PB9J-261512
                                        EPA/600/3-90/061
                                              July, 1990
EVALUATING RESIGN AND VERIFYING COMPLIANCE
        OF WETLANDS CREATED UNDER
     SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
                 IN OREGON
                     by

               Stephani&.E. Gwin
                Mary E. Kentula

        NSI Technology Services Corporation
     USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory
               200 SW 35th Street
              Corvallis,OR 97333
           Contract Number 68-C8-0006
                Project Officer

                Eric M. Preston
           Wetlands Research Program
     USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory
               200 SW 35th Street
              Corvallis,OR 97333
  ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
  OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
  US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          CORVALLIS, OREGON  97333

-------
                               DISCLAIMER
   The research described in this report  has been  funded wholly or in part by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Contract #68-C8-0006
to NSI Technology Services Corporation.  It has been subjected to the Agency's peer
and administrative  review, and it has  been approved  for publication as an  EPA
document.  Mention  of  trade names or commercial products does  not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                     11

-------
                                   ABSTRACT
    Permit specifications,  construction plans, and  field measurements were  used to
examine the correlation between design and conditions "as-built" in a population of 11
palustrine emergent marshes created in the metropolitan area of Portland, Oregon,
between 1980-1986. The projects ranged from six months to almost seven years in age.
Data on planned and existing hydrology, wetland area, wetland shape, slopes of banks,
and vegetation were collected for each site. Information on the plans for each site was
gathered from the Section 404 permit files of the Portland District Office of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the  permit files of the Oregon Division of State Lands.

    Results indicate that none of the wetlands studied were designed or constructed as
permitted. Hydrology could not be evaluated since the information in the permit files
was inadequate. There was a cumulative loss of 1.48 ha (3.6 acres), or 29% from the
5.10 ha (12.6 acres) that was to be created.  Seven of the created wetlands had very
regular shorelines;  four had irregular shapes.   The predominant slope as-built was
gentler then what was to be built as determined from the construction  plans and
permit specifications for nine of the  eleven projects  (82%).   For 45% of the sites
(5/11)  the predominant  slopes to  be built and as-built were  steeper than  the 5:1
maximum recommended in the literature. Vegetation to be  planted  did not occur on
the sites.  The  proportion of species  found on  the created wetlands that were to be
planted ranged from 0% to 7%.

    The differences between the plans and specifications in the project file and the as-
built conditions point to the need for  verification of projects  in both the planning and
construction phases of the permitting process. The  planning phase should focus on the
development of a realistic approach using information from the scientific literature and
past projects.  The construction phase should culminate in  the production of an as-
built plan. This would allow immediate checks to ensure that critical features have
been included as intended, e.g., wetland area, vegetation type. It would also document
any corrective   measures  that  were taken due  to  unanticipated  events  during
construction.  As-built plans of the project would ensure that the details of the actual
wetland created were  available for future  reference in addition  to the  conceptual
design.
                                      m

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS


DISCLAIMER	
               	   TI

ABSTRACT	i ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	  i*

INTRODUCTION  	   1

METHODS	   3

     SITE SELECTION 	   3

     DATA COLLECTION	   3

          Evaluating the Hydrology to be Created and Actually Created	   5
          Evaluating the Area to be Created and Actually Created	   5
          Evaluating the Shape to be Created and Actually Created	   6
          Evaluating Slopes to be Created and Actually Created  	   6
          Evaluating the Vegetation  to be Established and  Actually Found on
               Site	   7

RESULTS	  9
                                       •
     EVALUATING THE HYDROLOGY TO BE CREATED AND ACTUALLY
          CREATED	  9

     EVALUATING  THE AREA TO  BE CREATED AND ACTUALLY
          CREATED	  9

          Permit Specifications Compared to Construction Plans  	  9
          Permit Specifications Compared to Field Conditions	  12

     EVALUATING THE  SHAPE TO  BE CREATED AND ACTUALLY
          CREATED	  12

-------
      EVALUATING   SLOPES  TO   BE  CREATED  AND  ACTUALLY
           CREATED	  12

           As-Built Conditions Compared  to Construction Plans  &  Permit
                Specifications	  12
           Comparisons with Recommendations in the Literature	  14

      EVALUATING  THE VEGETATION  TO  BE  ESTABLISHED AND
           ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED	  15

           Evaluation of Planting Lists	  15
           Evaluation of the Vegetation Found On-Site  	  16

DISCUSSION	  23

      DESIGN OF CREATED WETLANDS 	  23

           Hydrology	  23
           Area of Wetland to be Created	  23
           Shape of the Wetland to be Created 	  23
           Slopes	  24
           Vegetation to be Established and Actually Found on the Sites	  26

      RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE WETLAND CREATION UNDER
           SECTION 404	  31

LITERATURE CITED	  33

APPENDIX I: DATA COLLECTED FOR EACH SITE  	  36

APPENDIX II: LISTS OF PLANT SPECIES  	117
                                 VI

-------
                                 LIST OF TABLES
 TABLE 1.   Dates when construction  and field sampling was completed  for  the
             created wetlands	   4

 TABLE 2.   Wetland indicator codes were assigned to all species found on the created
             wetlands and on planting lists.  Codes were adapted from categories in
             the regional list of plant species that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988) .   8

 TABLE 3.   The hydrology planned for each created wetland studied.  Information
             was taken from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and  Oregon
             Division of State Lands (ODSL) permit files  	  10

 TABLE 4.   Comparison  of  wetland  area required in  the permit  specifications
             (PERMIT SPECS)  with the area of wetland on the map (PERMIT
             MAP) drafted from construction plans or conceptual drawings	  11

 TABLE 5.   Comparison of the wetland area in the permit specifications (PERMIT
             SPECS) with the  area of wetland on each field map of "as-built"
             conditions (FIELD MAP)	  13

 TABLE 6.   Numbers of species and percentages of the total number of species found
             on each planting list which were native,  exotic, and unknown  species.   17

 TABLE 7.   Proportions  of the different types of vegetation composing the planting
             lists which fell into the categories in the regional list of plant species that
             occur in wetlands (Reed 1988)	  18

 TABLE 8.   Numbers and percentages of species to be planted  that were found on
             the created wetlands vs the numbers and percentages of volunteer species
             found	  19

TABLE 9.   Native and exotic species found at the  created wetlands expressed as
             numbers per site and as a proportion  of the total	  20

TABLE 10.   Proportions of the different types of vegetation found  on site which  fell
             into the categories  in the  regional  list  of plant species that occur in
             wetlands (Reed 1988)	  21

-------
                                LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.  Photographs of the steep slopes at two of the created wetlands.  Note
            signs of erosion on photo 1A.  	  25

FIGURE 2.  A.  Photograph of the broad expanse of vegetation found on a created
            wetland with gradual slopes.  B. Photograph of the narrow fringe of
            vegetation found on a created wetland with steep-sided slopes	  27
                                       viii

-------
                           ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    The research described in this report has been  funded by the United States
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and conducted at EPA's Research Laboratory
 in  Corvallis, Oregon, through  Contract  68-C8-0006  to NSI Technology Services
 Corporation.  It has been subjected  to  the  Agency's  peer review procedures and
 approved  for publication.

    The authors  want to take  this  opportunity to acknowledge the people from the
 Wetlands  Research Team and other units of the Environmental Research Laboratoiy-
 Corvallis who assisted in this  project  Eric Preston, the EPA Project Officer, was
 supportive of the effort and provided valuable advice. Sheri Confer, Bob Meinke, Ed
 Alverson,  Arthur Sherman, Thorn Whittier,  and Jeannie  Sifneos assisted in data
 collection  by serving as members of the field crew. Tracy Smith and Lori Jensen used
 their geographic  skills to create functional  maps from field sketches and the sometimes
 cryptic construction plans.   Barb Hagler found the many manuscripts requested from
 the library and showed amazing skill at locating "buried" information. Robert Gibson
 used his creativity in computer programming to simplify and expedite data entry and
 analysis.   Donna Frostholm's care and diligence in data entry and verification was
 greatly appreciated and contributed to the quality of the information used in this study.
 Kristina Heike assisted in format editing  the final version of the  document  Special
 thanks to  Arthur Sherman who helped with the innumerable tasks that needed to be
 completed to finalize this document.

   Gene  Herb,  Oregon Department  of  Fish  and Wildlife  and LaRea  Johnston,
 Assistant  Curator of the Oregon State University  Herbarium  deserve  special
 recognition for freely giving their time and advise  as it  was needed throughout the
 course of  this  study.   Mr.  Herb  assisted in obtaining access to the  created wetlands
studied and  provided invaluable information on the planning for and development of
the sites.   Ms. Johnston assisted in plant identification  and provided advise on the
indicator status of species not included in the regional  lists of plants  that occur in
wetlands (Reed 1988).

   We extend special thanks to those who improved this report through their review
of the draft document. Ann Hairston and Lisa Ellingson of NSI Technology Services
Corporation provided  editorial and Quality Assurance  (QA) reviews, respectively.
Marc  Boule of Shapiro &  Associates, Ken Franklin of the Oregon  Division of State
Lands, Michelle Stevens of the Washington Department of Ecology, and Jim Good of
Oregon State  University reviewed  the  draft and offered valuable  comments which
clarified and strengthened this report.
                                     IX

-------
   Finally, we  thank the property owners of the created wetlands.   Without their
permission for access to the sites, this research could not have been conducted.

-------
                                  SECTION I

                               INTRODUCTION
    The growing body of information on both the ecological values of wetlands and the
documentation of the historic losses of these systems has generated concern about the
status  of the  resource.  Reflecting this concern the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) initiated a Wetlands Research Program  (Zedler and Kentula 1986) to
assist the Agency in implementing its responsibilities to  protect the Nation's wetlands.
In  particular, the research program  was  designed  to support  the  Agency  in the
administration of Section 404 of the Clean  Water Act (CWA).

    The CWA was passed in 1972 to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters by regulating the discharge of dredge and Oil
materials.  In 1977, the legislation was strengthened to give additional protection to
wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and EPA jointly administer the
Section 404 permit program.  In brief, the  COE is the Federal permitting authority,
while EPA is responsible for issuing the environmental criteria for permit review,
taking the lead in enforcement against unauthorized discharges, and overseeing state
assumption of the program.   EPA also has the authority  to  prohibit or restrict
discharges that would have unacceptable adverse effects on certain resource values.

    Applicants for 404 permits can be required to mitigate any adverse impacts to the
aquatic environment caused by the proposed project.  The EPA and COE use a three
step process to evaluate Section 404 permit  applications. The steps are to (1) avoid
impacts  by exploring alternatives; (2) minimize  potential  impacts  through project
modifications; and (3) compensate  for any . unavoidable  impacts  which remain.
Compensatory mitigation includes either the  restoration of existing degraded wetlands
or the creation of man-made wetlands (Memorandum of Agreement 1990).

    Interest in compensatory mitigation has generated a  number of reports on wetland
creation  and restoration.  In summarizing the results of a recent review of wetland
creation and restoration in the United States, Kusler and Kentula (1990) state that the
overall status of the literature on wetland creation and restoration is uneven by region
and topic.  Moreover,  the  most quantitative and best documented  information is
available for Spartina altemiflora (Lois) marshes  along  the  Atlantic Coast,  while
information on the creation and restoration  of inland freshwater wetlands is spotty, at
best.  Most of the studies of mitigation projects  have  been qualitative case studies
(e.g., Baker 1984, Reimold and Cobler 1986, Fishman et al. 1987, Good 1987, Mason
and Slocum 1987, and Reiner  1989).  Furthermore, most are site-specific and do not
use reference sites (Quammen 1986).

                                       1

-------
   The research reported in  this document was one  component of EPA's ongoing
research to determine  how well compensatory mitigation  is working  and how the
process could be improved.  The research was designed to broaden the information
base  on wetland creation and restoration  by examining mitigation  projects in the
context of the wetlands in a region.  Ultimately, the work will lead to a statement on
the status of compensatory mitigation as well as an evaluation of individual projects.
   The store of information associated with the thousands of mitigation projects that
have  been constructed nationwide has been used to  study  completed  projects to
identify critical design features, develop methods for evaluating projects, determine the
functions they perform, and describe how they change with time.  To date, studies
have been conducted in Oregon. Connecticut, and Florida.

   This study focuses on freshwater,  compensatory  mitigation projects  in  Oregon.
Quantitative measurements were taken to 1) determine if the wetland creation projects
were in compliance with their permit specifications, 2) verify that the wetlands were
created according to their construction plans, and 3) evaluate the design of those
projects.

-------
                                  SECTION II

                                  METHODS
    The design and construction of a population of 11 freshwater wetlands created in
 the  Portland  metropolitan  area  as a  requirement of a  Section  404  permit  was
 examined. Briefly, this involved the comparison of the as-built characteristics of the
 created wetlands measured  in the field with the permit conditions and construction
 plans.  In addition, design and as-built features were compared to the specifications
 found in  the literature.  Site selection, data collection  in the field and from project
 records, and the process used to compare the information on specific design features
 follow.
SITE SELECTION

   The created wetlands to be studied were located  by searching a database of all
wetlands created in Oregon as a condition of a Section 404 permit between January
1977  and January 1987  (Kentula et al. submitted).   A population of 11 palustrine
emergent wetlands, <. 1  ha in size, ranging from six months to almost seven years in
age was identified in the  Portland Metropolitan Area (Table 1 ).  Because of its small
size, the entire population was sampled.
DATA COLLECTION

   Data on planned  and existing hydrology, wetland area, wetland shape, slopes of
banks, and vegetation were collected for each site.  The general approach is presented
below; details are given when each item is discussed in the subsections that follow.

   Information on the plans for each site was gathered from the Section 404 permit
files  of the Portland District Office of  the COE.  In Oregon, in addition to, and in
concurrence with the federal regulations, the Oregon Division of State Lands (ODSL)
regulates the removal and discharge of materials into waters of the state and will
participate in the review of Section 404 permits.  Therefore, the ODSL  permit files
were  also searched to augment  the data gathered from the COE.  Specifically, the
permit  conditions, and, when  available, project descriptions,  blueprints, conceptual
drawings, and lists of species to be planted were used.

   Information on  the existing  conditions  on  the sites was gathered in the field.
Sampling of hydrology, wetland area, wetland  shape, soils,  and vegetation occurred

-------
TABLE 1. Dates when construction and field sampling was completed for the created
wetlands.
SITE
Cl-CC
C2-TI
O3-NS
04-MHP
C5-MG
C6-3I
C7-SML
C8-BSP
C9-GP
C10-PP
Cll-SM
CONSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
8/80
8/86
9/86
2/86
7/86
9/84
10/85
10/86
9/85
7/85
10/86
SAMPLED IN
THE FIELD
6/87
7/87
6/87
6/87
7/87
7/87
7/87
6/87
6/87
7/87
7/87

-------
 during the summer of 1987.  Slopes of banks were measured during the summer of
 1988.

 Evaluating the Hydrology to be Created and Actually Created

    Permit files  were examined for information on the intended hydrologic regime,
 water  levels, and area of the site to be inundated, and  for descriptions  of water
 sources,  inlets, outlets, and water control structures.

    Sites were evaluated in the field for indicators of wetland hydrology.  Evidence that
 saturation occurred for a time sufficient to support hydrophytic vegetation and create
 hydric soils were documented (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation
 1989).   Evidence of a hydrophytic  plant community  was presence  and degree  of
 dominance of obligate, facultative wetland,  and facultative vegetation  as defined  by
 Reed (1988).  Evidence of wetland hydrology used were presence of water above the
 surface of the substrate, presence of  water in soil pits, evidence of soil saturation
 (glistening), and presence of mottles in the  soil.  In addition, presence of hydric soil
 was determined  on the basis of soil chroma,  and percent organic carbon content.  Soil
 chroma was determined using  a Munsell Color Book.  Percent organic matter was
 expressed as ash free dry weight.   In addition, water sources,  inlets, and outlets were
 located and described and  their  location documented.  Water levels on site were
 measured in each vegetation plot relative to the soil surface and recorded.  Percent  of
 the site inundated was estimated and recorded.

 Evaluating the Area  to be Created and Actually Created

   Three types of information  were used to determine  how the wetland area in the
 plans and as-built compared with that listed in  the  permit  conditions--the written
 permit conditions, permit maps, and field maps.  Paired permit and  field maps for
 each site were drawn at  the same scale so that each map  fit on an 8 1/2 x 11  inch
 piece of  paper.  Permit maps were drawn* from blueprints and conceptual drawings
 contained in the  permit files.  Field maps were drawn from a compass traverse of each
wetland (Lounsbury and AJdrich 1986).  The field maps represent the perimeter of the
wetland as determined from changes in vegetation and  slope.

   Back  sights were taken from each point on the compass traverse as a check of the
data points.  The accuracy of the  maps was  checked by a  member of the field crew.
Closure error was negligible.

   A planiraeter (Numonics model #1250-1) was used to  measure the area of each
map in acres.   Each  map  was traced three  times and  the resulting  areas were
averaged. A grid was used to check  the accuracy of the  planimetry on three pairs
(27%) of maps drawn at different scales. The relative percent difference between the

-------
 areas derived from planimetry and those calculated by the grid was less than 5%.  The
 data were converted from acres to hectares by multiplying by 0.4047.

