Impact Evaluation 2014-2015

Washington Conservation Corps 

Restoration Sites 

Prepared October 2015 by: 

The Watershed Company

750 Sixth Street South

Kirkland WA 98033 

(425) 822 – 5242 

watershedco.com

Prepared for: 

Bridget Mason

Washington Conservation Corps

Washington State Department of Ecology

PO Box 47600 

Olympia, WA 98504 

WA State Dept. of Ecology - Washington Conservation Corps

App ID #16ES178308

I MPACT E VALUATION 2014 - 2015

Washington Conservation Corps 

Restoration Sites

Prepared for: 

Bridget Mason

Washington Conservation Corps 

Washington State Department of Ecology 

PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504 

Prepared by:

October 2015

The Watershed Company Reference Number: 

140829 

The Watershed Company Contact Person:

Nell Lund, PWS, Ecologist

Sarah Sandstrom, Fisheries Biologist 
Impact Evaluation 2014-2015

Washington Conservation Corps Restoration Sites

ii
The Watershed Company

October 2015

E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) focuses on design and implementation of 

environmental restoration projects, including wetland and riparian corridor enhancement and 

restoration. The program receives AmeriCorps funding for implementation of environmental 

and disaster services. To meet AmeriCorps funding requirements, the WCC is required to 

evaluate the success of grant-funded restoration projects with an independent statistical 

analysis. WCC contracted The Watershed Company (TWC) to develop methods and assess the 

efficacy of the WCC restoration activities over the course of one year (2014-2015). 

The Evaluation Plan, developed by TWC in October 2014, was designed to assess changes in 

native cover and invasive cover via a Before-After, Control-Impact (BACI) statistical analysis. 

Performance standards were established for one growing season to provide additional 

quantitative measures for comparison. 23 restoration sites and 23 control sites were evaluated. 

The statistical analysis indicates that restoration efforts achieved the goals of improving native 

cover and diversity and decreasing invasive cover (Table ES-1 below). Native cover increased 

by 9.6 percent at restoration sites compared to 0.4 percent at reference sites. Noxious weed 

coverage decreased by 15.6 percent at restoration sites compared to a decrease of 1.4 percent at 

reference sites. Both results were statistically significant. Native vegetation coverage is 

expected to continue to increase as planted vegetation grows; correspondingly, invasive 

coverage is expected to continue to decrease as native vegetation becomes established. The 

impact of initial restoration actions is statistically significant and demonstrate the WCC is using 

effective intervention techniques.

Table ES-1. BACI Analysis Results.

Year-1 Result Statistical Analysis

Metric

Restoration 

Sites

Reference 

Sites

pvalue Significant difference?

Native woody plant cover 9.6% increase 0.4% increase 0.03 Yes

Noxious weed plant cover 15.6% decrease 1.4% decrease 0.03 Yes

To further analyze WCC/AmeriCorps restoration practices, additional quantitative measures 

were assessed. Performance standards were established to assess survival of installed native 

plants, native plant diversity, and invasive noxious weed cover. Performance standards are 

routinely applied to mitigation and restoration projects to measure achievement of project goals 

over the plant establishment period, typically 5 years. The Watershed Company monitors 

stream, wetland, and buffer mitigation sites in the region routinely. In our experience, 

achieving the performance standards for native plant survival, and maintaining invasive plant 

cover below the threshold, requires ongoing maintenance, particularly in the first two years. 

Performance standards are typically applied to mitigation or restoration projects over a 5-year 

i 
period. Since this study only covers one growing season, the utility of the performance 

standard review is limited. 

Recorded survival was within the normal range for the first year following planting. Average 

survival was 72 percent, slightly lower than the 80 percent performance standard target. The 

unusually hot and dry summer of 2015 likely contributed to higher mortality than expected in 

normal rainfall years. Additionally, planting material at 9 of the sites included live stakes; a 

lower 50 percent survival is typical for live stakes in the first year. The diversity performance 

standard was likely achieved at all sites, but could only be confirmed at 16 of 23 sites due to 

reliance on transect data, rather than site-wide data. Although noxious weed cover decreased 

significantly at restoration sites, the invasive cover performance standard was achieved at 6 of 

23 sites. It is common that sites with established monocultures of noxious weeds require more 

than one growing season following initial restoration actions to meet invasive species 

standards. For example, shading provided by dense planting of shrubs is one of the most 

effective measures for controlling reed canarygrass. This level of shading is expected to take 

several years to develop; therefore, the 10 sites that had pre-existing reed canarygrass 

monocultures are expected to see greater decreases in invasive plant cover in future years as 

shading from planted tree and shrub cover increases. Several opportunities for further 

investigation are identified, including multi-year assessment of restoration outcomes. 

 

ii
The Watershed Company

October 2015

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

Page #

1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

2 Goals and Performance Standards ................................................... 1

3 Methods ............................................................................................... 3

3.1 Sampling Sites................................................................................................ 3

3.2 Sampling Design............................................................................................. 3

3.2.1 Data Collection ................................................................................................... 3

3.3 Statistical Analysis ......................................................................................... 4

3.4 Quality Control................................................................................................ 4

4 Results ................................................................................................. 4

4.1 Summary of Restoration Sites and Actions.................................................. 4

4.2 Change in Cover ............................................................................................. 5

4.3 Performance Standards Assessment............................................................ 7

5 Discussion ........................................................................................... 8

5.1 Opportunities for Further Investigation ......................................................10

5.2 Summary .......................................................................................................11

6 References ........................................................................................ 11

Appendix A: WCC Field Data Sheets (blank)

Appendix B: WCC Field Data Summary Tables

LIST OF T ABLES

Table ES-1. BACI Analysis Results. ............................................................................ 1

Table 1. Performance Standards Summary ........................................................... 8

Table 2. Opportunities for additional investigation................................................10

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Mean percent native tree and shrub cover (+/- standard error) before and after at 

restoration and reference sites................................................................. 6

Figure 2. Mean percent noxious weed cover (+/- standard error) before and after at 

restoration and reference sites................................................................. 6

Figure 3. Mean percent reed canarygrass cover (+/- standard error) before and after at 

restoration and reference sites................................................................. 7

iii
iv
WCC Impact Evaluation 2014-2015

TWC Ref. No. 140829

I MPACT EVALUATION 

2014 - 2015

WASHINGTON CONSERVATION CORPS RESTORATION SITES

1 INTRODUCTION

The Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) is an environmental service program that 

has provided opportunities for young adults to protect and restore our natural 

environment since 1983. Improving habitat for state and federally listed species, 

including anadromous fish, is a primary goal of the WCC. WCC projects include 

wetland and riparian corridor enhancement and restoration. The Washington State 

Department of Ecology (Ecology) administers the WCC program. Since 1994, WCC has 

been an AmeriCorps program. 

