7 ZMLN 2.9 0 16

lupine Lupinus sp. 1 0.45 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Nootka rose Rosa nutkana 5 4.4 2.0 ZMLN 6.0 0 27

thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus 1 0.10 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

common snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 5 4.4 3.1 ZMLN 4.4 0 9.1

Total Native Shrubs 7 12 13 N 12 4.9 19

grand fir Abies grandis 1 0.60 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

red alder Alnus rubra 1 0.32 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

shore pine Pinus contorta 1 0.23 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana 2 0.12 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total Native Trees 3 1.3 0 ZMLN 1.3 0 2.6

Total Native Species 7 13 13 N 13 5.9 21

Total All Species 7 13 13 N 13 5.9 21

Notes:


ZMLN = Zero-modified lognormal distribution; N=normal distribution

n/a = not available

Shrubs

Trees


Strawberry Park and



Table 5. Change in Pritchard Park Crown Cover on Riparian Transects for Year 1 and 2 (2012-2013)

Common Name Scientific Namea

Percent of

Quadrats

with

Decreased

Cover

Percent of

Quadrats

with No

Change

Percent of

Quadrats

with

Increased

Cover

Statistical

Resultb

Native

kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 14% 86% 0% No Test

oceanspray Holodiscus discolor 29% 29% 43%

lupine Lupinus sp. 0% 86% 14% No Test

Nootka rose Rosa nutkana 14% 29% 57%

thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus 14% 86% 0% No Test

common snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 14% 14% 71%

Total Native Shrubs 29% 0% 71%

grand fir Abies grandis 14% 86% 0% No Test

red alder Alnus rubra 43% 43% 14%

Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana 14% 71% 14% No Test

Total Native Trees 57% 29% 14%

Total Native Species 29% 0% 71%

a Displayed species are species observed in both years - Total Native includes

species observed in either year.

b Species with less than three non-zero changes could not be statistically tested.

Shrubs

Trees


Strawberry Park and



Table 6. Pritchard Park Groundcover on Riparian Transects for Year 2

Type of Species Cover Class Common Name Scientific Name

Number of Transects

(out of 7) with

Species Observed

Number of

Transects with

non-zero cover

Distributional

Assumption for

Mean % Cover

Average

Percent

Cover

90% Lower

CL

90% Upper

CL

redwood sorrel Oxalis oregana 1

willowherb Epilobium sp. 2

aster Aster sp. 4

birds-foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus 1

common plantain Plantago major 1

curly dock Rumex crispus 1

geranium Geranium sp. 1

prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola 1

Queen Anne's lace Daucus carota 1

white clover Trifolium repens 2

butterfly bush Buddleja davidii 1

Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor 6

English ivy Hedera helix 2

vetch Vicia sp. 7

Unclassified Gram Unclassified-grass Unclassified-grass 7

Non-Plant Cover 0 n/a 0% n/a n/a

Bare Ground 0 n/a 0% n/a n/a

Notes:


n/a = not available

n/a n/aNon-Native or

Invasive

Herb

Shrub

Vine

100%Plant Cover

Native Herb

7 n/a


Strawberry Park and



Table 7. Strawberry Plant Park Percent Coverage on Marsh Quadrats for Year 2

Actual

Total

Canopy (%)

Average

Quadrat

Canopy

Cover (%)

Frequency

(%)

Species

Composition

(%)

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

orache, fat-hen saltbush Atriplex patula131 16.4 32 0.87

5.1 0 12

pickleweed Salicornia virginica247 17.6 56 0.9

46 35 57

seaside plantain Plantago maritima65.0 13.00 20 0.69

1.2 0.32 2.1

sandspurry Spergularia sp.146.0 20.86 28 1.11

2.3 0.02 4.6

entire-leaved gumweed Grindelia integrifolia10.0 10.0 4 0.53

2.5 0.000 5.1

American dunegrass Leymus mollis13.0 6.50 8.0 0.34

0.5 0 2

Juncus effusus common rush30.0 6.0 20.0 0.32

0 n/a n/a

seashore saltgrass Distichlis spicata1161 55.3 84 2.93

10 3.4 16

fleshy jaumea Jaumea carnosa57 9.5 24 0.5

6.7 0 19

seaside arrow-grass Triglochin maritimum 10.0 10.0 4.0 0.53 0.4 n/a n/a

Canopy Cover, Native 1870 165 8.8 81 69 90

Unclassified-grass Unclassified-grass 15.0 15.0 4.0 0.80 n/a n/a n/a

Canopy Cover, NNI 15 15 0.80 n/a n/a n/a

TOTAL 1885 180 10 81 70 90

Proportion of non-native or invasive plants (%): 8.3% 0.63% 1.2% 0.246%

Notes:

Species composition: Obtained by dividing the average percent canopy cover of each plant species by the total canopy cover of all plant

species.

90% Confidence

Non-Native or Invasive (NNI)

Actual Total Canopy: Obtained by summing the percent cover of all quadrats on the transect.

Average Quadrat Canopy Cover: Obtained by dividing the total canopy by the total number of quadrats sampled on the transect.

Frequency: Obtained by dividing the number of occurrences of a plant species (the number of quadrats in which a plant species was observed)

by the total number of quadrats sampled along the transect.

Native

Common Name Scientific Name

Exact Method - Continuous

Unbiased

Average

Quadrat

Canopy

Cover (%)


Strawberry Park and



Table 8. Change in Strawberry Plant Park Crown Cover on Marsh Quadrats for Year 1 and 2 (2012-2013)

Common Name Scientific Namea

Percent of

Quadrats

with

Decreased

Cover

Percent of

Quadrats

with No

Change

Percent of

Quadrats

with

Increased

Cover

Statistical

Resultb

orache, fat-hen saltbush Atriplex patula 40% 56% 4% -seashore saltgrass Distichlis spicata 8% 48% 44% +

entire-leaved gumweed Grindelia integrifolia 8% 80% 12%

fleshy jaumea Jaumea carnosa 12% 76% 12%

seaside plantain Plantago maritima 12% 80% 8%

pickleweed Salicornia virginica 12% 12% 76% +

sandspurry Spergularia sp. 32% 56% 12%

seaside arrow-grass Triglochin maritimum 4% 92% 4% No Testc

Unclassified Unclassified-grass Unclassified-grass 0% 88% 12%

28% 16% 56%

16% 84% 0%

44% 16% 40%

Notes:a Displayed species are species observed in both years - Total NNI, Total Native, and Total include

species observed in either year.b "+" indicates a significant increase (two-tailed sign test, alpha = 0.05);

"-" indicates a significant decrease; other species are not significantly changedc Species with less than three non-zero changes could not be statistically tested.

Native

Total Native

Total Non-Native or Invasive

Total (All Species)


Strawberry Park and



strawberry plant park and pritchard park ......of eagle harbor, on a parcel owned by the city of...

Documents