 Evaluating the Shape to be Created and Actually Created

    The shape of each wetland as-built was checked against  the shape indicated by the
 construction  plans  by visually comparing the permit and field  maps.  Notes on the
 observations  were  made.  In addition, the literature  was searched for information
 relating shape to ecological  function.

 Evaluating Slopes to be Created and Actually Created

    The permits were searched for slope specifications  for the banks of  the wetlands.
 Statements within the permit text and contour lines on the blueprints and conceptual
 drawings were used.

    The slopes of banks leading into the wetland from upland areas were determined
 in  the field  by measuring  elevation changes with a  transit  and  stadia rod along
 transects placed on banks characteristic of the  site (Lounsbury  and Aldrich  1986).
 Elevation measurements were first made at the top  of the bank and  then at  four
 meter intervals across the wetland. Readings were taken at one  meter intervals where
 the microtopography of the wetland was irregular or where gradients appeared steep.
 Another member of the field team checked the accuracy of measurements by repeating
 the procedure at 5% of the data points.  Relative percent difference  between  the
 original and duplicate readings was less than 2%.

    Elevations measured in the field were calculated relative to the lowest point in the
wetland.  Calculations were  checked and entered into a computer database. Double
entry was used to ensure that errors did not occur in transferring the data from  the
field sheets into  the computer.   After entry,  the  two data sets  were  electronically
compared  and discrepancies between them corrected  by comparison with the field
sheets until both data sets were in exact correspondence.

   The relative elevations in feet were converted to meters by multiplying by 0.3048.
The data were then entered into Statgraphics (Statistical Graphics Corporation 1988)
cross-sections of the topography of each wetland generated. The top and bottom of
each bank were located on each cross-section.  The top of the bank was defined as
the uppermost point on each slope.  The bottom of the bank was defined as either the
first point of inflection  or the point where the profile obviously started to flatten  out
across the bottom of the basin. The slope of each bank was then calculated.

   Slopes specified  in the permit plans and construction plans were compared  to  the
as-built conditions.  The available literature on wetland creation was  searched  for

-------
 recommendations  on  slopes  appropriate  for  different  types  of  wetlands,  soil
 stabilization, and the establishment  of vegetation and wildlife  communities.   The
 recommendations were compared to  the slopes contained  in  the  permit  plans,
 construction plans, and the as-built conditions.

    The evaluations described above were made first with reference to the predominant
 slopes on the site.  In addition,  since the information  in the permit files was often
 limited,  each  slope listed and  each measured in the  field  was compared to the
 recommended slopes from the literature.

 Evaluating the Vegetation to be Established and Actually Found  on  Site

    Permit files were searched for revegetation strategies specified as conditions of the
 permit and lists  of vegetation  to be planted on  the site.  When the planting lists
 contained common names,  scientific  names were  assigned from the  regional  flora
 (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1981) and  the regional  lists of plant species that occur in
 wetlands (Reed 1988).

    Transects were placed to obtain a  representative sample  of the plant communities
 within each wetland studied. All species present in  forty  1-m2 quadrats placed at equal
 intervals along each transect were identified, and  species lists were  generated.  The
 accuracy of species identification was checked  by  a second botanist who resampled
 25%  of  the quadrats.  Overall,  the  same species were identified in  a quadrat an
 average of 80% of the time (AJD. Sherman, NSI Technology Services,  pers. comm.).

    Each species was assigned to one of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
 wetland  indicator categories (Reed  1988).  This  resource  and the  regional  flora
 (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1981) were  also used to determine if species were native to
 the Pacific  Northwest or exotic.  Table  2 lists the  wetland indicator codes  used.  All
 codes assigned were verified by a second person.   Any species whose code could not
 be  determined from  the above  resources  was assigned a wetland  indicator  after
 consultation with  LaRea Johnston, Assistant curator, Oregon State University (OSU)
 Herbarium.  Ms.  Johnston co-authored the regional flora on aquatic plants (Steward
 et al.  1963).

   A  combined list of  all species contained in  the planting lists was generated by
 merging  the lists  from all sites.   In addition, a combined list of all species actually
 found on the eleven created wetlands  was produced. The composition  of each list of
species to be planted and of the  plant community found on the site were  compared
as to  the proportion of 1) native and exotic species, 2) wetland and upland species,
and 3) species found on the site that  were listed for planting.   In addition, the  same
comparisons were made between the  combined  list of species  contained  on  the
planting lists and  the combined list of species found on  the sites.

-------
        TABLE  2.  Wetland  indicator codes were assigned to all  species found on the created wetlands and on planting lists.
        in the regional  list of plant species that occur  in wetlands (Reed 1988).
                                                                                                                   Codes were  adapted  from categories
        INDICATOR  CATEGORY
                                                            POSITION IN CATEGORY
                                                                                                                NATIVE/EXOTIC
00
ABS =   Absent frail the list.

FAC «   Facultative.    Sometimes  found  on
        wetlands    (34X--66X   estimated
        frequency),     also    occurs    In
        nonwet lands.

NO =    No Agreement,  Not  Considered,  or No
        Review.   No  agreement  was  applied
        when a regional panel was not able to
        reach  a  unanimous  decision,  not
        considered was applied to plants that
        have recently been added to the list,
        and no review was applied to species
        that have  not  received any regional
        review.
                                                            * =   Frequency  is  toward  high  end of  the
                                                                  category  (more   frequently  found  in
                                                                  wetlands).

                                                            • =   Frequency  Is  toward  lower end of  the
                                                                  category  (less   frequently  found  in
                                                                  wetlands).

                                                            \ "   Intermedlacy within the category.
NAT =   Native Species

EXO =   Exotic Species,  i.e., species  intro-
        duced Into the region.

*** =   No information available.
        OBL =   Obligate  Wetland   Species.   Always
                found   in   wetlands  under  natural
                conditions  (frequency greater  then
                99X) but may persist in nonwet I ends.

        UPL =   Upland.     Occurs   in  wetlands  in
                another  region,  but not  found (<1X
                frequency)  in wetlands in the region
                specified.

        FACU=   Facultative Upland.  Seldom found in
                wetlands  (1X--33X  frequency)  and
                usually occurs in nonwet lands.

        FACU =  Facultative Wetland.   Usually found
                in wetlands (67X--99X frequency), but
                occasionally found  In nonwet lands.
                No  information available.

-------
                                   SECTION m

                                    RESULTS
       Data on planned and existing hydrology, wetland area, wetland shape, slopes of
 banks, and vegetation were evaluated for each site.  The results are presented in the
 subsections that follow.  Appendix I contains a narrative description and a catalog of all
 the information gathered on each created wetland from both the field sampling and the
 permit files.
EVALUATING THE HYDROLOGY TO BE CREATED AND ACTUALLY CREATED

      The hydrologic information contained in the permit files was inadequate to use in
the comparison of the created wetlands with their permit specifications and construction
plans.  A summary of the information found is presented in Table 3.
EVALUATING THE AREA TO BE CREATED AND ACTUALLY CREATED

      Permit specifications, construction plans, and as-built conditions were compared
to evaluate  the  area of wetland created.  Ten of the  eleven  wetlands studied were
compared.  Site  #C7-SML was a large mosaic of created and natural areas of different
wetland types, therefore, it was decided that only the portion that was created palustrine
emergent marsh would be  studied.   Since the entire area of this  wetland was  not
measured, the site was not included in the evaluation of area.

Permit Specifications Compared to Construction Plans

      Section 404 permits specified areas ranging from 0.04 ha (0.1 acre)  to  1.46 ha
(3.6 acres) for the ten wetlands studied  (Table 4).  The total area to be created was
5.10 ha  (12.6 acres).   Areas  derived from  permit maps drafted from construction
blueprints and conceptual drawings ranged from  0.04 ha  (0.1 acres) to 1.13  ha (2.8
acres) (Table 4). The  total area of wetland in the ten permit  maps is 4.66 ha (11.5
acres). This was a cumulative loss of 0.44 ha (1.1 acres),  or 9% of the area specified
by the 404 permits. The net difference between the  wetland area on each permit map
and the area specified by permit conditions ranged from a loss of 0.40 ha (1.0 acre), to
a gain of 0.29 ha (0.7 acres).   Five permit maps indicated more area than the permit
specified', four indicated less.  One  permit map indicated the same area as that specified
in the permit conditions.  Table 3.  Information  on the hydrology  planned for each
created wetland  studied.  Information was taken from the COE and ODSL permit files.

-------
 TABLE 3.  The hydrology planned for each created wetland studied.  Information was taken from the US. Army Corps of Engineers
 (COE) and Oregon Division of State Lands (ODSL) permit files.  EPA =  US. Environmental Protection Agency.
 SITE        HYDROLOGY LNTENDED AT CREATED WETLAND


 Cl-CC      Letter from EPA to COE states that a hydraulic connection must be maintained between the project site and the adjacent
             creek to maintain adequate stream flow for fisheries.


 C2-TI       Design plan shorn a pipe leading into the created wetland from boat basin in the Columbia River


 03-NS       Special Condition 8 of Attachment A to the Permit states:  "... connect newly dug wetland into the existing stream."


 O4-MHP    Lake to receive water from two streams entering at its NW and SW comers.  The streams drain a 572.1 acre watershed.

             Well water is to be supplied to the lake during seasonal low stream flow to maintain the water depth at agreed upon levels.


 C5-MG      Drawings show a culvert leading  into the wetland from under nearby street.

             Excavation to the level of an adjacent stream to subject area to stream overflows and possible periods of standing water.


 C6-3I        Existing creek channel to be rerouted through created wetlands.  Stream Oow estimated as about 4 cubic feet per second.


 C7-S.ML,     New stream channels to be excavated to increase stream length and supply water to project.  Existing stream channels to be
             maintained as overflow channels.
                                                                        •

 C8-BSP      Drawing shows  overflow slough connecting pond with nearby creel!.

             The overflow channel is to be created between the existing overflow slough and the SE corner of the project site.

             "Roof water" will be discharged from two  buildings into the pond.

             Surface waters from the surrounding developments to be discharged into the basin through diffuser pipes.

             Text stales that "there may always be a  slight freshwater flow from subsurface seepage".


C9-GP       Existing creek channels enlarged.

             Wetland depression designed to back Gil from creek overflows.

             Storm dram system to discharge into wetland depression.

             Numerous springs and sub-surface seeps to supply water to wetland  depression.

             An extensive hydraulic analysis was done of the carrying capacity of the stream channels for flood storage and to determine
             adequate culvert soe for road crossing.


C10-PP       A ditch js to be excavated from nearby  slough to the pond at elevations lower than the anticipated slough water level


Cll-SM      Drawings show  'open ditch - water source" north of the created wetland running along the development's fenceline and a
            connection between the project and the nearby creek.

             Drawing states 'grade ditch  to maintain positive drainage*.
                                                             10

-------
TABLE 4.  Comparison of wetland area required in the permit specifications (PERMIT SPECS) with
the area of wetland on the map (PERMIT MAP) drafted from construction plans or conceptual
drawings.  Area is expressed  in hectares.  The values in parentheses are the corresponding data
expressed in acres.  The original information was expressed in acres, which was converted to hectares by
multiplying by 0.4047.
       SITE                  PERMIT              PERMIT MAP         NET CHANGE
                             SPECS
Cl-CC
C2-TI
03-NS
04-MHP
C5-MG
C6-31
C8-BSP
C9-GP
C10-PP
Cll-SM
0.89
(2.2)
0.45
(1.1)
0.61
(1.5)
1.46
(3.6)
0.40
(1.0)
0.81
(2-0)
0.04
(0.1)
0.20
(0.5)
0.12
(0.3)
0.12
(0.3)
0.49
(1.2)
0.49
(1.2)
0.65
(1.6)
1.13
(2.8)
0.20
(0.5)
1.10
(2.7)
0.16
(0.4)
0.28
(0.7)
0.12
(0.3)
0.04
(0.1)
-0.40
(-1.0)
+ 0.05
(+0.1)
+ 0.04
(+0.1)
-0.33
(-0.8)
-0.20
(-0.5)
+ 0.29
(+0.7)
+ 0.12
(+0.3)
+ 0.08
(+0.2)
0.00
(0.0)
-0.08
(-0.2)
      TOTALS               5.10                  4.66                -0.44
                            (12.6)                 (11.5)                (-1.1)
                                            11

-------
 Permit Specifications Compared to Field Conditions

       The net change between the area'of each wetland as-built and the area specified
 by the permit conditions ranged from a  loss of 0.69 ha (1.7 acres), to a gain of 0.20 ha
 (0.5  acres).   Five of the wetlands were  built smaller than  intended and five were built
 larger.  None were built exactly as the permit mandated. One wetland (C9-GP), was built
 as the construction plans indicated, however, the area contained in the construction plans
 differed from the permit specifications by +0.08 ha (+0.2 acres).

       The cumulative effect of all the differences between  the permit specifications and
 the as-built areas was also examined.  The area of wetland on the ten field maps totalled
 3.62 ha (9.0 acres); the area of wetland specified in the ten permits totalled 5.10 ha (12.6
 acres).  This represented a loss of  1.48 ha (3.6 acres), or 29% from the total  area
 specified by the permits (Table  5).
EVALUATING THE SHAPE TO BE CREATED AND ACTUALLY CREATED

      Seven of the created wetlands studied had very regular, nearly round, oblong, or
rectangular shorelines. The other four wetlands were constructed with irregular shorelines.
EVALUATING SLOPES TO BE CREATED AND ACTUALLY CREATED

      Slopes to be constructed were evaluated in several ways.  The field measurements
of slopes as-built and the slopes determined from the permit specifications or construction
plans were compared to ascertain if the banks were graded as specified.  Then, the slopes
in the permit specifications  and  in  the  construction plans and  the as-built slopes
determined from  field  measurements were compared with slopes recommended in the
current literature  on wetland creation.

      Since any  one site could contain banks with  different slopes,  the  evaluations
described above were made with reference to the  predominant slopes on the site.  In
addition,  each slope  listed  and each measured  in  the field  was compared to  the
recommended slopes from the literature.
As-Built Conditions Compared to Construction Plans & Permit Specifications

      The predominant slope as-built was gentler than what was to be built as determined
from the  construction plans and permit specifications for nine  of the  eleven  projects
(82%).  Slopes at two sites were built as planned.
                                       12

-------
TABLE 5.  Comparison of the wetland area in the permit specifications (PERMIT
SPECS) with the area of wetland on each field map of "as-built" conditions (FIELD
MAP).  Area is expressed  in hectares.  The values in parentheses are the
corresponding data expressed in acres.  The original information was expressed in
acres, which was converted to hectares by multiplying by 0.4047.
SITE
Cl-CC
C2-TI
O3-NS
O4-MHP
C5-MG
C6-3I
C8-BSP
C9-GP
C10-PP
Cll-SM
TOTALS
PERMIT
SPECS
0.89
(2.2)
0.45
(1.1)
0.61
(1.5)
1.46
(3.6)
0.40
(1.0)
0.81
(2.0)
0.04
(0.1)
0.20
(0.5)
0.12
(0.3)
0.12
(0.3)
5.10
(12.6)
FIELD
MAP
0.20
(0.5)
0.24
(0.6)
0.69
(1.7)
0.97
(2.4)
0.28
(0.7)
0.40
(1.0)
0.24
(0.6)
0.28
(0.7)
0.16
(0.4)
0.16
(0.4)
3.62
(9.0)
NET
CHANGE
-0.69
(-1.7)
-0.21
(-0.5)
+ 0.08
(+0.2)
-0.49
(-1.2)
-0.12
(-0.3)
- 0.41
(-1.0)
+ 0.20
(+0.5)
+ 0.08
(+0.2)
+ 0.04
(+0.1)
+ 0.04
(+0.1)
- 1.48
(-3.6)
                                       13

-------
       Eighty-one percent (29/36) of the slopes measured in the field were more gentle
 (flatter) than their respective permit specifications or construction plans; 6% (2/36) were
 steeper. Only 14% (5/36) of the as-built slopes agreed with the permit specifications or
 construction plans.

 Comparisons with Recommendations in the Literature

       The  current literature on wetland creation  was reviewed to determine if slopes
 intended  for  construction and actually constructed  were  appropriate  for palustrine
 emergent marshes.  A minimum 1% gradient was recommended for bottom contours to
 facilitate drainage. Bottom contours measured at the sites and stated in the construction
 plans were all comparable to the recommended 1%.

       The  recommendation  in the  literature was that the banks of created wetlands
 should  be graded between 5:1 and 15:1 (horizontakvertical)  to facilitate  vegetation
 establishment and soil stability (Reimold and Cobler 1986, Kruczynski 1990; D.S. Golden,
 State of Montana Department of Highways, pers. comm.). For the purposes of this study,
 slopes steeper than 5:1 were considered "steep", and  slopes more gentle than 5:1 were
 considered "gentle".

       The recommended range for slopes was compared with  the predominant slope to
 be built for each  site as determined  from the from the construction plans  and permit
 specifications.   The results were that: 1) 45% (5/11) of the sites had predominant slopes
 specified or drawn that were steeper than 5:1; 2) 18% (2/11) were within the range of 5:1
 to 15:1; and 3)  36% (4/11) could  not be evaluated because the predominant slope
 intended could not be determined.