To comply with AmeriCorps grant requirements and review its restoration practices, the 

Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) hired The Watershed Company to prepare an 

evaluation plan and provide an independent, quasi-experimental assessment of WCC 

restoration activities. 

The Watershed Company is a Seattle area environmental consulting firm. The firm 

provides comprehensive services in critical areas assessment, restoration and mitigation 

design, environmental planning and permitting, landscape architecture, and water 

resources. It has been a leader in science-based design for natural resource mitigation 

and recovery in Washington State for over 30 years. 

This evaluation assesses the outcomes of WCC restoration projects in riparian corridors

within one year of planting. Outcomes evaluated include the change in native cover, 

change in invasive cover, survival, and species diversity. 

2 GOALS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Restoration site conditions are commonly measured against project goals and 

performance standards over a period of years as installed vegetation becomes 

established. Five to ten years are typical monitoring periods for stream, wetland, and 

buffer mitigation sites. Native plants tend to remain small in stature for the first two 

growing seasons as the root systems become established. When plants are in good 

1 
The Watershed Company

October 2015

health, significant growth and increases in plant cover occur in the third growing season 

and beyond. Recognized ecosystem benefits from riparian restoration (e.g., stream 

shading, microclimate, wildlife habitat, large woody debris, and bank stabilization) are 

generally realized well after initial plant establishment. 

This assessment took place over the initial growing season; therefore, the project goals 

focused on establishing native plant cover and reducing invasive species cover. 

Performance standards were also proposed to provide a quantitative measure for 

comparison. Performance standards for invasive cover typically apply to all years postestablishment; however, it is recognized that several years of site maintenance following 

planting may be required to meet the proposed invasive species standards. 

Goals 

1. Improve habitat functions within subject segments of riparian corridors

by: 

a. Establishing a diverse assemblage of native plants at an appropriate 

density. 

b. Reducing the presence of invasive plants. 

Performance Standards

The standards below are used to help assess the success of initial, Year 1, 

restoration efforts at each site. 

1. Survival: Achieve an average of 80 percent survival of installed native 

trees and shrubs at each site. 

2. Native plant diversity: Establish at least three native tree species, and 

four native shrub species. Native volunteer species may count towards 

this standard. 

3. Invasive cover: Invasive cover standards vary by species and pre-existing 

site conditions. 

a. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea): 

i. Small locally-dominant patches across site: No more than 20 

percent cover in each restoration site. 

ii. Pre-existing monoculture: A minimum 12-inch radius around 

installed plants must be kept clear of RCG. Cutting and mulch 

application are an acceptable alternative to uprooting the reed 

canarygrass. 

b. Knotweed (Polygonum spp.): Eradicate from the restoration site.* 

*Knotweed are robust perennials, which may not be eradicated from a site in 

a single year. Manual and/or chemical control may be repeated in the 

summer/fall of 2015 to meet this standard. If manual removal methods are 

used, all knotweed must be properly disposed of off-site.

c. All other invasive noxious plants: No more than 10 percent cover by 

noxious weeds in the restoration area. 

2 
WCC Impact Evaluation 2014-2015

TWC Ref. No. 140829

3 METHODS

The sampling methodology was designed to enable a Before-After Control-Impact 

(BACI) analysis (Stewart-Oaten 1986, Stewart-Oaten et al. 1992, Underwood 1992, 

Stewart-Oaten 2003). A summary of methods is provided below. Refer to the 2014 

Evaluation Plan for more information. 

3.1 Sampling Sites

Twenty-three (23) randomly selected restoration sites were paired with 23 reference 

sites. Selected restoration sites were at least one-acre in size. Each reference site was 

similar to the pre-restoration conditions at its paired restoration site. To minimize 

variability due to patch size, reference sites were at least a quarter-acre in size. 

3.2 Sampling Design

The sampling design included an assessment of pre-restoration site conditions (collected 

in fall/winter) and post-restoration site conditions (collected in spring/summer). As 

described above, sampling was conducted at both restoration and reference sites. This 

design allowed impacts from restoration actions to be differentiated from natural 

variability and stochastic events. 

3.2.1 Data Collection

Restoration Sites 

Before (pre-restoration site conditions)

Pre-restoration site conditions were recorded at each site. Data collection 

included: a description of the dominant invasive plants at each site, existing 

native vegetation conditions, and visual cover estimates for native vegetation, 

total noxious vegetation, reed canarygrass, knotweed, and other weeds. Photo 

points were also established for before-after documentation.

To capture initial impact site conditions and document potential variability 

among sites, initial impact site data collection included site preparation and plant 

installation details. Variables such as invasive plant removal methods, soil 

amendments, bare-root or container plants, planting density, and irrigation, were 

recorded for review in the final evaluation. 

Representative transects were established across each site. Those transects were 

used to record species and quantities of plants installed following a belt-transect 

approach. This data provided baseline plant counts for Year 1 plant survival 

estimates and native plant species diversity assessments. A survival evaluation 

was performed to track initial impacts of restoration activities. Photo points 

were established at transect ends. 

3 
The Watershed Company

October 2015

After (post-restoration site conditions)

Post-restoration conditions were recorded immediately following the restoration 

action (fall/winter 2014) and one-growing season later (late summer 2015). 

Native and invasive plant cover estimates, plant health and vigor, and 

established photo points were recorded. The established belt-transects were 

resampled to conduct a representative survival count of installed plants at each 

site. 

Control (reference sites) 

Data collection at reference sites followed a similar protocol to restoration sites. 

Native and invasive cover estimates, plant health and vigor, and established 

photo-points were recorded once in winter 2014 and once in late summer 2015. 

Belt transects were not established at reference sites. 

3.3 Statistical Analysis

Data collected on native and invasive plant cover was analyzed using a 2-tailed t-test. 

The analysis tested the following null hypotheses: 

1. Restoration actions did not affect native cover. 

2. Restoration actions did not affect noxious weed cover. 

Statistical significance was determined using an alpha of 0.05. The power to detect a 20 

percent difference in cover, given a standard deviation of 20 percent was 0.89. 