       The recommended range for slopes was compared with  the predominant slope as
 determined from the as-built conditions measured at each site.  The results were that: 1)
 45% (5/11) of the  sites had predominant slopes that were steeper than 5:1; 2) 36% (4/11)
were within the range of 5:1 to  15:1; and 3) 18% (2/11) could  not be evaluated because
approximately half of the site had slopes that were within the range, while half of the site
had slopes that were steeper than 5:1.

       The recommended range for slopes was then compared with a cumulative list of
all the slopes specified in the permits and construction drawings. The results were that:
 1) 87% (13/15) of the slopes specified or drawn were steeper than 5:1; 2)  13% (2/15)
were within the range of 5:1 to  15:1.

       The recommended slopes were also compared with a cumulative list  of as-built
conditions measured in the field.  Results of these comparisons were:  1) 43% (15/35) of
the slopes were constructed steeper than  5:1; 2) 3%  (1/35) were gentler; and 3) 54%
(19/35) were within the  range of 5:1 to 15:1.
                                        14

-------
 EVALUATING  THE  VEGETATION  TO  BE  ESTABLISHED  AND  ACTUALLY
 ESTABLISHED

       Seven (64%) of the eleven permits contained a list of species to be planted at the
 site.  Of these seven planting lists, only five used scientific names.  The four permits that
 did not contain planting lists did not state if the site was to revegetate naturally or if it
 was to be planted.  Therefore, it could not be determined if the absence of a planting list
 was appropriate or was an oversight.  It was learned from the Oregon Department of Fish
 and Wildlife (ODFW)  (G. Herb, Oregon  Dept. of Fish  and Wildlife, pers.  comm.),
 however, that one (O3-NS) of the four wetland creation projects that lacked a planting list
 was to revegetate naturally.

 Evaluation of Planting Lists

      The maximum number of species on a planting list was eleven, with  an average of
 eight  species per  list.  Most lists also contained species  intended  for the upland  or
 transitional areas surrounding the wetland.- The species designated for planting in uplands
 or  transitional  areas were not  included in this analysis because  field  inventories  of
 vegetation considered only species actually within the wetland.  One permit (Cll-SM)
 contained a list of 24 species "to choose from", however, there was no documentation
 within the permit of which species were actually planted.

      The planting lists were checked  for native and exotic species, and wetland and
 upland species. Exotic species, those not native to the Pacific Northwest which have been
 introduced from other regions of the United States or the world, were identified from the
 regional lists of plant species that occur in wetlands (Reed  1988) and the  regional flora
 (Hitchcock'and Cronquist 1981).

      The regional lists of plant species that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988) were also
 used to assign each species a "wetland indicator code". Reed's categories, from which the
wetland indicator codes  were derived, are:

o     obligate wetland species-(estimated 99%  probability of occurring in wetlands),

o     facultative  wetland  species (estimated  67%-99%  probability of  occurring  in
      wetlands),

o     facultative (34%-66%  estimated probability of occurring in wetlands),

o     facultative upland (67%—99% estimated probability of occurring in nonwetlands),
      and

o     obligate upland (may  occur in wetlands in another region,  but  99%  estimated
      probability of occurring within  nonwetlands in  this region).
                                        15

-------
 Species  not  included in the regional plant list of  species that occur in wetlands were
 assigned wetland indicator codes after consultation with Ms. LaRea Johnston, Assistant
 Curator of the Oregon State University Herbarium.

       Five  of the planting lists contained between 57% and  78% native species, one
 contained all native species, and one contained only 18% native species (Table 6).  Fifty-
 two percent of the species on the combined planting list (made up of the unique species
 on the seven planting lists) were native to the Pacific Northwest.  However,  there were
 species on the planting lists for which a designation of'native or exotic could not be
 determined  because common names were used, or only the genus or family name was
 given. The  proportion of unknowns on the planting lists ranged from 0% to 73% (Table
 6).

       Native, obligate wetland species were included on all planting lists, and made up
 the largest category (36%) of species to be planted (Table 7). The proportion of unknown
 species (30%) was the second largest category.  Seventy-three percent of one planting list
 was made up of species for which wetland indicators could  not be  determined.  Native,
 facultative wetland species constituted the  next most frequently planted group  (14%), and
 were included on approximately half the planting lists.

       Combining the planting lists gives a  total of 44 unique species (Table 8). Of these,
 seven  (16%) were  found on the sites at which they were to be planted.  Two species,
 creeping spikerush  (Eleocharis palustris (L.) R. &  S.) and  meadow foxtail (Alopecurus
 pratensis L.), were found  on two of the wetlands on  which  they  were to be planted.
 Seventeen of the 44 species on the planting lists were found on sites on which they were
 not listed to be planted, i.e., as volunteers.  The proportion of species found on a site that
 were also on the corresponding planting list ranged from 0% to 60%.

 Evaluation of the Vegetation Found On-Site

       The number of species found on each site was much greater than the  number of
 species on the  planting lists.  The average number of species found was 44  (S.E. = ±
 3).   The vegetation at six  of the created wetlands  was composed entirely of volunteer
 species. For the remaining five wetlands, between 93% and 98% of the plant communities
were made up of volunteer species (Table 8).  The combined list of all species that were
 found on the created wetlands contains a total  of 189 unique species. Of these, 4% were
 species to be planted and 96% are volunteers.

       Plant communities found at the created wetlands were composed of both  native
 and  exotic species  (Table 9).  Eight of the sites contained a higher  proportion of native
species than  exotics.  Of the 189 different species found on the created wetlands, 55%
were native  to  the Pacific Northwest and 42%  were exotic.  Native, obligate  (20%) and
native, facultative wetland (23%) species were the types of species most often found on
the created wetlands (Table 10).  In contrast,  eight  of the eleven wetlands sampled had
no exotic, obligate wetland species, and the remaining three wetlands had only one,
                                        16

-------
IABLE 6.  Numbers of species and percentages of  the total number of species  found on each planting list which were native,  exotic,  and unknown species.
Dashes indicate no information.  Where planting  lists were composed of common names, an effort was made to  identify the scientific names.   When this  was
not possible, or if  only the genus or family names were given,  the  species were counted in the UNKNOWN category.  A combined list (COMB LIST)  was  created
by merging all the individual planting lists and eliminating duplicate species names.
SITE
C1-CC
C2-TI
03 -NS
04-MHP
C5-MG
C6-3I
C7-SML
CB-BSP
C9-GP
C10-PP
cfl-SM
TOTAL # LISTED

9
0
7
5
••
4
11
7
--
11
0 NATIVE
..
7
0
3
5
••
3
8
4
--
2
* EXOTIC
..
2
0
•-
0
--
1
2
3
--
1
* UNKNOWN
..
0
0
4
0
--
0
1
0
--
8
X NATIVE
..
78X
OX
43X
100X
--
75X
73X
57X
--
18X'
X EXOTIC
..
22X
OX
--
OX
--
25X
1BX
43X
--
9X
X UNKNOWN
..
OX
ox
57X
OX
--
OX
9X
OX
--
73X
 COMB LIST
                    44
                                       23
                                                                             13
52X
                                                                                                                    1BX
30X

-------
00
          TABLE  7.   Proportions of the different types of vegetation composing the planting  lists which  fell  into  the  categories  in  the regional  list  of plant
          species  that  occur in wetlands (Reed 1988).  Plants were assigned to categories using Reed  (1988)  and in consultation with LaRea Johnston,  Assistant
          Curator.  Oregon State University Herbarium.  The categories are:  DHL—obligate wetland  species;  FACU--facultative wetland species;  FAC--facultative
          species;  FACU--facultative  upland species;  UPL--upland species;  UNK--species that  could not  be identified because the planting list used common names
          or only genus and family names.  The combined list (COMB LIST) is composed of all unique species on the planting lists.  No species was counted more than
          once,  though species may have been on more than one planting list. Results are expressed as percentages  of total numbers of species on the planting list.
          Numbers of  species are in parentheses.
SITE tf SPP
C1-CC
C2-TI 9
03-NS 0
04-HHP 7
C5-HG 5
C6-3I
C7-SML 4
CB-BSP 11
C9-GP 7
C10-PP
C11-SH 11
COMB 44
LIST
XOBL
NATIVE
--
44X
( 4)
0
UX
( 1)
SOX
( 4)
•-
75X
( 3)
45X
( 5>
43X
( 3)
--
9X
( 1)
36X
(16)
X FACU
NATIVE
-•
33X
( 3)
0
29X
( 2)
0
-•
0
27X
( 3)
0
--
9X
( 1)
UX
( 6)
X FAC
NATIVE
••
0
0
-•
20X
( 1)
--
0
0
UX
( 1)
--
--
2X
( 1)
X FACU X UPL X OBL
NATIVE NATIVE EXOTIC
..
0 0 22X
( 2)
000
..
000
..
000
000
0 0 .0
..
9X
( 1)
0 0 7X
( 3>
X FACU X FAC
EXOTIC EXOTIC
--
0 0
0 0
--
0 0
•-
2SX 0
( 1)
18X 0
( 2)
UX 0
( 1)
..
..
7X 0
( 3)
X FACU X UPL X UNK
EXOTIC EXOTIC
..
000
000
57X
( 4)
000
..
000
0 0 9X
( 1)
29X 0 0
( 2)
..
73X
( 8)
5X 0 JOX
( 2) (13)

-------
         TABLE 8.  Numbers and percentages of species to be planted that were found on the created wetlands vs the numbers and percentages of volunteer species
         found.  Dashes Indicate no Information available, therefore, all species found on the site were assumed to be volunteers.  The combined list (COMB
         LIST) was created by merging all the individual planting lists.- Species were only counted once, though they nay have been found at more than one
         site.  0 SPECIES PLANTED is the number of species to be planted on that site.  0 SPECIES PLANTED FOUND is the number of species found on the site that
         was  included on the planting list.  * VOLUNTEER SPECIES is the number of species found on the site that was not on the planting list for that site.  X
         OF SPECIES PLANTED FOUND is the proportion of species on the planting list that was found on the site.  X PLANTED SPECIES OF TOTAL FOUND is the
         proportion of all species found on the site that was to be planted.  X VOLUNTEERS OF TOTAL FOUND is the proportion of the total species found on the
         site that was volunteers (not on the planting list).
vo
SITE «
C1-CC
C2-TI
03 -NS
04-MHP
C5-HG
C6-3I
C7-SHL
C8-BSP
C9-GP
C10-PP
C11-SM
# SPECIES
PLANTED
--
9
0
7
5
--
A
11
7
-•
11
* SPECIES
PLANTED FOUND
--
1
0
0
3
--
1
2
2
--
0
# VOLUNTEER
SPECIES
48
39
37
48
39
69
54
27
56
38
43
X OF SPECIES
PLANTED FOUND
--
11X
ox
ox
60X
--
25X
18X
29X
--
OX
X PLANTED SPECIES
OF TOTAL FOUND
--
3X
OX
OX
7X
--
2X
7X
5X
--
OX
X VOLUNTEERS OF
TOTAL FOUND
100X
98X
100X
100X
93X
100X
98X
93X
95X
100X
100X
          COMB LIST
                                                                            189
16X
                                                                                                                       4X
96X

-------
TABLE 9.  Native end exotic species found at the created wetlands expressed as numbers  per site and as a proportion of  the  total.  Species  in  the
UNKNOWN categories were those found that could not be identified.  The combined list  (COMB LIST) is composed of  all unique  species found at  the
created sites.  No species was counted more than once, though it may have been identified at  more than one site.
SITE
C1-CC
C2-TI
03-NS
04-MHP
C5-MC
C6-3I
10
O C7-SHL
C8-BSP
C9-CP
C10-PP
C11-SM
TOTAL H
SPECIES
46 •
40
37
48
42
69
55
29
38
38
43
* NATIVE
SPECIES
32
24
24
24
16
33
33
11
24
22
27
# EXOTIC
SPECIES
16
15
11
22
25
34
21
17
14
15
14
« UNKNOWN
SPECIES
0
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
0
1
2
X NATIVE
SPECIES
67X
60X
65X
SOX
3BX
48X
60X
38X
63X
sax
63X
X EXOTIC
SPECIES
33X
38X
30X
46X
60X
49X
38X
59X
37X
40X
33X
X UNKNOWN
SPECIES
OX
3X
5X
4X
2X
3X
2X
3X
OX
3X
5X
 COMB LIST:
                    189
104
                                                           80
                                                                                                 55X
                                                                             42X
3X

-------
TABLE 10.  Proportions of the different types of vegetation found on site which fell into the categories in the regional list of  plant species that occur
in wetlands (Reed 1988).  Plants were assigned to categories using  Reed (1988) and  in consultation with LaRca Johnston, Assistant Curator. Oregon State
University Herbarium.  Categories are:  OBL--obligate wetland species; FACU--facultative wetland  species;  FAC--facultative species; FACU--facultative
upland species; UPL--upland species;  and  UNK--species  that could not be  identified or  for  which  the  wetland indicator  could  not  be determined.  The
contained list (COMB LIST) Is composed of all  unique species found at the created  sites.  No species was counted more than once,  though  it may have been
identified at more than one site.   Results are expressed as percentages  of  total  number of  species  found  on site.   Actual numbers of species are  in
parentheses.
SITE #
C1-CC
C2-TI
03 -NS
04-HHP
C5-HG
C6-3I
C7-SML
CS-BSP
C9-GP
C10-PP
C11-SM
COMB
LIST:
# SPP.
48
40
37
48
42
69
55
29
38
38
43
189
X OBL
NATIVE
17X
( 8)
23X
< 9)
35X
(13)
6X
( 3)
21X
< 9)
19X
(13)
31X
(17)
7X
( 2)
29X
(11)
29X
(11)
33X
(14)
20X
(38)
X FACU
NATIVE
35X
(17)
20X
( 8)
22X
( 8)
27X
(13)
10X
( 4)
22X
(15)
24X
(13)
24X
( 7)
24X
( 9)
1BX
( 7)
21X
( 9)
23X
(44)
X FAC
NATIVE
4X
( 2)
18X
( 7)
8X
( 3)
8X
( 4)
2X
( 1)
6X
( 4>
5X
( 3)
7X
( 2)
11X
( 4)
11X
( 4)
9X
( 4)
6X
(11)
X FACU
NATIVE
10X
( 5)
0
0
6X
( 3)
2X
( 1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
4X
( 8)
XUPL
NATIVE
0
0
0
2X
( D
2X
( 1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
IX
( 2)
XOBl
EXOTIC
0
3X
( 1)
0
0
2X
( 1)
0
2X
( D
0
0
0
0
2X
( 3)
X FACU
EXOTIC
8X
( 4)
8X
( 3)
m
( 4)
4X
( 2)
7X
( 3)
6X
( 4)
11X
( 6)
14X
( 4)
11X
( 4)
13X
( 5)
14X
( 6)
7X
(14)
X FAC
EXOTIC
6X
( 3)
13X
( 5)
sx
( 2)
15X
( 7)
10X
( 4)
14X
(10)
4X
( 2)
10X
( 3)
SX
( 2)
13X
( 5)
9X
( 4)
8X
(16)
X FACU
EXOTIC
8X
( 4)
13X
( 5)
8X
( 3)
13X
( 6)
21X
( 9)
12X
( 8)
13X
( 7)
7X
( 2)
13X
( 5)
11X
( 4)
9X
( 4)
10X
(19)
X UPL
EXOTIC
10X
( 5)
3X
( 1)
SX
( 2)
1SX
( 7)
19X
( B)
19X
(13)
9X
( 5)
28X
( 8)
BX
( 3)
3X
( 1)
0
13X
(24)
X UNK
0
3X
( 1)
SX
( 2)
4X
( 2)
2X
( 1)
3X
( 2)
2X
( 1)
3X
( D
0
3X
( D
SX
( 2)
SX
(10)

-------
exotic, obligate wetland species each.   In  addition, the proportion of exotic, facultative
wetland species on the created sites was very low (<^ 7%). The most notable characteristic
of the plant communities found on-site was the absence of native, upland species.  Native,
facultative upland and native, upland species were found on  only three of the sites while
exotic upland, and exotic facultative upland species were found at all the created wetlands
(Table 10).
                                        22

-------
                                   SECTION' IV

                                   DISCUSSION
       Wetlands are,  and undoubtedly will continue to be, created  as compensation for
 those destroyed by development permitted under Section 404.  It is important to ensure
 that the wetlands  created compensate fully for those  destroyed.  This includes ensuring
 that wetland design is appropriate for the  type of wetland desired and  its location, and
 that all losses are  accounted for.  The following discussion examines wetland design and
 planning, and presents suggestions for improving the process.
DESIGN OF CREATED WETLANDS

Hydrology

       Hydrology was not included in the comparisons of as-built conditions with permit
specifications  and  construction  plans because  information in the  permit  files  was
inadequate.  Hydrology is one of the most important aspects of wetland establishment.
Therefore, the design of a created  wetland  should include specific  statements of the
hydrology intended. Statements that a source  of water must (or will) be provided are not
sufficient.  The plans must explicitly state at minimum 1) how and from where the -water
will be supplied to the site, 2) the depth of water  intended to inundate the site, and 3)
the timing and duration of inundation.