3.4 Quality Control

Results were reviewed for completeness and accuracy. Accuracy was reviewed through 

a comparison of recorded data to photo points. Two restoration sites and three reference 

sites were omitted from statistical analysis due to missing data and inconsistencies 

between data and photo documentation. The number of sites meeting quality control 

thresholds and included for this analysis (21 restoration sites and 20 reference sites) 

seceded the targeted statistical power of 0.8 and exceeded the initial target established in 

the evaluation plan (17 restoration and reference sites). 

4 RESULTS

4.1 Summary of Restoration Sites and Actions

WCC/AmeriCorps crews planted native vegetation at each of the 23 restoration sites. 

The timing of planting ranged from October 2014 to April 2015. Plant materials 

included bare-root plants (13 sites), potted plants (17 sites), and live-stakes (9 sites). A 

combination of bare-root, potted, and live-stake plantings were planted at 12 of the 

4 
WCC Impact Evaluation 2014-2015

TWC Ref. No. 140829

restoration sites. Native vegetation protection methods (e.g., mulching, fabric sheeting, 

and tree protection) were employed at 16 of the 23 sites. 

Noxious weeds were initially present at all but one of the restoration (impact) sites and 

two of the reference sites. Reed canarygrass was initially present at 17 of the reference 

sites and 17 of the impact sites. The initial cover of reed canarygrass varied widely 

across those sites (1-99 percent cover in the early, pre-restoration condition). Knotweed 

was initially present at two of the restoration sites and at six of the reference sites. Other 

noxious weeds observed include: Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), evergreen 

blackberry (R. laciniatus), scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Canada thistle (Cirsium 

arvense), bull thistle (C. vulgare), tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), English ivy (Hedera 

helix), and butterfly bush (Buddleja davidii). 

WCC/AmeriCorps Crews employed some method of weed control at 19 of the 

restoration sites, including trimming (15 sites), hand removal (11 sites), grubbing (10 

sites), and/or herbicide applications (12 sites). At several sites, multiple methods of 

weed control were employed. Weeds were transported off-site for disposal at 7 of the 

sites. Once a site was prepared and plants installed, further site maintenance was 

determined by the project sponsor. 

4.2 Change in Cover

On average, native cover increased at restoration sites by 9.6 percent compared to 

reference sites where native cover increased by 0.4 percent on average (Figure 1). The 

increase in native cover at the restoration sites was significantly greater than at the 

reference sites (p = 0.03). 

The mean cover of noxious weeds decreased at restoration sites by 15.6 percent 

compared to reference sites, where mean noxious weed cover decreased by 1.4 percent 

(Figure 2). This difference was also statistically significant (p = 0.03).

The cover of reed canarygrass decreased at restoration sites (-8.6 percent) more than at 

reference sites (-0.4 percent) (Figure 3); however, the difference between reference and 

restoration sites was not significant (p = 0.10). 

5 
The Watershed Company

October 2015

Figure 1. Mean percent native tree and shrub cover (+/- standard error) before and 

after at restoration and reference sites

Figure 2. Mean percent noxious weed cover (+/- standard error) before and after at 

restoration and reference sites

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pre Post

Percent Native Tree and Shrub Cover

Restoration

Reference

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Pre Post

Percent Noxious Weed Cover

Reference

Restoration

6 
WCC Impact Evaluation 2014-2015

TWC Ref. No. 140829

Figure 3. Mean percent reed canarygrass cover (+/- standard error) before and 

after at restoration and reference sites

4.3 Performance Standards Assessment

Performance standards are typically applied to mitigation or restoration projects over a 

5-year period. Since this study only covers one growing season, the utility of the 

performance standard review is limited. The results among sites for achieving Year 1 

performance standards were varied (Table 1). Detailed tables are provided in Appendix 

B. 

Average survival across all sites was slightly below the 80 percent target; 9 of 23 sites 

met the 80 percent survival standard. Average plant survival is high at 72 percent. 

An average of 4 trees and 7 shrubs were established per site. The diversity standard was 

definitively met based on transect data alone at 16 of 23 sites. In addition, based on 

supplemental plant lists, this standard was likely met at all 23 sites. 

Only one of the 10 restoration sites that had a pre-existing reed canarygrass monoculture 

appeared to have mulched rings and cleared vegetation surrounding the native 

plantings. The invasive cover performance standard for sites without pre-existing reed 

canarygrass monocultures was met at 5 of 13 sites, and met both the zero tolerance 

standard for knotweed and the overall performance standard of less than 10 percent 

cover by noxious weeds. See discussion notes on why this standard may not have been 

feasible in a single-year assessment. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pre Post

Percent Reed Canarygrass Cover

Reference

Restoration

7 
The Watershed Company

October 2015

Table 1. Performance Standards Summary

Performance Standard Summary

PS-1. 80% Survival 9 of 23 sites meet. Average: 72%.

PS-2. Diversity 

(3+ trees; 4+ shrubs)

Per transect data, 16 of 23 sites meet. *Presumed to meet 

at most or all of sites.

PS-3. Invasive cover (preexisting 

monoculture) 1 of 10 sites meet all requirements.

PS-3. Invasive cover (all others) 5 of 13 sites meet all requirements.

5 DISCUSSION

The WCC restoration projects successfully achieved the goals of establishing a diverse 

assemblage of native plants and reducing the presence of invasive plants. A statistical 

analysis confirmed that restoration actions significantly increased native cover and 

reduced the cover of noxious weeds. Based on transect data, a diverse assemblage of 

native trees and shrubs was also established. 

Reed canarygrass also decreased after restoration efforts compared to reference sites, 

although results were not statistically significant. One effective method of reed 

canarygrass control is to establish shade through dense cover of native plantings (Kim et 

al. 2006); therefore, sites employing this approach may not experience a significant 

reduction in reed canarygrass until several years after initial restoration activities. The 

ten sites that had pre-existing reed canarygrass monocultures are expected to see greater 

decreases in future years as shading from planted tree and shrub cover increases. 

Based on belt transect data and invasive cover class estimates, performance standards 

were not uniformly met at each site. However, it is important to note that Year 1 

performance standards are typically guidelines in multi-year evaluations that provide 

opportunities to improve over a greater time period than a single year. It should be 

noted that WCC/AmeriCorps crews typically implement supplemental plantings (as is 

common at most environmental restoration sites) to meet long-term biodiversity, 

native/invasive coverage, and survival standards. 

Plant survival may have been lower in 2015 compared to most years because of record 

heat and dry conditions, with 85 percent of Washington State experiencing drought 

(www.governor.wa.gov). These conditions can stress new plantings and tend to lower 

survival rates, particularly if regular irrigation is not otherwise provided. In spite of 

drought conditions, plant survival was relatively high at 72 percent on average. During 

the plant establishment period, survival standards are typically met through replanting. 

Planting efforts increased the diversity of native vegetation at the restoration sites. 

While most sites (16 out of 23) met the diversity standard for three native trees and four 

native shrubs based on transect data, this standard was met at more sites based on a 

8 
WCC Impact Evaluation 2014-2015

TWC Ref. No. 140829

review of the original planting lists. However, based on the original planting lists, at 

least two of the sites, such as the Joyce or Oshea sites, could not have achieved diversity 

standards without volunteer native plant species becoming established because fewer 

than three trees or four shrub species were planted. At these sites, native forest and/or 

shrubs were present prior to restoration, and we expect that increasing native diversity 

was a secondary goal to increasing overall native cover. 

Invasive noxious plant cover did significantly decrease at all sites, even if not all sites 

met the established performance standards for Year 1. Invasive noxious weed plant 

cover thresholds in the established performance standards are typically achieved 

through ongoing site maintenance, performed at least twice annually. Success in 

reducing invasive species cover over the plant establishment period is tied to the level of 

maintenance that sites receive. Project sponsors are typically responsible for scheduling 

site maintenance over the course of the growing season, and the scheduling of such 

maintenance varies among sponsors. This introduces variability in the success of 

restoration actions in Year 1 and beyond.

Cover thresholds for invasive plants, as stated in the performance standards, reflect best 

management practices for noxious weed species, particularly reed canarygrass and 

knotweed. Establishing plants within a reed canarygrass monoculture is commonly

achieved by reducing competition within the dripline of newly installed plants, rather 

than attempting to reduce reed canarygrass coverage site-wide. Reed canarygrass 

growth is suppressed by shade, which installed native plants provide over time. 

Knotweed is a robust perennial that spreads vegetatively, often from root and stem 

fragments conveyed along streams. Along waterways, a watershed approach is 

necessary to eradicate knotweed. It is typical to require eradication of knotweed from 

mitigation and restoration sites during the plant establishment period. However, it is 

recognized that this can only be achieved through active site maintenance and may not 

be sustained in the long-term. 

Overall, data were collected per the evaluation plan. As discussed in the methods, data 

from a few sites were not included as a result of incomplete data or results that were not 

consistent with observed conditions based on photo documentation. Consistency in 

data collection could be improved through more training before each round of 

sampling, possibly with a consultant present to answer questions. A reference plant 

guide could be helpful to increase consistency in identification of existing vegetation. 

Additionally, photo documentation of volunteer species or other observations, such as 

evidence of deer browse, could be helpful in interpreting results. 

Results from this evaluation indicate that the WCC utilizes intervention strategies that 

are consistent with proven techniques practiced throughout the region. This evaluation 

provides strong evidence that the restoration activities were successful in meeting the 

goals of increasing the cover and diversity of native vegetation and reducing invasive 

species cover. The sites showed high survival rates overall, despite record dry 

9 
The Watershed Company

October 2015

conditions, which have contributed to higher than normal mortality among restoration 

sites in the region (based on observations from ongoing multi-year monitoring at dozens 

of sites conducted by The Watershed Company). Sites that fell short of performance 

standards for invasive cover are expected to experience continued reduction in noxious 

weed cover in future years as a result of continued maintenance and shading from 

native plants. 

Suggestions for continuing to improve and sustain success at restoration sites include, 

where feasible: 1) the use of potted plants instead of bare-root; 2) scheduled maintenance 

plan with host-site sponsors; 3) early fall installation for better chance of precipitation; 

and 4) irrigation during the first two to three years after plant installation; especially in 

dry areas and during drought years.

5.1 Opportunities for Further Investigation

Table 2 highlights study options and areas identified for further investigation of WCC 

restoration performance and assessment in future years. Suggestions include a multiyear analysis, or study designs focused on specific noxious weed species or restoration 

methods. 

Table 2. Opportunities for additional investigation

Variable Description Suggested Action

Conduct a multi-year study that 

assesses habitat improvement over 

a longer period of time. Sites used 

in this study could be re-evaluated 

Study timespan Single-year approach yields 

limited results.

over several years. The occurrence 

or lack of maintenance activities 

could introduce variability in the 

success of restoration sites. Similar 

maintenance across sites would be 

helpful to isolate the effects of

restoration actions. 

Targeted noxious 

weed species

Sites were not selected based on 

pre-existing vegetation 

conditions. 

Conduct a study to evaluate effects 

on a specific noxious species (e.g., 

reed canarygrass). 

Restoration methods

A variety of planting, native 

protection, and invasive control 

methods were employed in this 

study. This study was not 

designed to compare the 

success of different methods. 

Conduct a study with a balanced 

design to assess the effectiveness 

of specific methods of interest 

(e.g., bare-root versus potted, 

trimming versus mulch). 

10
WCC Impact Evaluation 2014-2015

TWC Ref. No. 140829

Variable Description Suggested Action

This analysis could also include a 

relative cost-savings evaluation 

that compares the time invested in 

the restoration action to the 

restoration outcome on a per-area 

basis. 

5.2 Summary

In conclusion, restoration activities conducted by the WCC crews in 2014-2015 

successfully met the goals of increasing native vegetation cover and diversity and 

reducing invasive cover. A range of results were observed among the sampled sites. 

Further investigation over a longer time period would help to quantify the value and 

sustainability of ecological benefits the program provides. Additional study of the 

relationship between specific restoration techniques and outcomes could help to 

maximize the benefits of restoration activities. 

6 REFERENCES

Kim, KD, K. Ewing, D. Giblin. Controlling Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass) with 

live willow stakes: A density dependent response. Ecological Engineering 

27:216-227. 

Stewart-Oaten, A., W. W. Murdoch, and K. R. Parker. 1986. Environmental Impact 

Assessment: “pseudoreplication” in time? Ecology 67:929-940.

Stewart-Oaten, A., J. R. Bence, and C. W. Osenberg. 1992. Assessing effects of 

unreplicated perturbations: no simple solutions. Ecology 73:1396-1404.