Area of Wetland to be Created

       Losses of area occurred due to differences between  the permit conditions and the
construction plans, often found in the same file.  When the area of the  wetland as-built
was determined, it often was less than the area indicated in the construction drawings.
Cumulatively, both discrepancies amounted to a loss of 29% of the wetland area that was
to be created. One cause of such an error is not differentiating the project boundary (the
actual area being turned into wetland) from the property boundary and accounting for the
space required for banks and a transitional zone.  Thus, the actual wetland area created
may be smaller than intended.

Shane of the Wetland to be Created

      The shape of a wetland can influence its function as wildlife habitat.  An irregular
shoreline with small vegetated fingers and open water bays will provide more edge than
will an even-sided shoreline.  Greater edge tends to  increase waterfowl usage by providing
isolated areas for feeding and loafing (Crawford and Rossiter 1982).  It is easier and less

                                        23

-------
 expensive, however, to create regularly shaped wetlands 'with even sides.  Seven of the
 created wetlands studied had very regular, nearly round, oblong, or rectangular shorelines.
 The other four wetlands were constructed with irregular  shorelines.
       Garbisch (1977)  states that  slopes are  one of  the  most important  factors in
preparing a site for marsh establishment.  He suggests designing slopes to be as gentle as
possible without impounding water. One method of calculating slopes that will be proper
for the vegetation type desired, is to determine  the  slopes  of non-eroding, vegetated
sections of banks contiguous to the site.  For example, Shisler and Cnarette (1984)
recommend the grading of slopes and topography to the relative elevations of adjacent
natural marshes.

       Kruczynski  (1990) recommends slopes between 5:1 and 15:1 (horizontalrvertical) to
provide maximum flooding of wetland area, to minimize erosion, and for the successful
establishment of wetland vegetation.  He states that  many  mitigation sites have been
unsuccessful because of the steepness of their slopes.  In this study, 45% (5/11) of the sites
both as planned and constructed had slopes steeper than 5:1 predominant on the site.
Moreover, 87% (13/15) of all  the  slopes listed  within  the  permits or  drawn  in  the
construction plans  were steeper than 5:1.  In specifications for the creation of wetlands to
mitigate impacts from highway construction  in Montana, Golden  (State of  Montana
Department of Highways, pers.  comm.) included several  requirements to ensure slopes
constructed were appropriate.  The criteria were that at least 50% of the non-flooded area
must have a 10:1  or flatter  slope, and no more than 10% of the non-flooded area may
have a 4:1 or steeper slope.

       Field sampling showed that 43% (15.35) of the all slope measurements taken within
the created wetlands studied were steeper than 5:1.  D'Avanzo (1990) stated that the
failure of plantings in created wetlands is often caused by incorrect slope, and the resulting
erosion and increased rate of sedimentation. Erosion, accompanied by sedimentation and
siltation, was noted at some  of the sites with steep slopes (Figure 1A).  The banks of site
ClO-PP were so steep that field workers had to pull themselves along with their hands to
keep from sliding into the pond (Figure IB).

       Water fluctuations and the corresponding changes  in the duration and frequency
of inundation of the site are  likely to be greater when slopes are steep than when gradual.
Any influx of water into a small area with steep slopes will cause a rapid deepening of the
water as it rises up the banks, while the same influx of water will cause a much smaller
increase in depth where the topography is gentle and slopes  are gradual.   The effect is
analogous to the way water rises in a narrow glass versus in a shallow bowl.  These
differences in water fluctuations,  and hence, the differences in  the duration  and frequency
of inundation, influence the  amount, zonation, and form of the vegetation community.

                                        24

-------
                                     from
                               best available co=v
D
                                ••"**"' -  **lx'   "u,;^**j^ '
                                        \.    J
                                                              ..44t,
B.
FIGURE 1.  Photographs of the steep slopes at two of the created wetlands. Note signs
           of erosion on photo 1A.
                                  25

-------
       Another consequence of steep banks is less area with the appropriate hydrology for
 wetland vegetation to become established. A narrow fringe of wetland vegetation is likely
 to occur around a steep-sided pond, whereas, on a gradual slope, wetland vegetation will
 occupy a broad expanse (Figure 2).  A narrow fringe of vegetation was observed at several
 of the wetlands studied (e.g., O4-MHP, C6-3I, C8-BSP, C10-PP).

       Wetlands abruptly confined  by  developed land lack the potential for vegetation
 communities to adjust to changing hydroperiod by  shifting up and down the banks, and,
 therefore, force the loss of plant species, animals, and habitat.  Transition areas between
 the wetland and surrounding land uses are needed.  Transition areas should have gentle,
 gradual slopes to  allow the plant communities a large area over which to expand  and
 contract, and, thus, increase the probability of their persistence (Willard and Hfller 1990).

 Vegetation to be Established and Actually Found on the Sites

 Planting Lists-

       Vegetation of the site is imperative to the creation of a palustrine emergent marsh.
 If planting is to be done, a list of species to be planted should be included  in the project
 plans.  Planting lists were found for  seven of the eleven projects studied.  However, these
 planting lists were problematic: 1) two used only common names, 2) several used family
 and genus  names instead of names  of species, 3) nearly all planting lists included exotic
 species, 4) several included upland  and transitional species, without direction on where
 they should be planted, 5) several included  commercial  cultivars, and 6) none specified
 planting methods.  In addition, a list of species recommended for planting in wetlands by
 ODFW used only  common names.  Scientific names, both genus and species, should be
 used to identify species for planting, and, whenever possible, the native variety should be
 specified.  Common names may be  included with the scientific names, but should not be
 the sole means of species identification because a common name often can apply to more
 than one species.

       All but one of the projects  studied contained exotic species on its planting  list.
 Exotic species should not be planted for two reasons. First, some are not adapted to the
 regional climatic conditions and may not survive.  Bald cypress (Taxodium distichnm (L.)
 Rich),  a native of the Southeastern  United States, was a found on both a list of species
recommended by ODFW for planting in Pacific Northwest  wetlands, and  on the planting
list for project (Cll-SM).  Second, if an exotic species does have the ability to adapt to
the regional environmental conditions, it may have the  potential to become a pest by
outcompeting native species.  Examples of  invasive pest species are purple  loosestrife
 (Lythrum salicaria L.), a species  introduced from Eurasia, and crabgrass  (Digitaria
ischaemum [Schreb.]  Schreb.),  a ubiquitous weedy species.  Purple loosestrife was  not
included on any of the planting lists, however, crabgrass was.
                                        26

-------
B.
                                  V
FIGURE 2.  A.  Photograph  of the  broad expanse of vegetation  found on a created
             wetland with gradual slopes.   B.   Photograph of the narrow  fringe of
             vegetation found  on a created wetland with steep-sided slopes.  Arrows
             indicate boundaries of wetland vegetation.

                                        27

-------
       Commercial cultivars should not be substituted for native  species (Josselyn et al.
 1990).  For example, the plans  for project O4-MHP stipulated  the planting of  "multi-
 flora rose". This is not a species of rose (L. Johnston, OSU Herbarium, pers. comm.), but
 a generic name for cultivated roses with a tall, cascading form and many blooms.  The
 temptation to use cultivated varieties will be great if it is difficult to find sources of native
 species while cultivated varieties are  easy to locate and purchase. To prevent this, the
 contractor must be made aware of the differences between  native species and their
 cultivated varieties, and the importance of planting native wetland species.

       The season for planting, type of planting materials, planting density,  and required
 survival rates, should be stated within the permit conditions (Kruczynski 1990).  None of
 the  permits  examined contained such specifications.  When considering type  of plant
 material to use, several factors should be  considered.  Seeding is the  least expensive
 method, but its success is the least predictable.  Seeds may be washed away by fluctuating
 water levels or consumed by wildlife.  Their germination and development in shallow water
 depend upon uncontrollable parameters such  as the temperature and turbidity  of the
 water.  If used,  seeding should be done in early spring  to take full advantage  of the
 growing season (Garbisch 1986).

       Transplanting of peat-potted plants, plugs, sprigs, and dormant underground plant
 parts (tubers, bulbs, and rhizomes) is both the most successful and most expensive method
 of revegetating.   Generally, peat-potted plants in either a growing or dormant condition
 can be transplanted at any time of the year.  Therefore, the timing of the completion of
 construction  of  the  site should not  affect the success of establishment.  Plugs,  sprigs,
 tubers, bulbs, and rhizomes must be planted while dormant, which limits optimal planting
 times to winter and spring months (Garbisch 1986).

      The transplants or seeds used should be of local origin.  Native wetland  plants
 grown from  non-local genetic  stock may not  be  adapted to local climatic conditions.
 Garbisch (1977) recommends that plant  stock used should originate  from within  a  100-
 mile radius of its intended destination.  However, ensuring that plant stock originates in
 a climate similar  to  its  intended destination  is probably more important  than  strictly
 following the 100-mile radius recommendation.  Recently, some Pacific Northwest nurseries
 have  begun providing locally grown, native species for wetland revegetation.  However,
 when large volumes of plants are  needed, contractors must  order plant stock from
 nurseries outside the region, usually the midwest (R. Van Wormer, Independent Ecological
 Services, pers. comm.).

 Survival of Species Planted-

      Overall, approximately 96% of the species on the created wetlands were volunteers,
while less than 4% were  species found on the planting lists.  This poses the  question:
 Why weren't species on the planting lists found in greater abundance on the sites?

                                        28

-------
       It is possible that planting did not take place.  In this study it was assumed that
 species included on planting lists were planted on the created wetlands.  However, there
 was no documentation within the files as to which species were actually planted, where
 they were  planted, or when they were planted.  Also, no evidence of planting (e.g., rows
 of sprigs) was observed within the wetlands during field sampling.

       Assuming planting took place, environmental conditions at the created wetlands may
 have been incorrect. It may be necessary to change the conditions of the site (hydrology,
 slopes,  location, etc.) to allow the  types of species  planted  to  persist on the created
 wetlands.  Future  research might* include exploring the type of environmental conditions
 necessary for the successful establishment of desired species.

       Another possibility is that the  species listed for  planting were not appropriate.
 Species appropriate for planting in palustrine emergent marshes of the Pacific Northwest
 might be determined from inventories of the species that occur on natural marshes of the
 region, or from inventories of the species that volunteered on the created sites.

 Planting vs Natural Revegetation of the  Site-

       Natural revegetation may be a viable option, since approximately 96% of the
 species found on the created sites were volunteers. During visits to site O3-NS, which was
 allowed to naturally revegetate, we observed that vegetation cover increased over the three
 summers  after construction (1987, 1988, and . 1989).    Shisler  and  Charette (1984)
 recommended that small disturbed areas less than 0.20 ha (0.50 acres) in size occurring
within  a natural marsh be  allowed  to revegetate naturally.   This might also apply to
created wetlands less than  0.20 ha  (0.5  acres), especially if a potential seed source is
 nearby. However, the amount of time required for the site to become fully revegetated
 naturally is generally longer than if the wetland is  planted. Therefore,  the time period
required for the site to fully revegetate through natural means constitutes a wetland loss.
Planting lessens this temporal loss because it hastens the  establishment of a functional
wetland (Kruczynski 1990).

      Mulching  the created wetland by applying a layer of  topsoil removed from the
destroyed wetland may enhance and accelerate the revegetation process by providing a
supply of propagules. In addition, Kruczynski (1990) recommends mulching to provide an
organic surface horizon and sofl microflora.  Mulching also helps to reduce evaporation
of soil pore water, runoff and  sofl loss, and surface compaction and  crusting (Thornburg
 1977).  Created wetlands in Florida and other areas of the southeastern United States are
routinely mulched. This has accelerated the successful establishment of wetland vegetation
on the sites (M. Brown, University of Florida, pers. comm.).
                                        29

-------
       If the created wetland is mulched with topsoil taken from the wetland destroyed,
 the created wetland will revegetate  from the seed bank  of the wetland  destroyed.
 However, the species present in the wetland when it was destroyed may not be the ones
 that germinate from the topsoil placed in  the new wetland.  The  species composition
• within a seedbank results from the accumulation of seeds over many years, during which
 time, the vegetation in the wetland  may  have  changed.   In a study comparing the
 seedbanks of different vegetation zones within prairie marshes, van  der Valk and Davis
 (1976) found that the seedbanks of wetlands with open water regimes (an early stage of
 marsh succession) contained the seeds of species characteristic of wet meadows (a later
 stage of marsh succession).  Moreover, the seedbank of the wet meadow contained seeds
 of plants typical  of the earlier,  open water wetland.   Therefore, the type  of vegetation
 present at any time is primarily a  function of water level, although the potential floristic
 composition of the vegetation community is a function of the makeup of  the seedbank
 (van der Valk and Davis 1976).

 Instances Where  Planting May be Advisable-

       It may be  necessary to plant the required species to ensure their establishment if
 a  specific wetland community or wildlife habitat is desired.  The value of a wetland for
 wildlife habitat and food depends  upon water  depth,  the density of  the vegetation, seed
 production,  accessibility  of edible plant  parts,  and the   associated production  of
 invertebrates.  Vegetation stands that are too  dense may  be impenetrable  to  waterfowl,
 while those  that are too sparse will be unattractive.  The  plant parts consumed must  be
 abundant and available at the right times and in the right places (Kadlec and Wentz 1974).

      If erosion is a concern, especially where the banks slope steeply into the wetland,
species should be chosen on the basis of their capacity for soil stabilization. Those with
extensive root systems, rhizomes and erect stems that form dense bunches or turf, are best
(Allen and Klimas 1986). Perennial species are probably more effective at erosion control
than annuals (G.  Herb, Oregon Dept of Fish  and  Wildlife, pers. comm.)

      It may be easier to control the spread of invasive species by planting early in the
wetland construction  process.  Some marsh species  have difficulty colonizing  if more
aggressive species become established first.  Planting of desired species may give them a
competitive  edge  over invasive species  (Josselyn et al.  1990).

      If the created wetland is isolated from appropriate  seed sources, planting may be
advisable.   The majority of the  created wetlands  in this study were located within
residential developments, or commercial and light industrial complexes, and were at least
partially isolated from appropriate seed sources. Although these wetlands appear to have
revegetated  naturally, others placed in similar surroundings might not receive sufficient
propagules to revegetate naturally and, therefore, will require planting (Josselyn et al.
1990).

                                        30

-------
       Planting also may be advisable because, in contrast to the seedbank studies cited
 above, other studies suggest that the vegetation of an area cannot be used to predict the
 composition  of  the seedbank and vice versa.  In a project undertaken to study the
 correlation of freshwater tidal wetland  seedbanks with vegetation change,  Leek and
 Simpson (1987) found that marsh species have different dependence on seedbanks. Some
 species have  transient seedbanks (Impatiens capensis Meerb.) and others have persistent
 seedbanks (Typha sp.).  In addition, they concluded that freshwater marshes affected by
 drought (such as inland marshes in the Pacific Northwest)  have vegetation that is not
 closely related to the seedbank.  Thus, the vegetation of these wetlands cannot be used
 to predict the composition of their seedbanks and vice versa.

      Another study of the correlation of seedbanks with vegetation indicated that weedy
 and early-successional species tend to be long-lived in the seedbank (Glass 1989). This
 suggests that weedy and early successional species are  likely to appear on a disturbed
 site  (such as  a newly created wetland), and  that the seedbank cannot be counted on to
 produce the desired vegetation community.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE WETLAND CREATION UNDER SECTION 404

       Permit conditions, construction plans and conceptual drawings often did not reflect
as-built conditions of the created wetlands.  However, judgments of non-compliance cannot
be made without proper documentation of the construction process.  In some instances,
it is likely that necessary changes were made during construction that made it appear the
site was out .of compliance.  As-built drawings of the wetland, drawn after the completion
of the construction process, would be an accurate  method  of portraying the  newly
constructed site for a determination of compliance.  To be most useful, as-built drawings
should contain a location map for the created wetland, a map of its size and shape, the
plan scale, vertical elevations, and the  datum used.  All sketches,  lettering, scales, etc,
should be clear and legible.  The as-built drawings should also include the actual slopes
built within the wetland, where vegetation species were planted, and documentation of any
mid-course changes.  In addition, the plans should contain the specific objectives of the
creation.  These should be related to specific vegetation or habitat types, wildlife values
or other functional values (Fishman, et al. 1987).

      Flexibility to make changes along the way is  a crucial component of the wetland
creation process.   However,  if mid-course changes are not documented by either the
contractor or agency personnel, there are  no means  by which to determine if the project
is out of compliance or if differences merely reflect a necessary change in the plans due
to unanticipated conditions encountered during construction.
                                        31

-------
       Many developers have short-term goals and create wetlands only to fulfill regulatory
 obligations; to ensure  the created wetland persists in  the landscape, the long-term goals
 (including monitoring) should be specified in the permit (Shisler and Charette 1984).  No
 specific long-term goals or plans for monitoring were stated within any of the permit files
 examined.  Moreover,  monitoring would have been difficult to implement due to the lack
 of baseline data.   As-built drawings and documentation of changes made  during  the
 construction process would provide the baseline information from which monitoring could
 be conducted.

       Complete documentation that is organized in a consistent manner and composed
 of specific data would allow resource agencies  to more  easily investigate and assess
 projects as they proceed.  If inspections were recorded on a standard "data sheet" which
 contained  the  same  parameters for all  projects,  future projects  could  then use  the
 information to  evaluate the methods and techniques used (Shisler and Charette  1984,
 Erwin 1990). None of the permit files examined included documentation of the sequence
 of construction events, dates of inspections, or mid-course changes.