Stewart-Oaten, A. 2003. On rejection rates of paired intervention analysis: comment. 

Ecology 84:2795- 2799.

Underwood, A. J. 1992. Beyond BACI: the detection of environmental impacts on 

populations in the real, but variable, world. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 161:145-178.

11

A PPENDIX A 

WCC Field Data Sheets (blank)

Appendix A - I 

WCC Restoration Evaluation Data Collection Forms

WCC Supervisor: 

*Please note site name, supervisor, and sampling date at the top of each data sheet. 

Control Site Name: 

Approximate Size of Control Site (acres): 

Location (address, cross-streets): 

Impact (Restoration) Site Name: 

Approximate Size of Impact Site (acres): 

Location (address, cross-streets): 

 

 

 

Page | 1 
WCC Restoration Evaluation Data Collection Forms

Equipment needed: 

• Stakes (avg. of 10-20 per each 

impact site)

• Mallet

• High visibility flagging

• 100-foot transect tape

• Permanent marker 

• Camera phone

• Data sheets

• Pencil

• Site Map / Aerial Photo 

(attach to data sheets) 

• Visual Cover Classes – Octave 

Scale reference sheet

Performance Standards

The standards below will be used to judge the success of initial, Year 1, restoration efforts at 

each site. 

1. Survival: Achieve an average of 80 percent survival of installed native trees and shrubs 

at each site. 

2. Native plant diversity: Establish at least three native tree species, and four native shrub 

species. Native volunteer species may count towards this standard. 

3. Invasive cover: Invasive cover standards vary by species and pre-existing site conditions.

a. Reed canarygrass (RCG): 

i. Small locally-dominant patches across site: No more than 20 percent 

cover in each restoration site.

ii. Pre-existing monoculture: A minimum 12 inch radius around installed 

plants must be kept clear of RCG. Cutting and mulch application are an 

acceptable alternative to uprooting the RCG.

b. Knotweed: Eradicate from the restoration site.* 

*Knotweed are robust perennials, which may not be eradicated from a 

site in a single year. Manual and/or chemical control may be repeated in 

the summer/fall of 2015 to meet this standard. All knotweed must be 

properly disposed of off-site.

c. All other invasive noxious plants: No more than 10 percent cover by noxious 

weeds in the restoration area.

Page | 2 
Visual Cover Classes - Octave Scale 

Cover Class Percent Cover Range

0 0

1 0 - < 0.5

2 0.5 - < 1

3 1 - < 2

4 2 - < 4

5 4 - < 8

6 8 - < 16

7 16 - < 32

8 32 - < 64

9 64 - 100

Visual charts for estimating percentages are 

provided below as a reference. (The breakdown 

does not exactly match the Octave Scale clover 

class values.)

Page | 3 
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Control (Reference Site - Before) Fall/Winter 2014

Photo Points: Photo points (PP) should capture general site conditions. One or two photos are 

recommended for each control site. 

□ Photo point(s) established (marked with a stake and/or flagging) 

□ Photo point locations sketched or recorded (Lat./Long.) 

Photo Point Number* Photo Point Description Latitude Longitude

*Naming convention: site #-PP#-(insert brief descriptor); for example, site1-PP1-SouthCornerFacingEast. To 

keep track photos on your phone, you may want to have someone stand in the photo displaying the photo 

number. 

Circle noxious weed plant species onsite: 

Himalayan blackberry Knotweed Tansy Ragwort Reed canarygrass

Evergreen blackberry Canada thistle Bull thistle Purple star thistle

Oriental clematis Policeman’s helmet Butterfly bush English Ivy

Scotch broom Spanish broom Poison hemlock Garden loosestrife

Yellow archangel Yellow flag iris Purple loosestrife 

Other: 

 

Dominant noxious weed species: 

Weeds of concern (not noxious): Climbing nightshade Jewelweed English holly English laurel

Bindweed (morning glory) other: 

Existing Native Plant Conditions:

Forest canopy present? Yes No

If yes, is the forest deciduous, coniferous, or mixed? 

Native shrubs present? Yes No

Visual cover class estimates: See Visual Cover Classes – Octave Scale

If leaves have dropped, assume leafed-out condition for your cover class estimates. All cover class estimates are 

site-wide averages. Referencing an aerial photo is recommended when making site-wide cover class estimates. 

Plant species / community Visual % cover estimate Cover Class

Native tree, shrub, and shrub-like plant (e.g. sword fern)

Reed canarygrass (RCG)

Knotweed

Other noxious weeds, excluding RCG and knotweed

Page | 4 
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Impact Site (Pre-Restoration) Fall/Winter 2014

Photo Points: Photo points (PP) should capture general site conditions. One or two photos are 

recommended for each impact site prior to site preparation. 

□ Photo point(s) established (marked with a stake and/or flagging) 

□ Photo point locations sketched or recorded (Lat./Long.) 

Photo Point Number* Photo Point Description Latitude Longitude

*Naming convention: site #-PP#-(insert brief descriptor); for example, site1-PP1-SouthCornerFacingEast. To 

keep track photos on your phone, you may want to have someone stand in the photo displaying the photo 

number. 

Circle noxious weed plant species onsite: 

Himalayan blackberry Knotweed Tansy Ragwort Reed canarygrass

Evergreen blackberry Canada thistle Bull thistle Purple star thistle

Oriental clematis Policeman’s helmet Butterfly bush English Ivy

Scotch broom Spanish broom Poison hemlock Garden loosestrife

Yellow archangel Yellow flag iris Purple loosestrife 

Other: 

 

Dominant noxious weed species: 

Weeds of concern (not noxious): Climbing nightshade Jewelweed English holly English laurel

Bindweed (morning glory) other: 

Existing Native Plant Conditions:

Forest canopy present? Yes No

If yes, is the forest deciduous, coniferous, or mixed? 

Native shrubs present? Yes No

Visual cover class estimates: See Visual Cover Classes – Octave Scale

If leaves have dropped, assume leafed-out condition for your cover class estimates. All cover class estimates are 

site-wide averages. Referencing an aerial photo is recommended when making site-wide cover class estimates. 

Plant species / community Visual % cover estimate Cover Class

Native tree, shrub, and shrub-like plant (e.g. sword fern)

Reed canarygrass (RCG)

Knotweed

Other noxious weeds, excluding RCG and knotweed

Page | 5 
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Impact Site (Site Preparation) Fall/Winter 2014

Please document your site clearing and any soil preparation ahead of planting. 

Site Preparation

Clearing

Invasive plant removal methods (circle all that apply):

Weed-whacker Hand-removal Grub out roots Herbicide application

Other/Notes: 

 

 

Noxious weed disposal (circle one): on-site off-site

Notes: 

 

Soils

Soil amendments (circle one): Yes No

If yes, circle all applicable actions: 

Incorporate compost site-wide Amend soil in planting pits with compost 

Import topsoil

If amendments were done, indicate depths: 

Other/Notes: 

 

Page | 6 
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Impact Site (Site Installation) Fall/Winter 2014

Plant Installation

Total # of plants installed: trees: shrubs: 

Plant materials (circle all that apply): bare-root container pot stakes

Notes: 

Plant size: 

If bare-root, average height: trees: shrubs: 

If container pots, gallon-size: trees: shrubs: 

Plant health: Any signs of disease or stress? If yes, describe. 

 

Spacing: Trees: ft on-center Shrubs: ft on-center Stakes: ft on-center

Mulch: Were the installed planted mulched? Yes No

If yes, mulch rings? Radius? And thickness? 

OR sheet-mulch application? Depth/thickness? 

Ground Fabric: Yes No

If yes, type used: continuous pre-cut squares strips other: 

Tree protection: Yes No

If yes, type? Plastic rings tree shelters other: 

Irrigation: 

Were installed plants watered immediately following installation? Yes No

Is WCC involved in site irrigation? Yes No

Was a temporary irrigation system installed? Yes No

Is a water-truck scheduled to irrigate the site during the dry season? Yes No

Other/Notes: 

 

Page | 7 
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Impact Site (Plant Counts-Survival) Fall/Winter 2014

AND Summer 2015

Each transect should be 100 feet long (50 ft is acceptable if area is limited). Count all native tree and shrub plant 

stems within the 2-meter (6.6 foot) wide belt-transect (1-meter (3.3 feet) on either side of the transect line). 

Transect # of Transect Length 

□Photo Points at each end of Transect □Fall/Winter 2014 □Summer 2015

Common Name Botanical Name

winter 2014 late summer 2015

Baseline 

count

Live 

count

dead 

count

Please leave transect stakes in place after summer sampling. 

Site size Numer of Transects

25 – 50 acres Min. 13 transects, one transect for every 2 to 3 acres

15 - < 25 acres Min. 10 transects, one transect for every 1.5 to 2 acres

5 - < 15 acres Min. 5 transects, one transect for every 1 to 1.5 acres

< 5 acres Min. 5 transects

Page | 8 
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Impact Site (Plant Counts-Survival) Fall/Winter 2014

AND Summer 2015

Each transect should be 100 feet long (50 ft is acceptable if area is limited). Count all native tree and shrub plant 

stems within the 2-meter (6.6 foot) wide belt-transect (1-meter (3.3 feet) on either side of the transect line). 

Transect # of Transect Length 

□Photo Points at each end of Transect □Fall/Winter 2014 □Summer 2015

Common Name Botanical Name

winter 2014 late summer 2015

Baseline 

count

Live 

count

dead 

count

Please leave transect stakes in place after summer sampling. 

Site size Numer of Transects

25 – 50 acres Min. 13 transects, one transect for every 2 to 3 acres

15 - < 25 acres Min. 10 transects, one transect for every 1.5 to 2 acres

5 - < 15 acres Min. 5 transects, one transect for every 1 to 1.5 acres

< 5 acres Min. 5 transects

Page | 9 
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Impact Site (Plant Counts-Survival) Fall/Winter 2014

AND Summer 2015

Each transect should be 100 feet long (50 ft is acceptable if area is limited). Count all native tree and shrub plant 

stems within the 2-meter (6.6 foot) wide belt-transect (1-meter (3.3 feet) on either side of the transect line). 

Transect # of Transect Length 

□Photo Points at each end of Transect □Fall/Winter 2014 □Summer 2015

Common Name Botanical Name

winter 2014 late summer 2015

Baseline 

count

Live 

count

dead 

count

Please leave transect stakes in place after summer sampling. 

Site size Numer of Transects

25 – 50 acres Min. 13 transects, one transect for every 2 to 3 acres

15 - < 25 acres Min. 10 transects, one transect for every 1.5 to 2 acres

5 - < 15 acres Min. 5 transects, one transect for every 1 to 1.5 acres

< 5 acres Min. 5 transects

Page | 10
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Impact Site (Plant Counts-Survival) Fall/Winter 2014

AND Summer 2015

Each transect should be 100 feet long (50 ft is acceptable if area is limited). Count all native tree and shrub plant 

stems within the 2-meter (6.6 foot) wide belt-transect (1-meter (3.3 feet) on either side of the transect line). 

Transect # of Transect Length 

□Photo Points at each end of Transect □Fall/Winter 2014 □Summer 2015

Common Name Botanical Name

winter 2014 late summer 2015

Baseline 

count

Live 

count

dead 

count

Please leave transect stakes in place after summer sampling. 

Site size Numer of Transects

25 – 50 acres Min. 13 transects, one transect for every 2 to 3 acres

15 - < 25 acres Min. 10 transects, one transect for every 1.5 to 2 acres

5 - < 15 acres Min. 5 transects, one transect for every 1 to 1.5 acres

< 5 acres Min. 5 transects

Page | 11
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Impact Site (Plant Counts-Survival) Fall/Winter 2014

AND Summer 2015

Each transect should be 100 feet long (50 ft is acceptable if area is limited). Count all native tree and shrub plant 

stems within the 2-meter (6.6 foot) wide belt-transect (1-meter (3.3 feet) on either side of the transect line). 

Transect # of Transect Length 

□Photo Points at each end of Transect □Fall/Winter 2014 □Summer 2015

Common Name Botanical Name

winter 2014 late summer 2015

Baseline 

count

Live 

count

dead 

count

Please leave transect stakes in place after summer sampling. 

Site size Numer of Transects

25 – 50 acres Min. 13 transects, one transect for every 2 to 3 acres

15 - < 25 acres Min. 10 transects, one transect for every 1.5 to 2 acres

5 - < 15 acres Min. 5 transects, one transect for every 1 to 1.5 acres

< 5 acres Min. 5 transects

Page | 12
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Impact Site (Plant Counts-Survival) Fall/Winter 2014

AND Summer 2015

Each transect should be 100 feet long (50 ft is acceptable if area is limited). Count all native tree and shrub plant 

stems within the 2-meter (6.6 foot) wide belt-transect (1-meter (3.3 feet) on either side of the transect line). 