       Mason and Slocum  (1987) conducted an evaluation of 32  wetlands  created in
 Virginia's coastal  zone. Criteria used were establishment of vegetation, compliance with
 permit conditions, and evidence of wildlife  use.   They concluded  that when permits
 contained specific conditions for creating the wetland, 86% were successful, whereas only
 44% of projects without specific permit conditions were successful. Where time limits for
 completion of the wetland creation were  specified  in the permit, 100% of the projects
were successful compared to only a 50%  success rate when no time limits or deadlines
were set.  It appears that specific permit conditions help to ensure  compliance with  the
permit and the establishment of the created wetland.

       In summary, the differences between the plans and specifications in the project  file
and the  as-built conditions  point to the  need for  verification of projects in both  the
planning and construction phases of the permitting process.  The planning phase should
focus  on the development of a realistic approach using  information from the scientific
literature and past projects.   The construction phase should culminate in the production
of an as-built plan.  This  would allow  immediate checks to ensure that critical features
have been included as intended, e.g., wetland area,  vegetation type.   It  would also
document any corrective measures that were taken due  to unanticipated  events during'
construction.  As-built plans of the project would ensure that the details of the actual
wetland created were available for future reference  in addition to the conceptual design.
                                        32

-------
                                          SECTION VI

                                      LITERATURE CITED
 Allen, H.H. and CV. Klimas.  1986.  Reservoir Shoreline Revegetation Guidelines.  Tech: Rep. E-86-13.
        U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Bcp. Sta., Vicksburg, Mississippi.

 Baker, G.F.  1984. An Analysis of Wetland Losses and Compensation Under the Clean Water Act Section
        404 Program:  Managing Natural Resources Through Mitigation.  M.S. Thesis, University of San
        Francisco, San Francisco,  California.

 Crawford, R.D. and J_A. Rossiter. 1982.  General design considerations in creating artificial wetlands for
        wildlife, p. 44-47.  In W.D. Svedarsky and R.D. Crawford (Eds.),  Wildlife Values of  Gravel Pits,
        Symposium Proceedings.   Misc. Pub.  17-1982. Ag. Exp. Sta., Univ. of Minn., Duluth, Minnesota.

 D'Avanzo, C 1990.  Long-term evaluation of wetland creation projects, p. 487-496.  In J.A Kusler and
        M.E Kentula  (Eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration:  The  Status of the Science,  Part 2:
        Perspectives.  Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia.

 Erwin, K.L.  1990. Freshwater marsh creation and restoration in the Southeast, p. 233-266.  In J.A. Kusler
        and M.E. Kentula (Eds.),  Wetland Creation and Restoration:  The Status  of the Science, Part 1:
        Regional Reviews.  Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia.

 Federal Interagency  Committee for Wetland  Delineation.   1989.   Federal Manual for Identifying and
        Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.  US. Army Corps of Eng, U.S. Env. Protection Agency, U.S.
        Fish and Wildl Serv., and U.SJXA, Soil Conserv. Serv., Washington, District of Columbia. Coop.
        Tech. PubL

 Fishman, P.A, N.S. Geiger, L. Sharp, J.W. Buell, and L Wilson.  1987. Estuarine Mitigation Evaluation
        Project-Mitigation Site Evaluation Notebook.  Submitted to the Department of Land Conservation
        and Development  and The Division of State Lands.   Fishman Environmental Services, Portland,
        Oregon.

 Garbisch, E.W., Jr.  1977. Recent and Planned Marsh Establishment Work Throughout the  Contiguous
        United States-A Survey and Basic Guidelines. Contr. Rep. D-77-3.  U.S.  Army Eng. Waterways
        Exp.  Sta., Vicksbnrg, Mississippi

 Garbisch, EW., Jr. 1986.  Highways and Wetlands: Compensating Wetland  Losses.  Contr.  Rep. DOT-
      •  FH-11-9442.  Fed. Highway Admin., Office of Implementation, McLean, Virginia.

 Glass, S.  1989.  The role of soil  seed banks in restoration and management  Restor.  & Manag. Notes
        7(l):24-29.

Good, J.W.  1987. Mitigating estuarine development in the Pacific Northwest:  from concept  to practice.
        Northwest Env. Jour. 3(1)53-111.

Hitchcock, CL. and  A CronquisL  1981.  Flora of the Pacific Northwest-An  Illustrated  Manual.   5th
        Edition.  Univ. of Washington Press,  Seattle, Washington.
                                              33

-------
 Josselyn, M, J. Zedier, and T. Griswold.  1990. Wetland mitigation along the Pacific Coast of the United
        States, p. 3-36.  In J-A. Kusler and M.E Kentula (Eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration:  The
        Status of the Science, Part 1: Regional Reviews. Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia.

 Kadlec, JA. and WA. Wentz. 1974. State-of-the-An Survey and Evaluation of Marsh Plant Establishment
        Techniques:  Induced and Natural.  Volume I:  Report of Research.  U.S. Army Eng. Waterways
        Exp. Sta., Contr. Rep. D-74-9.  Vicksburg, Mississippi. Grant No. DACW72-74-C-0010.

 Kentula, M.E., J.C Sifheos, J.W., M Rylko, and K, Kunz. Trends and patterns in Section 404 permitting
        in Oregon and Washington. Submitted to Euv. Manag.

 Kruczynski, W.L.  1990.  Options to be considered in preparation and evaluation of mitigation plans, p. 555-
        570.  In JA Kusler and ME Kentula (Eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration:  The Status of
        the Science, Pan 2:  Perspectives.  Island Press, Washington,  District of Columbia.

 Kusler, JA and ME Kentula.  1990.   Executive Summary, p. xvii-xxv. In JA. Kusler and ME Kentula
        (Eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science.  Island Press, Washington,
        District of Columbia.

 Leek, MA. and RJL Simpson.  1987. Seed bank of a freshwater tidal wetland: turnover and  relationship
        to vegetation change.  Amer. J. Hot 74(3):360-370.

 Lounsbury, J.F. and F.T. Aldrich.  1986.  Introduction to Geographic Field Methods and  Techniques.  2nd
        Edition.  Charles E Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, Ohio.

 Mason, CO.  and DA. Slocum.  1987.   Wetland replication-does it work? p.  1183-1197.  In  Proceedings
        of the 5th Symposium on  Coastal and Ocean Management, May 1987, Volume 1.  Amer. Soc. of
        Civil  Eng., New York, New York.

 Memorandum of  Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the  Department of  the
        Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(l)
        Guidelines, (Feb. 7, 1990).

Quammen, ML.  1986.  Measuring the  success of wetlands  mitigation.  Nat Wetlands NewsL 8(5):6-8.

Reimold, RJ. and SA Cobler.  1986.   Wetlands  Mitigation Effectiveness.  USEPA Contract No. 68-04-
        0015.  Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Wakefield,  Massachusetts.

Reiner, EL.  1989. The Biological and Regulatory  Aspects of Salt  Marsh Protection, Restoration and
        Creation  in  Massachusetts.    MS.  Thesis, Dept. of  Biology,  Northeastern  Univ.,  Boston,
        Massachusetts.

Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988.  National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands:  Northwest  (Region 9).  U.S.
        Fish WildL Serv. BioL Rep. 88(26.9).  Washington,  District of Columbia.

Shisler, J.K. and DJ. Charene. 1984. Evaluation of Artificial Salt Marshes in New Jersey.  NJ. Agric. Exp.
        Sta. PubL No. P-40502-01-84.

Statistical Graphics Corporation.   1988.  Statgraphics Statistical  Graphics System, ISBN 0-926683-24-1.
        RockvOle, Maryland.
                                              34

-------
Steward, A.N., LJ.  Dennis, and H.M.  Gilkey.  1963.  Aquatic Plants of the Pacific Nonhwest-With
        Vegetative Keys.  2nd Edition.  Oregon State Univ. Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Thornburg, A.  1977.  Use of vegetation for stabilization of shorelines of the Great Lakes, p. 39-53.  In
        Proceedings  of the Workshop on the Role  of Vegetation in Stabilization of the Great Lakes
        Shoreline. Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

van der Valk, A.G.  and CB. Davis.   1976.  The seed banks of prairie glacial marshes.  Can. J. BOL
        54:1832-1838.

Wentworth, T.R., G.P. Johnson, and ILL. KologiskL  1988. Designation of wetlands by weighted averages
        of vegetation data: a preliminary evaluation.  Water Res. BoIL 24(2)383-396.

Willard, D.E. and A.K. Hfller.  1990.  Wetland dynamics: considerations for restored and created wetlands,
        p. 459-466. In J.A. Kusler and ME. Kentula (Eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status
        of the Science, Pan 2:  Perspectives.  Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia.

Zedler, J.B. and M.E. Kentula.  1986.  Wetland Research Plan.  EPA/600/3-86/009, Environmental Research
        Lab., U.S. Env.  Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.  Nat. Tech.  Infer. Serv. Accession No.
        PB86158656/AS.
                                               35

-------
                                      APPENDIX I

  DATA COLLECTED FOR EACH SITE: DESCRIPTIONS, PERMIT AND FIELD MAPS,
                 BASIN MORPHOLOGY PROFILES, AND SPECIES LISTS
 DESCRIPTION:  SITE Cl-CC
    This project was mitigation for wetlands lost during the development of approximately 24.28
ha (60 acres)  of industrially  zoned land.   The  development entailed the  (1)  relocation  of
approximately 650 linear feet of Phillips Creek, requiring the backfilling of the existing creek with
approximately 4,000 cubic yards of fill material; (2) placement of about 1,400 cubic yards of fill
material in a pond/wetland area adjacent to Phillips Creek; (3) placement of approximately 3400
cubic yards of fill material for  the construction of a road adjacent to the pond/wetland area; (4)
placement of approximately 500 cubic yards of fill material in a wetland for the construction of a
road and site development; (5) placement of approximately 250 cubic yards of riprap and the
construction of a 60-foot long, 6 by 30 foot concrete box culvert for the construction of a  road
across ML Scon Creek; and (6)  placement of about 200 yards of rock for the construction of a weir
at the east end of an overflow channel   The loss of approximately  1.38  ha  (3.4 acres)  of
pond/wetland habitat was to be compensated by the creation of approximately 0.77 ha (1.9 acres)
of pond/wetland habitat within  the ML Scon Creek containment benn.

    The goal of the  wetland's creation was functional replacement of  the wetland  area  IOSL
Functional replacement at this site consisted of flood  storage and desynchronization, wildlife habitat,
food chain  support, non-consumptive and consumptive recreation, and fisheries habitaL

    In August of  1981, about  one year after the  mitigation  work was completed, the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) inspected the site and found several problems.  These
included the lack of a water supply to the wetland,  the  lack of aquatic vegetation at the site, the
lack of a buffer snip of vegetation  around the perimeters of the ponds, and that an  excessive
amount of  riparian vegetation  had been removed  during construction  (G. Herb, ODFW, pers.
comm.).

    The water supply for the wetland originates from a spring approximately 100 yards up a nearby
hilL  Originally, the pipes that had been designed to carry water from the spring to the wetland had
been installed upside-down.  Therefore, water was being diverted from the wetland. This problem
has been corrected and water is  now being supplied to the wetland (G. Herb, ODFW, pers. comm.).

    Aquatic and emergent plant species have become established within the wetland since water has
been supplied. However, local children have discovered the area and are using the excavated areas
between the trees as motorcycle paths.  This is destroying much  of the wetland.

    This wetland was created in August of 1980; the water supply was corrected in 1982.  It was
nearly 7 years old when sampled in June of 1987.

General Description

    The created wetland is a mosaic of ponds, emergent marsh, trees on hummocks, motorcycle
paths and upland grasses.  It was created within  the Mt. Scott  Creek containment benn and is

                                          36

-------
 separated by it from a grassy meadow to the north and parking lots to the south. When this site
 was created, the ground between the trees was excavated and covered with a thin layer of soil from
 the destroyed wetland.  Many of the large existing trees were allowed to remain, and now sit on
 hummocks interspersed throughout the wetland.  The excavated areas exhibit three conditions:  1)
 water ponded with emergent vegetation; 2) no standing water, but moist soils supporting vegetation;
 and 3)  bare ground, primarily trails created by the motorcycle traffic

     Water is supplied to the wetland via pipes from a spring on the slope above.  It enters the site
 on the  north  bank of a small pond that occupies the eastern quarter of the wetland.  There is a
 small pipe leading from this pond  through a hummock to the remaining area, but when sampled,
 water level in the pond was lower than the pipe and only a small stream of water was flowing.

     At  the western end of the wetland, the marsh narrows into a stream flowing west  However,
 there was no visible flow of water  from the wetland into the stream during sampling.

     Elevation changes both between the wetland and the neighboring  meadow, and within the
 wetland were  quite large.  The slopes of the berm were rather steep and the general topography
 within the site was uneven and hilly due  to the mosaic of hummocks and depressions.

 Hydrology and Substrate

     Water was clear, odorless, and stagnant.  There was a thick layer of duckweed (Lemna sp.)
 covering the surface of the main pond, however if this layer was disturbed, the pond's bottom could
 be easily seen.

    A very small stream of water was flowing  from the pond  into the adjacent depressions.  This
 flow was too small  to allow ponding to develop during the dry summer months, as the water was
 obviously being absorbed into the soil

    There  was evidence  that when  high  water conditions exist, channels  form around  the
 trees/hummocks.

    The Munsell Color Book indicated soil  chromas were borderline hydric (Le., 2).  Although a
 layer of wetland soil had been spread over the excavated areas (G. Herb, ODFW, pen. comm.), no
 definite break in soil color, texture, or appearance was observed within the  top 30 on.  A few of
 the soil  pits were not dug to 30 cm  because a day hardpan, or cobbles and gravel was encountered.
 Mottles were observed in the top 5 cm of the soil indicating periodic inundation (Sofl Conservation
 Service  1975).

 Dominant Vegetation

    Pond water surfaces were choked with aquatic and emergent vegetation, primarily (Lemna minor
 L.) and  species of Polygonmn.

    Many Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia Benth.) and  cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa T. & G.)
on-the hummocks were beginning to die.  Possible causes include root damage from the excavating
process  (or from motorcycle traffic), and  the periodic inundation of the bases of the trees.  The
hummocks were also covered with  upland grasses, sedges, and blackberry vines (Rnbus sp.).  Of
interest was the presence of blue wild-rye (Efymus glaucns Buck!.), a native perennial grass normally
found in prairie areas of western Oregon.
                                           37

-------
    The slopes of the containment berm were vegetated with introduced grasses (mostly species of
 Poa and Bromus) tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobeae L), blackberry vines (Rnbus sp.), and other
 upland plants.

    Hydrophytic vegetation inhabiting the excavated areas that hadn't been disturbed by motorcycle
 traffic consisted mainly of species of Eteochoris.

    See the list of "Species Found On Site Cl-CC" for an explicit account of the species identified.

 Wildlife

    Common names were used for wildlife sighted or heard because information was taken from
 notes made during field sampling by an amateur birdwatcher. No definitive wildlife survey was done
 and therefore, scientific names were not determined.  Many birds were observed and heard at this
 site.  They included robins, red-tailed hawks, starlings, and song sparrows.  Deer tracks were seen
 in the mod. However, the noise from the nearby highway was often loud enough to drown out the
 bird calls, and this disturbance may influence wildlife use.

            of rt»c Site One Yfar T
    Overall, the site  appeared very similar to conditions observed  the  previous year.   A few
differences were noted, however.  The easternmost pond  in the mosaic  was more choked with
Polygonum than the previous year.  Duckweed (Lemna minor L>) was still present, but was being
crowded out by the Polygonum.  The vegetated areas between the hummocks were drier and more
sparsely vegetated, and the bare areas were more extensive-possibly due to heavier motorcycle
traffic
                                           38

-------
PERMIT MAP
   C1-CC
[>:-- J  Proposed Replacement Wetland

      ML Scott Creek (existing chameO

      Proposed Berm
                                  0
                                   I-
                                  0
1:800
8   16  24 m
33    67   ft
                        N

-------
                                FIELD  MAP
                                  C1-CC
                                                  BMT1
              Bl
             VT4
          Basin Morphology Transect

          Vegetation Transect

          Start of Transect

          End of Transect
     •j=f§y Marsh Area Suveyed
0
t-
SOUKK Dab cdtecwl by Stttarie Own & Sheri Carter July. 1987
    Map dratted by T. Smrti
     1:800
                                             8   16   24 m
                         N
                                             33   67
                                    40

-------
                                            SITE  C1-CC
                                               Transect 1
Elevation (m)
  0.4

  0.2
                                     18
14    ie    IB    eo
   Distance (m)

 SITE  C1-CC
    Transect 2
                     34
Elevation  (m)
   a
  2.B


    2


  1.8


    I


  O.B
                                           9   10   11   u   ia
                                              Distance (n)
                         IB   18
17
IS
18   20
21   22

-------
VEGETATION ANALYSIS

    Following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the species found on
the site. Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the regional list of plant species
that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988) and in consultation with LaRea Johnston, Assistant Curator of
the Oregon State University Herbarium.  Codes are:  OBL-obligate wetland  species;  FACW--
facultative wetland species; FAC-facultative species; FACU-facultative  upland species;  UPL-
upland species; NAT-native species;  and EXO-cxotic species.  The symbols separating the two
elements of each code indicate the position of that species within the wetland indicator category.
The symbol + indicates the species is toward the high end of the category  (more frequently found
in wetlands); - indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently found in
wetlands);  and \ indicates the  species is intermediate within the  category.   ??? indicates no
information.  Species names followed by * were common to both the 'Species Listed for Planting
in Created Wetland" and the list of "Species Found On Site".

Species listed for Planting in Created Wetland Cl-CC

    There was no planting list included in the permit file for this site.

Species Pound On Site Cl-OC During Summer 1987

    Species                      Wetland Indicator Code

    Juncus effusus                       FACW+NAT
    Holcus lanatus                 '     FAQEXO
    Rubus discolor                      FACU-EXO
    Geum macrophyllum                 FACW+NAT
    Stachys cooleyae                     FACWVNAT
    Carer stipata                        OBIANAT
    Galium aparine                      FACUVNAT
    Agrostis alba                        FACWVEXO
    Lotus corniculatus                   FAC\EXO
    Polygonum hydropiperoides            OBLVNAT
    Eleocharis palustris                  OBUNAT
    Veronica americana                  OBLVNAT
    Carex laeviculmis                    FACWNNAT
    Vicia tetraspenna                    UPLVEXO
    Carex unilateralis                    FACWNNAT
    Geranium dissectum                 UPLVEXO
    Fragaria vesca                       FACUVNAT
    Dactylis glomerata                   FACUVEXO
    Senecio jacobaea                     UPLVEXO
    Tellima grandiflora                   FACUVNAT
    Juncus ensifolius                     FACW\NAT
    Scirpus microcarpus                  OBLVNAT
    Alopecurus pratensis                 FACWVEXO
    Poa palustris                        FAQEXO
    Epilobium watsonii                   FACW-NAT
    Cornus stolonifera                   FACW\NAT
    Phalaris arundinacea                 FACWVNAT
    Alnus rubra                         FAONAT
    Fraxinus latifolia                     FACW\NAT

                                        42

-------
Rubus uisinus
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Vicia saliva
Hedera helix
Circaea alpina
Ranunculus repens
Camassia leichtlinii
Symphoricarpos albus
Carex feta
Eleocharis ovata
Juncus bnfonius
Lemna minor
Leersia oiyzoides
Populus trichocaipa
Juncus tenuis
Plantago lanceolata
Alopecunis geniculatus
Oemleria cerasiformis
Rumex crispus
FACWNAT
FAOflEXO
UPUEXO
UPL\EXO
FACW\NAT
FACW\EXO
FACW-NAT
FACUWAT
FACW\NAT
OBUNAT
FACW+NAT
OBL\NAT
OBUNAT
FACW\NAT
FAQNAT
FACU+EXO
FACW+NAT
FACU\NAT
FACW\EXO
                                 43

-------
 DESCRIPTION:  SITE C2-TI

 Function/Purpose

    This project was mitigation for the construction of a marina facility providing moorage space
 for approximately 800 boats.  The construction of the moorage involved dredging approximately
 500,000 cubic yards of sand.  In addition, approximately 90,000 cubic yards of fill material were used
 as bank protection material and approximately 20,000 cubic yards of rock  riprap were used to
 stabilize and protect 6,000 linear feet of bankline. Approximately 50,000 cubic yards of fill material
 was placed in an existing 1.21 ha (3 acre) wetland to establish sufficient area  for a dredge disposal
 area, access, and parking for the project  Approximately 250 pilings were driven  to secure an
 estimated 11,000 linear feet of floating access walkways, fingerfloats, a fueling float, and a sewage
 pumpout facility.

    Proposed functions and purposes  of the wetland created as mitigation for impacts caused by
 construction of the marina facility are food chain support, wildlife habitat, fisheries habitat, sediment
 trapping, and flood storage and desynchronization.

 General Description

    The created wetland is a pond in the bottom of a bowl-shaped depression with very steep banks.
 The sandy berm separating it from Oregon Slough on the south stands several meters above the
 water level  The street and parking lots  to the north of the site sit over 20 feet above the level of
 the pond-this bank is  also very steep. The EPA permit log states that the project is in violation
 of the permit, but does not state why.  The steepness and height of the banks might be the reason.

    There is very little vegetation within  the wetland.  The plants are mostly small seedlings except
 for some shrubs on the western slope and on top of the berm separating the pond from Oregon
 Slough. Ornamentals have been planted along the  top of the north bank next to the parking lot
 These plants are being watered by sprinklers.  This is creating a strange vegetation regime.  The
 plants being watered are growing lushry, and the volunteers just below them on the bank are also
 growing well because of runoff from the watering.  There are more "wetland" type plants growing
 in this area, high  above the  natural water line, than are growing adjacent to the pond. The area
just below these plants is quite bare and dry.  Further down the slope, just above the pond, wetland
vegetation occurs  again, but the area is mostly mudflats with young seedlings.

    Water marks on the steep banks indicate that water level fluctuates greatly.  A large culvert
enters the pond midway on the north side. This culvert appears to be both the inlet and outlet to
the pond, depending upon water levels in the adjacent water bodies.  When the field crew sampled
this wetland, water in the pond was two to three feet deep.  It appears that the pond  also accepts
runoff from the surrounding areas because all are at higher elevations, and erosion from water
flowing down the banks was evident.

   This project was 11 months old when sampled  in Jury of 1987.

Hydrology and  Substrate

   Water'in the pond was stagnant but clear and odorless. Small amounts of suspended materials
were visible, but the bottom of the pond could be seen easily.  The water appeared to be several
feet deep near the culvert and approximately six inches to a foot deep around the margins of the
pond.
                                            44

-------
    The substrate appeared to be about 95% sand.  The Munsell Color Book indicated soil sample
 chromas ranging from /3  (non-hydric) to /I (hydric).  Mottling was seen in most  soil pits, but
 usually not within 5 cm of the soil surface. Water was observed in only a few soil pits, indicating
 the level of the water table was lower at that point in time than the depth of most soil pits dug.
    Mudflats surrounding the pond  are vegetated with small, young seedlings.   Many of these
seedlings are the same species as plants observed in a nearby remnant  of a  natural marsh  (E.
Alverson, Botanist, pers.  comm.).  Salix sp., among other shrubs and trees, were growing on  the
term separating the pond from Oregon Slough and on the bank west of the pond leading up to
a boat yard.

    See the list of "Species Found On Site C2-TT for an explicit account of the species identified.
Wildlife

    Common names were used for wildlife sighted or heard because information was taken from
notes made during field sampling by an amateur birdwatcher. No definitive wildlife survey was done
and therefore, scientific names were not determined.  Very little wildlife was observed at this site.
We saw a frog, some redwing blackbirds,  barn swallows, and  a killdeer.

    The area was covered with dog tracks and a man walking his dog was observed in the filled area
adjacent to the pond.

Impressions of the Site One Year Later

    Overall, this site appeared unchanged  from the previous summer. The water level in the pond
may have been slightly lower. Vegetation  cover of the site had increased, especially Salix seedlings
growing in the mudflat/sandy areas.  Also,  the vegetation along the Derm and banks was thicker and
taller.  However, the wetland was still mostly unvegetated mudflats.
                                           45

-------
                                                                      PERMIT  MAP
                                                                          C2-TI
                                               -  A    \ ^•T*r»"*"JlTjPTJ*'; •>•'"> • ~ tiff if 'X.
Low Shrub Wetland  Planting Area
Marsh Aroa
Pond Area
1:500
 5   10   m
                                            21   42ft
                                                                  Map DrnMcMl by Tcncy Smltli

-------
                                       FIELD MAP
                                         C2-TI
                                 BMT2
         0
         h
1:600
6   10
          m
              21
       42 t
Pond and omeroem vegetation boundaries are ttie
approximate locations observed In July. 1987
Data collected by Stephanie Qwtoi & Sherl Confer
Map dratted by Tracy Smith
VT   	   Vegetation Transect
BMT _-   Basin Morphology Transect
  A       Start of Transect
  •       End of Transect
  -H-      Dam
  O       Culvert
   ^—Jr    Wetland Outlet or Inlet
  l-SSi-     Pond
  *"-*      Emergent  Vegetation
  ""^o     Survey
  ^5-     Ppe (underground)
                                           47

-------
                                               SFTE  C2-TI
                                                 Transect 1
Elevation  (n)
   a
  1.8
  1.8
  0.8
                        18
                                                Distance (•)


                                               SITE  C2-TI
                                                 Transect 2
                                                   78
 Elevation  (n)
   8.B
                                 to
14
IB   18 ~  89
Distance  (•)
                                                                      84

-------
VEGETATION ANALYSIS
    Following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the species found on
the site. Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the regional list of plant species
that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988) and in consultation with LaRea Johnston, Assistant Curator of
the Oregon State University  Herbarium.  Codes are:  OBL-obligate wetland species; FACW-
facultative wetland species; FAC-facultative species; FACU-facultative upland species; UPL-
upland species; NAT-native species; and EXO—exotic species.  The symbols separating the two
elements of each code indicate the position of that species within the wetland indicator category.
The symbol + indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found
in wetlands); - indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently found in
wetlands);  and \ indicates  the species is  intermediate within  the category.  ??? indicates no
information.  Species names followed by * were common to both the "Species Listed for Planting
in Created Wetland* and the list of 'Species Found On Site'.
  Species
             for Planting in Created Wetland C2-TI
 1    Stirpus validus
 2    Potamogeton crispus
 3    Cyperus esculentus*
 4    Potentilla anserina
 5    Polygonum hydropiper
 6    Eleocharis palustris
 7    Sagittaria latifolia
 8    Spiraea douglasii
 9    Salix sitchensis

  Secies Found On Site C7-TI During
                                      Wetland Indicator Code

                                      OBUNAT
                                      OBL\EXO
                                      FACWWAT
                                      OBL\NAT
                                      OBUEXO
                                      OBL\NAT
                                      OBUNAT
                                      FACWWAT
                                      FACW\NAT
                                        1987
     Species

 1   Juncus effusus
 2   Juncus tenuis
 3   Plantago major
 4   Veronica americana
 5   Salix fluviatilis
 6   Veronica serpyllifolia
 7   Gratiola neglecta
 8   Chenopodium ambrosioides
 9   Gnaphaiium uliginosum
10   Tfflaea aquatica
11   Heleochloa alopecuroides
12   Agrostis exarata
13   Epilobium watsonii
14   Eragrostis  pectinacea
IS   Gnaphaiium palustre
16   Polygonum persicaria
17   Spergularia rubra
18   Polygonum aviculare
19   Cyperus esculentus*
                                     Wetland Indicator Code

                                     FACW+NAT
                                     FAQNAT
                                     FAC+EXO
                                     OBL\NAT
                                     OBUNAT
                                     FAQEXO
                                     OBLVNAT
                                     FAQEXO
                                     FAQNAT
                                     OBUNAT
                                     OBUEXO
                                     FACW\NAT
                                     FACW-NAT
                                     FAQNAT
                                     FAC+NAT
                                     FACW\EXO
                                     FAC-EXO
                                     FACW-EXO
                                     FACW\NAT
                                        49

-------
 20   Mollugo verticillata                FAONAT
 21   Equisetum arvense                 FAONAT
 22   Limosella aquatica                 OBL\NAT
 23   Juncus bufonius                   FACW+NAT
 24   Undernia dubia                   OBL\NAT
 25   Cyperus erythrorhizos               OBL\NAT
 26   Panicum capillare                  FAONAT
 27   Arctium minus                    FACIAEXO
 28   Lindemia anagallidea               OBL\NAT
 29   Peplis portula                     FACW\EXO
 30   Potygonum hydropiperoides          OBL\NAT
 31   Cyperaceae 1 (seedling)             ???
 32   Rorippa curvisiliqua                FACW+NAT
 33   Chenopodium botrys                FACIAEXO
 34   Trifolium repens                   FACU+EXO
 35   Solidago ooddentalis                FACW\NAT
 36   Festuca arundinacea                FACU-EXO
 37   Echinochloa crusgalli                FACWVNAT
38   Euphorbia supina                  UPLNEXO
39   Digitaria  ischaemnm                FACIAEXO
40   Chenopodium album                FAOEXO
                                      50

-------
 DESCRIPTION: SITE O3-NS

 Function/Purpose

    This project was mitigation for the placement of up to 7,960 cubic yards of fill material and
 rock riprap in the 100 year flood plain of Fanno Creek to elevate Nimbus Avenue (south of Scholl's
 Ferry Road) above the floodplain.  The pre-existing field between Nimbus Avenue and Fanno Creek
 was excavated. The excavation work was intended to maintain flood storage volumes and result in
 wetter soil conditions  to  allow natural revegetation by wetland species.  Other functions and
 purposes  of  this mitigation are flood desynchronization,  wildlife habitat, nutrient cycling, and
 sediment  trapping.

 General Description

    As called for in the project permit, there is a grassy berm separating the detention area from
 Fanno Creek. It has steep sides that stand approximately 4 to 6 feet above the creek edge except
 at a narrow opening that serves as the connection between the wetland and the creek.

    The northern half of the wetland was covered by shallow water.  Pond edges were gradually
 sloped and the water appeared to be a few feet deep in some places.  At the northeast corner, rock
 riprap created a steep bank up to Nimbus Avenue.  There was very little emergent vegetation in
 this half of the wetland, so it was  not  sampled.

    The southern half of the wetland consisted of mudflats and emergent vegetation interspersed
 with ponds of stagnant water and slowly flowing rivulets.  The edges gradually sloped up to Nimbus
 Avenue on the east side, to a grassy field on the south side, and to the berm separating the wetland
 from Fanno Creek on the  west side.

    A small underground spring flowed into the wetland near its southwest corner. Water from
 this spring was slowly flowing over the wetland in no established channel toward the  connection
 with Fanno Creek. This spring was considered the inlet to the wetland; the point where the water
 entered  Fanno Creek, the  outlet  At the outlet,  the water formed a small channel   When  high
 water conditions exist, water from Fanno Creek will flood the wetland, entering the site through
 what usually is the outlet

    When sampled in June 1987, this project was approximately  6 months old.
Hydrology and Substrate

    Water in the wetland was odorless, slightly murky, and very shallow in the sampled area.  As
mentioned above, the water was much deeper and formed  a  pond in the northern half of  the
wetland.   It  flowed very slowly across the wetland toward the  connection with Fanno Creek and
formed stagnant pools in  many places.

    Most soil samples taken exhibited Munsell Color chromas of /I, indicating hydric soil.  A  few
samples exhibited a H chroma, indicating a "borderline* hydric  soil.  All sample pits had mottling
in the upper 5 cm of the soil, which indicates periodic inundation (Soil Conservation Service 197S).
Most of the  sofl pits immediately filled with water when dug.  A few rilled rapidly to the surface.
The soil was a very heavy, fine, mixture of silt and clay.
                                           51

-------
 rv>minant Vegetation

    The area surrounding the wetland was covered primarily with upland grasses, including species
 of Bromos, Poa, and Dactylis. There was one large ash tree (Fratinns latifolia Benth.) and a thicket
 of wild roses (Rosa sp.) on the east edge of the wetland. Emergent vegetation was sparse across
 the mudflats,  possibly  due to the young age of the wetland.   However, most species appeared
 reproductive.  A very notable aspect was the unusually high number of native herbs present These
 include Gratkria neglecta Torr, Lindemia dnbia (L.) Pennell, and several Ranunculns species.
 Seeds of these taxa presumably arrived via Fanno Creek, although transport by waterfowl is also
 possible. Another interesting note was the presence of thalloid liverworts (possibly Rictia sp.) along
 the mudflat's east shore.  About 75% of the water's edge had a brownish or greenish algal bloom.

    See the list of "Species Found On Site 03-NS" for an explicit account of the species identified.
    Common names were used for wildlife sighted or heard because information was taken from
notes made during field sampling by an amateur birdwatcher.  No definitive wildlife survey was done
and therefore, scientific names were not determined.

    Birds observed included mourning doves, killdeer, robins, mallard ducks, ringneck pheasants,
and red winged blackbirds. Dragonflies and frogs were  also observed.

impressions of the She One Year Later

    This wetland seemed  to be maturing well.  Shallow water covered almost the entire site.  The
vegetation was mostly wetland species.  Whereas last summer most plants were  seedlings, this
summer many were mature and more seedlings were present.
                                           52

-------
                     PERMIT MAP
                        03-NS
 Proposed pond
 Existing elevati
              tours OnteeO
Famo Creek
0   8   16
0   33    67
  1 :800
            m
            H
                          53

-------
                                          FIELD  MAP
                                            03-NS
                                                                Vegetation Transect
                                                                Basin Morphology Transect
                                                                Start of Transect
                                                                End of Transect
                                                                Riprap
                                                                Emergent Vegetation
                                                                Shatow Pond
                                                                Wetbnd Wet or Ouflet
                                                                Underground  Spring
                                                                           / ^
                                                                           N
                                                                         1 : 800
                                                                      0    8    16    24
                                                                                        m
                                                                            33    67    ft
Map dratted by Tracy Smith
Data coSected by Stephanie Gwin & Sheri Confer
Pond and emergent vegetation boundaries are the
approximate locations observed in Juty. 1987
                                             54

-------
Elevation  (m)
                       SITE 03-NS
                        Transect  1
      I—I—I—I—I—I	I	I	I	I	I   I  I   I  I  I   I
     0  3  6 9  12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
                       Distance  (m)

-------
   VEGETATION ANALYSIS

      Following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the species found on
   the site.  Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the regional list of plant species
   that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988) and in consultation with LaRea Johnston, Assistant Curator of
   the Oregon State University Herbarium.  Codes are:  OBL-obligate wetland  species;  FACW--
   facultative wetland species; FAC-facultative species; FACU-facultative  upland species;  UPL-
   upland species; NAT-native species; and EXO-exotic species.  The symbols separating the two
   elements of each code indicate the position of that species within the wetland indicator category.
   The symbol + indicates the species is toward the high end of the category  (more frequently found
   in wetlands); - indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently found in
   wetlands); and \ indicates the species is intermediate within  the  category.   ??? indicates  no
   information.  Species names followed by * were common to both the "Species Listed for Planting
   in Created Wetland* and the list of •Species Found On Site'.