Transect # of Transect Length 

□Photo Points at each end of Transect □Fall/Winter 2014 □Summer 2015

Site size Numer of Transects

25 – 50 acres Min. 13 transects, one transect for every 2 to 3 acres

15 - < 25 acres Min. 10 transects, one transect for every 1.5 to 2 acres

5 - < 15 acres Min. 5 transects, one transect for every 1 to 1.5 acres

< 5 acres Min. 5 transects

Common Name Botanical Name

winter 2014 late summer 2015

Baseline

count

Live 

count

dead 

count

Please leave transect stakes in place after summer sampling. 

Page | 13
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Impact Site (Plant Counts-Survival) Fall/Winter 2014

AND Summer 2015

Each transect should be 100 feet long (50 ft is acceptable if area is limited). Count all native tree and shrub plant 

stems within the 2-meter (6.6 foot) wide belt-transect (1-meter (3.3 feet) on either side of the transect line). 

Transect # of Transect Length 

□Photo Points at each end of Transect □Fall/Winter 2014 □Summer 2015

Common Name Botanical Name

winter 2014 late summer 2015

Baseline 

count

Live 

count

dead 

count

Please leave transect stakes in place after summer sampling. 

Site size Numer of Transects

25 – 50 acres Min. 13 transects, one transect for every 2 to 3 acres

15 - < 25 acres Min. 10 transects, one transect for every 1.5 to 2 acres

5 - < 15 acres Min. 5 transects, one transect for every 1 to 1.5 acres

< 5 acres Min. 5 transects

Page | 14
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Impact Site (Plant Counts-Survival) Fall/Winter 2014

AND Summer 2015

Each transect should be 100 feet long (50 ft is acceptable if area is limited). Count all native tree and shrub plant 

stems within the 2-meter (6.6 foot) wide belt-transect (1-meter (3.3 feet) on either side of the transect line). 

Transect # of Transect Length 

□Photo Points at each end of Transect □Fall/Winter 2014 □Summer 2015

Common Name Botanical Name

winter 2014 late summer 2015

Baseline 

count

Live 

count

dead 

count

Please leave transect stakes in place after summer sampling. 

Site size Numer of Transects

25 – 50 acres Min. 13 transects, one transect for every 2 to 3 acres

15 - < 25 acres Min. 10 transects, one transect for every 1.5 to 2 acres

5 - < 15 acres Min. 5 transects, one transect for every 1 to 1.5 acres

< 5 acres Min. 5 transects

Page | 15
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Impact Site (Plant Counts-Survival) Fall/Winter 2014

AND Summer 2015

Each transect should be 100 feet long (50 ft is acceptable if area is limited). Count all native tree and shrub plant 

stems within the 2-meter (6.6 foot) wide belt-transect (1-meter (3.3 feet) on either side of the transect line). 

Transect # of Transect Length 

□Photo Points at each end of Transect □Fall/Winter 2014 □Summer 2015

Common Name Botanical Name

winter 2014 late summer 2015

Baseline 

count

Live 

count

dead 

count

Please leave transect stakes in place after summer sampling. 

Site size Numer of Transects

25 – 50 acres Min. 13 transects, one transect for every 2 to 3 acres

15 - < 25 acres Min. 10 transects, one transect for every 1.5 to 2 acres

5 - < 15 acres Min. 5 transects, one transect for every 1 to 1.5 acres

< 5 acres Min. 5 transects

Page | 16
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Impact Site (Plant Counts-Survival) Fall/Winter 2014

AND Summer 2015

Each transect should be 100 feet long (50 ft is acceptable if area is limited). Count all native tree and shrub plant 

stems within the 2-meter (6.6 foot) wide belt-transect (1-meter (3.3 feet) on either side of the transect line). 

Transect # of Transect Length 

□Photo Points at each end of Transect □Fall/Winter 2014 □Summer 2015

Common Name Botanical Name

winter 2014 late summer 2015

Baseline 

count

Live 

count

dead 

count

Please leave transect stakes in place after summer sampling. 

Site size Numer of Transects

25 – 50 acres Min. 13 transects, one transect for every 2 to 3 acres

15 - < 25 acres Min. 10 transects, one transect for every 1.5 to 2 acres

5 - < 15 acres Min. 5 transects, one transect for every 1 to 1.5 acres

< 5 acres Min. 5 transects

Page | 17
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Control (Reference Site - After) Summer 2015

Photo Points: Photo points (PP) should capture general site conditions. Photo points should be from 

the same position as Before sampling. One or two photos are recommended for each control site. 

□ Photo point locations sketched or recorded (Lat./Long.) 

Photo Point Name* Latitude Longitude

*Naming convention: site #-PP#-(insert brief descriptor); for example, site1-PP1-SouthCornerFacingEast

Circle noxious weed plant species onsite: 

Himalayan blackberry Knotweed Tansy Ragwort Reed canarygrass

Evergreen blackberry Canada thistle Bull thistle Purple star thistle

Oriental clematis Policeman’s helmet Butterfly bush English Ivy

Scotch broom Spanish broom Poison hemlock Garden loosestrife

Yellow archangel Yellow flag iris Purple loosestrife 

Other: 

 

Dominant noxious weed species: 

Weeds of concern (not noxious): Climbing nightshade Jewelweed English holly English laurel

Bindweed (morning glory) other: 

Existing Native Plant Conditions:

Forest canopy present? Yes No

If yes, is the forest deciduous, coniferous, or mixed? 

Native shrubs present? Yes No

Visual cover class estimates: See Visual Cover Classes – Octave Scale

If leaves have dropped, assume leafed-out condition for your cover class estimates. All cover class estimates are 

site-wide averages. Referencing an aerial photo is recommended when making site-wide cover class estimates. 

Plant species / community

Visual % cover 

estimate

Cover 

Class

Native tree, shrub, and shrub-like plant (e.g. sword fern)

Reed canarygrass (RCG)

Knotweed

Other noxious weeds, excluding RCG and knotweed

 

Page | 18
Site Name: WCC Supervisor: Sampling Date: 

Impact Site (Post-Restoration) Summer 2015

*Be sure to also complete the post-restoration tallies on the Plant Count worksheets

Circle noxious weed plant species onsite: 

Himalayan blackberry Knotweed Tansy Ragwort Reed canarygrass

Evergreen blackberry Canada thistle Bull thistle Purple star thistle

Oriental clematis Policeman’s helmet Butterfly bush English Ivy

Scotch broom Spanish broom Poison hemlock Garden loosestrife

Yellow archangel Yellow flag iris Purple loosestrife 

Other: 

 

Dominant noxious weed species: 

Weeds of concern (not noxious): Climbing nightshade Jewelweed English holly English laurel

Bindweed (morning glory) other: 

Visual cover class estimates: See Visual Cover Classes – Octave Scale

If leaves have dropped, assume leafed-out condition for your cover class estimates. All cover class estimates are 

site-wide averages. Referencing an aerial photo is recommended when making site-wide cover class estimates. 

Plant species / community

Visual % cover 

estimate

Cover 

Class

Native tree, shrub, and shrub-like plant (e.g. sword fern)

(including any pre-existing canopy)

Native tree, shrub, and shrub-like plant (e.g. sword fern)

(installed plants only) 

*5-10% cover is normal after just one growing season

Reed canarygrass (RCG)

Knotweed

Other noxious weeds, excluding RCG and knotweed

Page | 19
A PPENDIX B 

WCC Field Data Summary Tables

Appendix B - II

Table 1. Performance Standards Summary

Performance Standard Summary

PS-1. 80% Survival 9 of 23 sites meet. Average: 72%.

PS-2. Diversity 

(3+ trees; 4+ shrubs)

Per transect data, 16 of 23 sites meet. *Presumed to meet at most or all 

of sites.

PS-3. Invasive cover (preexisting 

monoculture) 1 of 10 sites meet all requirements.

PS-3. Invasive cover (all others) 5 of 12 sites meet all requirements.

Table 2. Survival of plantings over one growing season, combining transect data per site. 

Supervisor Site Spring 2015

(# plantings)

Summer 2015

(# plantings) Survival Meets PS-1?

Baran Black Lake 

Meadows 42 37 88% Yes

French Oshae 131 123 94% Yes

Gould Hursch 189 198 105% Yes

Gould Upper Carlson 149 144 97% Yes

Mensching Tang 449 550 89% Yes

Shirk Riverstead 106 90 85% Yes

Tomt Baxter Phase 2 144 122 85% Yes

Turner Nakashima 206 188 91% Yes

Williams Hylebos 53 44 83% Yes

Arthur Larchmont 47 21 45% No

Baran Smith Ranch 41 30 73% No

Buitrago Reddington 43 19 44% No

Frankowski Millenium 172 105 61% No

French Joyce 39 23 59% No

Gould Foothill 166 116 70% No

Johnson First Creek 194 126 65% No

Kellogg Vaughn Bay 99 76 77% No

Mensching Soos Creek 261 205 79% No

Mensching Mourey 124 84 68% No

Shirk Maleng 124 95 77% No

Skaar Uy North 82 45 55% No

Stevens Mills 379 99 26% No

Voelker Eaton, Subach, 

Jensen 97 65 67% No

WCC Weighted Average 72% No
Table 3. Tree and Shrub Species Diversity 

Supervisor Site Spring 2015 Summer 2015 Meets PS-2?

Trees Shrubs Trees Shrubs

Baran Smith Ranch 4 4 3 4 Yes

Frankowski Millennium 9 13 9 17 Yes

Gould Hursch 5 13 5 13 Yes

Gould Foothill 7 13 7 11 Yes

Kellogg Vaughn Bay 4 6 3 6 Yes

Mensching Mourey 5 6 5 6 Yes

Mensching Soos Creek 3 6 3 6 Yes

Mensching Tang 6 7 6 7 Yes

Shirk Maleng 5 5 5 5 Yes

Shirk Riverstead 7 8 7 8 Yes

Skaar Uy North 5 7 5 6 Yes

Stevens Mills 6 11 6 10 Yes

Tomt Baxter Phase 2 7 14 6 13 Yes

Turner Nakashima 4 4 4 4 Yes

Voelker Eaton, Subach, Jensen 4 5 4 5 Yes

Williams Hylebos 4 8 3 8 Yes

Arthur Larchmont 2 7 1 8 Unclear*

Baran Black Lake Meadows 1 0 1 0 Unclear*

Buitrago Reddington 5 6 1 5 Unclear*

French Joyce 2 3 1 3 Unclear*

French Oshae 2 11 2 11 Unclear*

Gould Upper Carlson 4 3 4 3 Unclear*

Johnson First Creek 2 7 1 7 Unclear*

* Since diversity was not evaluated site-wide and just along limited transects, it is unclear if there are 

planted species not evaluated along transects that may count towards the site-wide diversity performance 

standard. 
Table 4. Invasive cover, Summer 2015 

Crew 

Leader Site RCG* cover

Knotweed 

cover

Other 

noxious 

weed cover

Total 

noxious 

weed 

cover

Meets

PS-3? 

Gould Foothills 72** 0 5 77 Yes**

Baran Smith Ranch 0 0 1 1 Yes

Kellogg Vaughn 0 0 3 3 Yes

Mensching Tang 1 0 1 2 Yes

Skaar Uy North 4 0 0 4 Yes

Stevens Mills 0 0 0 0 Yes

Mensching Mourey 2 0.1 5 7.1 No***

Arthur Larchmont 6 0.75 48 54.75 No

Baran Black Lake 

Meadows 10 0 10 20 No

Buitrago Reddington 3 0.5 7 10.5 No

Frankowski Millennium 60 0 0.5 60.5 No

French Oshae 70 0 0 70 No

French Joyce 52 0 3 55 No

Gould

Upper 

Carlson 

Levee

1 1 20 22 No

Gould Hursch 0 10 1 11 No

Johnson First Creek 7 0 20 27 No

Mensching Soos Creek 25 0 20 45 No

Shirk Maleng Rd 20 0 65 85 No

Shirk Riverstead 50 0 0 50 No

Tomt Baxter Phase 

2 0 0 75 75 No

Turner Nakashima 40 0 0 40 No

Voelker

Eaton, 

Subach, 

Jensen

30 0 12 42 No

Williams Hylebos 40 1 20 61 No

* RCG = reed canarygrass

**PS-3.ii for sites with pre-existing RCG monoculture satisfied; verified with pictures

***Performance standard not met due to presence of knotweed. All other invasive cover parameters 

were met.