   Species TJCTMI far Planting in Created  Wetland O3-NS

      There was no planting list included in the permit files for this site. This site was to be allowed
   to revegetate naturally (G. Herb, ODFW, pers. comm.).

   Species R>nf*d On Site O3-NS During Summer 1987

                                        Wetland  Indicator Codes
 1    meocharis ovata                    OBUNAT
 2    Ranunculus repens                  FACW\EXO
 3    Epilobium watsonii                  FACW-NAT
 4    Rorippa curvisiliqua                 FACW+NAT
 5    Gnaphalinm uliginosum              FAQNAT
 6    Callitriche stagnalis                  OBL\NAT
 7    Lindemia dubia                     OBUNAT
 8    Juncus bufonius                     FACW+NAT
 9    Scirpus validus                      OBL\NAT
10    Alopecurus pratensis                 FACW\EXO
11    Carex stipata                       OBUNAT
12    Salix sp.                           ???
13    Echinochloa crusgalli                 FACW\NAT
14    Alopecurus geniculatus               FACW+NAT
15    Poa trivialis                         FACW-EXO
16    Myosotis laxa                       OBUNAT
17    Phalaris arandinacea                 FACW\NAT
18    Rorippa islandica                    OBUNAT
19    Loliura perenne                     FACIAEXO
20    Trifolium repens                    FACU+EXO
21    Cirsium arvense                     FACU+EXO
22    Trifolium dubium                    UPUEXO
23    Unknown Herb 2                    ???
24    Ludwigia palustris                   OBUNAT
25    Typha latifolia                      OBUNAT
26    Juncus tenuis                       FAONAT
27    Juncus effusus                      FACW+NAT
28    Pynis malus                         UPL\EXO

                                          56

-------
29   Veronica americana                 OBL\NAT
30   Plantago major                    FAC+EXO
31   Glyceria leptostachya                OBL\NAT
32   Gnaphalium palustre                FAC+NAT
33   Ranunculus sceleratus               OBUNAT
34   Solanum dulcamara                 FAQEXO
35   Polygonum persicaria                FACW\EXO
36   Rumex salitifolius                  FACW\NAT
37   Leersia oryzoides                   OBLANAT
                                      57

-------
 DESCRIPTION:  SITE O4-MHP

 Function/Purpose

     This project was mitigation for a  residential development and shopping center requiring the
 placement of up to  13,600 cubic yards of fill material in an un-named tributary of Ash Creek.  A
 lake has been created, of which 03 acres of its southwest shore have been planted with wetland
 vegetation.  Emergent vegetation was to be planted along  the lake edges and  in the  shallows.
 Proposed functions of the created lake and wetlands include:  provide wildlife habitat (especially
 wildfowl),  create an aesthetically  pleasing 'open space"  within  the development,  detention and
 storage of surface water runoff, and reduction of erosion below the site by the desynchronization
 of storm waters coming from above  the lake.  Surface runoff was expected to  increase upon
 completion of the development due to  the greatly enlarged area of impervious surfaces. According
 to the "Development and Management  Plan for  Stream and Lake System" designed for this site, the
 area was a forested woodland prior  to development.

 General Description

     The wetland area comprised a very small section of this site.  The bulk of the site was  occupied
 by a small lake and the clover covered  lawns surrounding  it.  Ponland General Electric's buildings
 sit on the  hill to the south of the site, and the new shopping center is  on the hill to the north.
 Murray Boulevard borders the lake at its  eastern edge.  A culvert runs under Murray and  connects
 the  lake with a system of ponds in the housing development across the road.

     The lake receives water from two streams.  One enters the lake at its  northwest corner and the
 other  enters the lake at its southwest  comer.  A road separates the  streams from the lake,
 therefore, water from  the streams enter  the lake via weirs and culverts  running  under the road.
 Both of these creeks are to be converted  to emergent marshes directly upstream of the road.  The
 area where the SW stream abuts the road looked like a marshy area with woody shrubs at sampling
 time.  Although the design plans called for it to be graded to lower elevations, it had not  yet been
 dredged. The area where the NW stream abuts the road  had already been excavated and flooded
 to create a very small  pond.

    The lake empties through the culvert  under  Murray Boulevard into the ponds on the other side
 of the road.
 The lake bottom and sides have been covered with a clay liner to prevent seepage and water loss.
 The area of lake edge indicated by the construction plans as "emergent marsh" has been covered
with a thin layer ("20 buckets') of soil dredged from the marsh just upstream and northwest of the
 lake. This is the only portion of the lake edge that supported emergent vegetation. The bulk of
 the  lakeshore was a very steep drop-off (almost vertical) from  the level of the lawns.  This is
 contrary to the mitigation plans which  state that "side  slopes will not exceed  3:1 around the
 perimeter of the lake".  Clover grew up to the  lake's edge.

    A fountain was  located in  the center of the eastern  half of the lake.  It  provided  artificial
 circulation to the lake to prevent it from stagnating during low water summer conditions.

    This project was completed in December of  1986. When sampled in June of 1987, the site was
approximately six months old.
                                            58

-------
     The water in the lake was odorless..  Visibility into the water was  limited to the upper few
 inches due to its dark green color.  This coloring was probably caused by a bloom of unicellular
 blue-green algae visible on the water's surface and floating just under the surface.

     The lake was to be 6 feet deep on the average.  This was impossible to verify because of the
 limited visibility.  The construction crew  field boss  informed  me that the water level has been
 lowered and raised depending upon existing construction plans.  These plans have changed several
 times. During sampling (June 23,1987), the water level was at the very top of the banks.  During
 a revisit to the site  a few weeks later, the water  level was  approximately half as high.

     Digging soil pits was very difficult because of the clay liner applied to the bottom and sides of
 the lake.  The construction plans stated that the purpose of the liner was to prevent water loss due
 to seepage and to discourage  the rooting of •nuisance*  aquatic plants.  The liner seemed to  be
 effectively preventing seepage along the lake edge because all soil pits but two were completely dry,
 both at the time of digging and after the 30 minute stabilization period.

     The Munsell Color Book indicated non-hydric soil chromas (/3 and /4) for eight of the ten plots
 sampled.   The remaining two plots had chromas of 12 which  indicates a borderline hydric  soil
 Mottling  was present in  the  upper 5  cm  of  the soil, indicating  periodic inundation  (Soil
 Conservation  Service 1975).

     Substrate particle size  was approximately 90% fine (clays) with a trace of cobble and gravel

 Dominant Vegetation

     As stated above, the  lake was surrounded  by wide lawns of clover that extend  from the
 development down to the water's edge.  The slope from the east bank of the lake up to  Murray
 Boulevard was mulched with bark dust and planted with ornamental shrubs and herbaceous plants.
 There are a few large conifers at the southeast corner. Judging from their large size, they probably
 were left standing when the forested woodland was cleared from this site. The area west of the lake
 between the two streams was thickly forested when we sampled.

    A narrow strip of wetland vegetation was confined to the western edge of the lake shore. Here
 the slope was slightly less steep.

    See the  list  of  "Species Found  On  Site  04-MHP" for an explicit account  of  the  species
 identified.

 Wildlife

    Common  names were used for wildlife sighted or heard because information was taken from
 notes made during field sampling by an amateur birdwatcher. No definitive wildlife survey was done
 and therefore, scientific names were not determined.

    Several species of swallow were observed skimming  over the surface of the lake, including:
violet-green swallows, barn swallows, cliff swallows and tree swallows.  Starlings  and other birds
were heard in the nearby forest but not seen.  Several different types of dragonflies were observed.
                                            59

-------
Addendum

    On August 8, 1987, Ed ANeison and Sheri Confer (two members of the field team) revisited
the site to collect vegetation samples.  They reponed that the-lake had been completely drained
and heavy equipment was working in and around  it.  The soil had been scraped away from all the
banks, so that they appeared less steep than when we sampled. The stream entering the lake from
its southwest corner had been widened into a bowl shaped impoundment at the point where it abuts
the road separating it from the lake.

Impressions of the She One Year Later

    As noted  in  the Addendum above, the lake  had been completely regraded, particularly the
western half.  It had been enlarged, and the nonh and south banks steepened. The lawn  on the
north bank had been removed.  The lake bottom  had been made very regular and the water level
lowered so that it was approximately 03m deep in the west end extending out several meters  toward
the center, where it again  deepened.  Three fountains were present  The effects of erosion were
visible.  The clover has been replaced by upland grasses at the west end.

   The intended wetland strip along the western edge of the lake had slightly more vegetation than
during sampling the previous summer.  The bank  was more irregular than it was previously. This
area was being watered with a sprinkler system.

   The  stream  coming into the southwest  corner  of  the  lake  has  been widened and  islands
constructed within it.  A cyclone fence was installed around the perimeter of this area.
                                           60

-------
                                     PERMIT MAP
                                       04-MHP
Pond
Emergent Vegetation
                                          0  12  24  36  m
                                          0   60  100   ft


                                            1:1200
                                            MHI dfglled by Lori Jensen

-------
o\
N)
                                                          FIELD MAP
                                                           04-MHP
     Proposed
     Emergent
     Vegetation
       VT
       1M1

Start  of Transect
End of Transect
Vegetation Transect
Basin Morphology Transact
                        i
Emergent Vegetation
Pond
Bridge Qrate
Fountain
                                             60   100
                                                       ft
                                                        1:1200
           Dltch
                               Manhole
                               Fire Hydrant
                                Fir T'ree
                                Maple Tree
                                                            N
    Sdurcu: Daia collected by Stephanie Qwln A Sherl Cooler July.  1987
                                                                            Mnp drullud by Lori Jensen

-------
dmtion H
                                               SITE 04-MHP
                                                       i
                                                SITE 04-MHP
                                                       ta
amttti M
                                                SITE 04-MHP
                                                  Hornets

-------
  VEGETATION ANALYSIS

      Following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the species found on
  the site. Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the regional list of plant species
  that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988) and in consultation with LaRea Johnston, Assistant Curator of
  the Oregon State University Herbarium.  Codes  are: OBL~obligate wetland species; FACW-
  facultative wetland species; FAC-fecultative species; FACU-facultative upland species; UPL~
  upland species; NAT-native species; and EXO-exotic species.  The symbols separating the two
  elements of each code indicate the position of that species within the wetland indicator category.
  The symbol + indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found
  in wetlands); - indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently found in
  wetlands);  and \ indicates the species is  intermediate within  the category.  ???  indicates no
  information.  Species names followed by * were common  to both the "Species Listed for Planting
  in Created Wetland* and the list of 'Species Found On Site*.

  Species I j«t«i for Planting in Created Wetland O4-MHP

                                        Wetland Indicator Code
 1    Spiraea douglasii                    FACW\NAT
 2    Cornus stolonifera var occidentalis     FACW\NAT
 3    Scirpus microcarpus                 OBUNAT
 4    Ranunculus sp.                     ???
 5    Typha sp.                          OBL\???
 6    Safe sp.                           ???
 7    "Great bulrush*                     ???

      Common names only were used for all plants listed for this site.  Where possible, genus and
  species were determined for the common names given.-

  Species Found  On Site 04-MHP Daring S"""""" 1987

      Species                            Wetland Indicator Code

 1    Trifolium dubium                   UPUEXO
 2    Lolium perenne                     FACU\EXO
 3    Leontodon  nudicanlis                UPL\EXO
 4    Trifolium pratense                   FACU\EXO
 5    Vicia sativa                        UPL\EXO
 6    Trifolium repens                    FACU+EXO
 7    Glyceria leptostachya                OBL\NAT
 8    Juncus bufonius                     FACW+NAT
 9    Spergularia rubra                    FAC-EXO
10    Deschampsia elongata               FACW-NAT
11    Potygonum  aviculare                 FACW-EXO
12    Gnaphalium palustre                FAC+NAT
13    Agrostis exarata                     FACWVNAT
14    Holcus lanatus                      FAQEXO
IS    Cardamine  oligospenna              FACW\NAT
16    Navarretia squanosa                 UPL\NAT
17    Epilobium watsonii                  FACW-NAT
L8    Antirrhinum orontium               FAQNAT

                                          64

-------
 19   Equisetum telmateia                FACW\NAT
 20   Caret sp.                         ???
 21   Cirsium vulgare                   FACU\EXO
 22   Festuca bromoides                 FAC\EXO
 23   Daucus carota                     FAOEXO
 24   Capsella bursa-pastoris              FAC-EXO
 25   Taraxacum officinale                FACIAEXO
 26   Jnncus ensifolius                   FACW\NAT
 27   Myosotis laxa                     OBLNNAT
 28   Crepis setosa                     UPL\EXO
 29   Poa oompressa                     FACLANAT
 30   Geum macrophyllum                FACW+NAT
 31   Vicia americana                   FAQNAT
 32   Alopecurus geniculatus              FACW+NAT
 33   Alnus rubra                       FAONAT
 34   Cirsium arvense                   FACU+EXO
 35   Lactuca serriola                   FAC-EXO
 36   Juncus effusus                     FACW+NAT
 37   Centaurea cyanus                   UPUEXO
 38   Veronica americana                 OBUNAT
 39   Lupinus polyphyUus                 FACU-NAT
 40   Pbalaris arundinacea                FACW\NAT
 41   Boisduvalia densiflora               FACW-NAT
 42   Echinochloa crusgalli                FACW\NAT
 43   Cerastium viscosum                 NOVEXO
 44   Geranium dissectum                 UPLAEXO
 45   Rumex crispus                     FACWVEXO
46   Luzula campestris                  FACLANAT
47   Chrysanthemum leucanthemum        FAOEXO
48   Hypericum perforatum               UPUEXO
                                      65

-------
 DESCRIPTION:  SITE C5-MG

 Function/Purpose

    This permit allowed the filling of approximately 0.12 ha (0.3 acres) of wetland within the 100
 year flood plain of Fanno Creek to provide a parking area and landscaping improvements for an
 upland development  Approximately 0.17 ha (0.4 acres) were excavated to create a wetland to
 replace the functions of flood storage and desynchronization, wildlife habitat, food chain support,
 fisheries habitat, nutrient retention and removal, and sediment trapping.

 General Description

    The created  wetland  was  a  narrow  strip of  marsh  running  north/south  between  the
 development's east parking lot and a  stream running into the extensive natural marsh.  It  was
 considered "Mitigation Area 2" in the development proposal.

    The bank sloping down from the parking lot east of the created marsh was rather steep. It was
 covered with bark dust and planted with shrubs (mostly ornamental  dogwood) in  an effort to
 control erosion.

    The north edge of the created marsh was bordered by large buildings  housing offices and light
 industry.  The building directly north of the sampled area was built on pillars above  the marsh.

    An extensive natural wetland consisting of ponds, stream channels, and emergent marsh  was
 located west of the created marsh.  It was heavily vegetated and supported many birds and other
 wildlife (G. Herb pers. comm.). A small stream (about two meters across and between one and  two
 meters deep), separated the created area from the natural marsh, and was designated the western
 boundary.

    Directly south of the  created marsh was a small filled area that extends from the parking lot
 and separates the  marsh from several acres of forest.

    A   large culvert  was  located  at the   northeast   corner  of  the  sampled  area.    The
 development/mitigation plans show it running from Nimbus Avenue under the east parking lot The
 field team  regarded this culvert as the inlet  to the wetland.  The plans showed another culvert
 running into the wetland at its southeast corner and mentioned  the existence of a "seep",  but
 neither were observed by  the field crew.

    The stream running alongside the created wetland toward the natural  marsh  was considered to
 be the created wetland's outlet by the field crew.

    The site was sampled in July of 1987,  and was almost three years old.

 Hydrology  and Substrate

    Water  was  channelized, but flowing very slowly.  The water in the stream was cloudy and
odorless, and relatively deep. The stream bottom could not be seen.  Probing with the stadia  rod
 indicated depths ranging from 0.8-2.2 m at midstream.

    Munsell chromas indicated all but one soil sample were hydric (/I).  The one non-hydric sample
was from a pit dug on Transect 1 in the neighboring fill area.  This sample had a chroma indicating
"borderline" hydric (/2).   All sample  pits were  mottled  in  the  upper 5-cm, indicating periodic

                                            66

-------
 inundation (Soil Conservation Service 1975).  Near the fill area, soil pits were not dug to 30 cm
 because we hit gravel/cobbles at shallower depths.

    Most soil sample pits had water in them within 30 minutes of digging.  Exceptions were those
 pits on Transect 1 (See Field Map) nearest  the  fill area, and one pit on Transect 2 (See Field
 Map), also near the fill area. There was a detrital layer present and soil  panicle size was  100%
 fines.

 Dominant Vegetation

    A heavy, dense mixture of Typha latifolia L,  Lcersia oryzoidcs (L.) Swartz, Juncus effusus L,
 and Phalaris arundinacea L. covered most of this site.  Some of the T. latifolia was over two meters
 tall. Emergent vegetation was observed along the edges of the streambed, and algal growth coated
 many of the stems of the emergent plants. The most diversity occurred along the periphery of the
 site, where the T. latifolia and J. effusus were less robust. Numerous introduced weeds prevailed
 along  the periphery, as  well  as a  few natives like  Epilobium  watsonii  Barbey and  Geum
 maaophyUum Willd.  Some interesting aquatics and semi-aquatics occurred in the stream, including
 Hydrocotyle ranunculoides L.

    See the list of "Species  Found On Site C5-MG" for an explicit account of the species identified.
Wildlife

    Common names were used for wildlife sighted or heard because information was taken from
notes made during field sampling by an amateur birdwatcher.  No definitive wildlife survey was done
and therefore, scientific names were not determined.

    Birds observed included red tailed hawks, redwing blackbirds, song sparrows, robins, mallard
ducks, great blue heron,  sora, and yellow throat.  The birds  were very abundant   Frogs and
minnows were observed in the creek.

impressions of the Site One Year Later

    Water levels within the wetland  and neighboring natural marsh appeared higher than last
summer. The stream separating the natural and created portions of the marsh appeared wider and
deeper than the previous  year.  Also, there appeared to be large patches of open water  in the
natural marsh which had been  heavily vegetated last summer.  Much of the T. latifolia was standing
dead.

    The  bank  sloping  up  to the parking lot was now vegetated  and the ornamental dogwoods
planted along  its crest were doing well.   The area surrounding the marsh was being developed
rapidly.  There were buildings under construction and many  newly completed.
                                            67

-------
     Existing Wetlands Boundary



     Sewer Ltoe or Drainage



     Portion of Wetland to be Created
                                 PERMIT MAP

                                    C5-MG
                                                             N
                                                          1 : 1000
                                                        0
                                                        h
10  20
i


 42
m
                                                                  83 ft
Map dratted by Tracy Smith
                                       68

-------
                   N
               1  :  1000
             0   10   20    m
             I	'i   '  !
             0    42    83  ft
                                     FIELD  MAP
                                       C5-MG
                                 VT2
                                             BMT1
                                            VT1
VT
                                                        BM1
 Vegetation Transect

 Basin Morphology Transect

 Start of Transect

 End of Transect

 Stream

Wetland Intet or Outlet

Ditch

Emergent Vegetation
Source: Data coMecud by Stephanie Gwin & Sheri Confer 1987
Map dratted by Tracy Smith
                                         69

-------
                                            SITE C5-MG
                                               Transact 1
Elevation (m)
  1.8
  1.4
  1.8
   I
  0.8
  0.8
  0.4
  0.8
                                          878
                                              Distance  (n)
10
is
14
Elevation  (m)
  1.4
  1.8
                                            SfTE C5-MG
                                               Transact 2
  o.a -
                                              Distance  (a)

-------
   VEGETATION ANALYSIS

      Following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the species found on
   the site.  Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the regional list of plant species
   that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988) and in consultation with LaRea Johnston, Assistant Curator of
   the Oregon State University Herbarium.  Codes are:  OBL~obligate wetland  species; FACW-
   facultative wetland species; FAC-facultative species; FACU-facultative upland species; UPL-
   upland species; NAT-native species; and EXO-ecotic species.  The symbols separating the two
   elements of each code indicate  the position of that species within the wetland indicator category.
   The symbol + indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found
   in wetlands); - indicates the species is toward the low end of  the category (less frequently found in
   wetlands); and \ indicates the species is intermediate within  the  category.   ??? indicates  no
   information.  Species names followed by * were common to  both the "Species Listed for Planting
   in Created Wetland* and the list of 'Species Found On  Site".
  Species T fritA fr>r Planting in Created We»fond CS-MG

         aes                             Wetland Indicator Code
  1    Eleocharis palustris*                  OBLNNAT
  2    Glyceria borealis                     OBL\NAT
  3    Stirpus acurus*                      OBLNNAT
  4    Typha latifolia*                      OBLNNAT
  5    Agrostis palustris                     FAC+NAT

  Species Found On Site CS-MG During SUP""CT 1987

      Species                             Wetland Indicator Code

  1    Typha latifolia*                      OBLNNAT
  2    Agrostis tenuis                       UPLNEXO
  3    Veronica americana                  OBLVNAT
  4    Eleocharis palustris*                  OBLNNAT
  5    Phalaris arundinacea                  FACWNNAT
  6    Stirpus acutus*                      OBLNNAT
  7    Juncus effusus                       FACW+NAT
  8    Poa annua                           FAC-NAT
  9    Carex stipata                        OBLNNAT
10    Epilobium watsonii                   FACW-NAT
11    Poa palustris                        FAOEXO
12    Phleum pretense                     FACUNEXO
13    Lolium perenne                      FACUNEXO
14    Cirsium vulgare                      FACUNEXO
15    Plantago major                      FAC+EXO
16    Geranium dissectum                  UPLNEXO
17    Cichorium intybus                    UPLNEXO
18    Agropyron repens                    NONEXO
19    Epilobium paniculatum                UPLNNAT
20    Plantago lanceolata                   FACU+EXO
21    Alopecurus pratensis                  FACWNEXO
22    Holcus lanatus                       FACNEXO
23    Dipsacus sylvestris                    FACUNEXO

                                           71

-------
24   Rubus discolor                    FACU-EXO
25   Ranunculus repens                 FACW\EXO
26   Senecio jacobaea                  UPIAEXO
27   Geum macrophyllum               FACW+NAT
28   Lapsana conununis                 UPL\EXO
29   Rumex conglomeratus              FACW\EXO
30   Taraxacum offirinale  ,             FACIAEXO
31   Daucus carota                     FAOEXO
32   Festuca arundinacea                FACU-EXO
33   Trifolium dubium                  UPLAEXO
34   Symphoricarpos albus               FACLANAT
35   Trifolium repens                   FACU+EXO
36   Vicia tetrasperma                  UPIAEXO
37   Vicia saliva                       UPLAEXO
38   Sparganium eurycarpum             OBLANAT
39   Lemna minor                     OBIANAT
40   Leersia oryzoides                  OBLNNAT
41   Glyceria grandis                    OBL\EXO
42   Eleocharis ovata                   OBLVNAT
                                      72

-------
 DESCRIPTION:  SITE C6-31

 Function/Purpose

    This project was mitigation for a fill between Cornell Road and the south and west right-of-
 way of Sunset Highway.  The property will be developed according to approved zoning.  The pre-
 existing creek channel was realigned along the easterly portion of the property, along the toe of the
 fill.   The flood storage displaced  by the placement of fill on the northwesterly  portion of the
 property was compensated through the creation of a wetland by removing material within the
 eastern portion, located south of the Sunset Highway at the intersection of Cornell Road and 158th
 street.  When the excavation work was completed, the native topsoil was replaced and the entire
 disturbed area  was reseeded with  native grasses.  The project was implemented in a way  that
 retained as much of the natural character of the property as possible. In addition to flood storage,
 proposed purposes of this created wetland were flood water desynchronization, wildlife habitat,
 nutrient cycling, non-consumptive recreation, and sediment trapping.

 General Description

    Three shallow ponds connected by narrow channels were created as an enhancement of existing
 emergent marshland.  Each pond contained an irregularly shaped island vegetated with grasses and
 herbs. The banks of the ponds were uneven and gradually sloped.  Emergent vegetation and algae
 were growing along the pond edges, both on the banks and in the water. South of the ponds was
 a steep sided benn covered with grasses.  A wooded  hedge situated along its summit screened and
 separated the wetland from adjacent cultivated hayfields.

    A stream approximately 2  meters wide entered the pond system midway down the north edge
 of the easternmost pond.  Water in the stream  was flowing slowly into the wetland.  Another,
 smaller stream was separated from the easternmost pond by a narrow isthmus and was flowing into
 the channel leading from the east pond  to the center pond.

    Water flowed from the westernmost pond into a channel leading to a culvert under 158th street.
 This channel appeared to be the outlet from the wetland.

   This project was completed in September of 1984. The benn was reconstructed one year later.
 The created wetland was  sampled in July of 1987.

 Hydrology and  Substrate

    Water in the ponds was odorless and turbid with visibility to a depth of about 03 meters.  The
water was flowing slowly  from  pond to pond via the connecting channels.

    The soil was very hard and  dry along all the transects except Transect 3 (See Field Map). Field
 crew members weren't able to  reach 30 cm on  all pits because of the difficulty of digging.

    The Munsell Color Book indicated non-hydric soils with chromas ranging from /4 to 12 on all
sampled plots except one.  Plot 9  of Transect 1 had hydric soil with a chroma of /I.  Periodic
 inundation was indicated  in all soil pits by mottles observed in the upper 5 cm of the soil (Soil
 Conservation Service 1975).

    Soil pits dug along Transects 2 and 4 were dry. These two transects were on each of the banks
opposite the  center pond. A few of the pits dug along Transect 1, located along the south bank
of the westernmost pond, filled slowly during the 30 minutes allowed for stabilization. Pits along

                                            73

-------
 Transect 3 flooded almost immediately after being dug. This transect was placed along the narrow
 isthmus separating the easternmost pond from the stream bordering it.

 TVuninant Vegetation

     A filamentous greenish alga (probably Spirogyra spp.) was observed floating on the water's
 surface and along the edges of the ponds.  A blue-green, filamentous alga was attached to the
 channel bottoms between the ponds. Also  present was the green  alga Hydrodictyon retkularam
 Roth (B. Meinke pers. comm.). Extensive stands of Typha latifolia L, species of Sab* and Spiraea
 douglasii Hook, were observed to the north and northeast  of the ponds, and along the southern
 borders of the eastern and westernmost ponds.

     The westernmost pond was almost completely surrounded by .wetland vegetation, but the center
 pond had only a narrow band of wetland vegetation along its edges.  The eastern pond had a thick
 band of wetland  vegetation along its south  and  east borders, but  a very narrow band along the
 northern border.

     The diversity of  vegetation at this site was high, likely due to the close proximity of the pre-
 existing natural marsh (B. Meinke, Botanist,  pers. comm.). The diversity will probably diminish in
 time, as the more aggressive perennial such as T. latifolia and Juncus effusus L, occupy more of
 the site.

     See the list of "Species Found On Site C6-3I" for an
 explicit account of the species identified.

 Wildlife

    Common names  were used for wildlife sighted or heard because information was taken from
 notes made during field sampling by an amateur birdwatcher. No definitive wildlife survey was done
 and  therefore, scientific names were not determined.

    Birds observed included starlings, a great blue heron, robins, chickadees, yellow throat, and
 mallard ducks.  There were tadpoles in the ponds and several types of dragonflies and damselflies
 were observed skimming over the water's surface.

 IniDTessions of tlie Site One Year T
-------
                               PERMIT MAP
                                  C6-3I
                                    piripjjjiinniinii^
                                                                       ^---'

                                                                                    ^Ua.;sinjp{jj{jj
     Exbthg Wetland Area
     Portion of Excavated Area
SS>4 Ponds to be Created
     Islands to be created
     Ground Contoura (h feet)
       to be Created
                   10   20  30 m
                               A
N
0    42    83
     1 : 1000

     Map Oralled by T.

-------
                                    FIELD  MAP
                                      C6-3I
                                                                                         BMT3
\
   VT
Basin Morphology Transect
Vegetation Transect
Start of Transect
End of Transect
Emergent Vegetation
Island
Pond
Pond Inlet or Outlet
Pond and vegetation bouviAries ore the approximate
locations observed In July, 1887
                                                            1 : 1000
10   20   30 m
 42     83   ft
                                                                                         /\
                                                                                         N
                                                   Souce:  Date collected by Stephanie Gwln & Shorl Cooler
                                                         Umftrxl by T. Smlti

-------
                          SITE C6-3I
                               11
                           act
                          S1TEC6-3I
                               it
•  M  m   m
                           SITE C6-3I
•S	S	i	ft	ft	ft

-------
   VEGETATION ANALYSIS

      Following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the species found on
   the site. Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the regional list of plant species
   that occur in wetlands (Reed. 1988) and in consultation with LaRea Johnston, Assistant Curator of
   the Oregon State University Herbarium.  Codes are:  OBL-obligate wetland species;  FACW-
   facultative wetland species; FAC-facuItative species; FACU-facultative upland species;  UPL-
   upland species; NAT-native species; and EXO-exotic species.  The symbols separating the two
   elements of each code indicate the position of that species within the wetland indicator category.
   The symbol + indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found
   in wetlands); - indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently found in
   wetlands);  and \ indicates the species is  intermediate within  the  category.  ??? indicates  no
   information.  Species names followed by ' were common to both the 'Species Listed  for Planting
   in Created Wetland" and the list of "Species Found On Site".

   Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland C6-3I

      There was no planting  list included in the permit file for this site. However, the permit stated
   that the area should be seeded  with legumes, grasses, shrubs, and trees; and that the  project "will
   be landscaped ... will include  revegetation of natural grasses and planting of bushes and trees".

   Species Found On Site C6-3T Poring Summer 1987

      Species                            Wetland Indicator Code

 1    Lotus corniculatus                   FAQEXO
 2    Juncus tenuis                       FAQNAT
 3    Carex stipata                       OBUNAT
 4    Epilobium watsonii                  FACW-NAT
 5    Agrostis tenuis                     UPL\EXO
 6    Lemna minor                       OBL\NAT
 7    Glyceria leptostachya                 OBUNAT
 8    Juncus bufonius                     FACW+NAT
 9    Potamogeton ffliformis               OBUNAT
10    Poa  palustris                       FAQEXO
11    Vitia tetraspenna                    UPL\EXO
12    Carex unilateralis                    FACW\NAT
13    Oenantbe sannentosa                OBUNAT
14    Eleocharis palustris                  OBUNAT
IS    Juncus ensifolius                    FACW\NAT
16    Juncus effusus                      FACW+NAT
17    Stellaria media                      FAQEXO
18    Galium trifidum                     FACW+NAT
19    Lactuca serriola                     FAC-EXO
20    Holcus lanatus                      FAQEXO
21    Grsium arvense                     FACU+EXO
22    Agropyron repens                    NO\EXO
23    Alopecurus pratensis                 FACW\EXO
24    Myosotis  discolor                    FACW\EXO
25    Phalaris arundinacea                 FACW\NAT
26    Rumex crispus                      FACW\EXO
27    Beckmannia syzigachne              OBL\NAT

                                           78

-------
28   Potamogeton amplifolius            OBL\NAT
29   Callitriche stagnalis                 OBL\NAT
30   Equisetum aivense                 FAQNAT
31   Senecio jacobaea                   FAQEXO
32   Eteocharis ovata                   OBL\NAT
33   Trifolium repens                   FACU+EXO
34   Hordeum brachyanthenim            FACW\NAT
35   Stachys palustris                   FACW+NAT
36   Hyperioun perforatum              UPUEXO
37   Chrysanthemum leucanthemum        FAQEXO
38   Carex athrostachya                 FACW\NAT
39   Festuca arundinacea                FACU-EXO
40   Veronica americana                 OBUNAT
41   Centaurium umbellatum             FAC-EXO
42   Trifolium dubium                  UPUEXO
43   Typha latifolia                     OBUNAT
44   Rubus discolor                    FACU-EXO
45   Gnaphalium  uliginosum             FAQNAT
46   Rorippa curvisiliqua                FACW+NAT
47   Salix lasiandra                     FACW+NAT
48   Alopecunis geniculatus              FACW+NAT
49   Crepis setosa                     UPUEXO
50   Sonchus asper                     FAC-EXO
51   Geranium molle                   UPL\EXO
52   Leontodon nudicaulis               UPL\EXO
53   Verbascum blattaria                 UPLXEXO
54   Epilobium paniculatum              UPL\NAT
55   Trifolium subterraneum             UPUEXO
56   Deschampsia elongata               FACW-NAT
57   Plantago major                    FAC+EXO
58   Polygonum lapathifolium            FACW+EXO-
59   Lolium mulliflorum                 FACIAEXO
60   Lolium perenne                   FACIAEXO
61   Cirsium vulgare                   FACIAEXO
62   Anthoxanthum odoratum            FACIAEXO
63   Agrostis exarata                   FACW\NAT
64   Gnaphalium  palustre                FAC+WAT
65   Solanum dulcamara                 FAQEXO
66   Daucus carota                     FAQEXO
67   Geranium dissectnm                FAQEXO
68   Polygonum spergulariaeforme         ABSNNAT
69   Veronica peregrina                 OBL\NAT
                                       79

-------
 DESCRIPTION: SITE C7-SML

 Function/Purpose

    This wetland was created to mitigate for the removal of up to 28,289 cubic yards of material
 and the placement of up to 25,977 cubic yards of material in the 100 year floodplain of Beaverton
 Creek and Johnson Creek. This was done to accommodate parking and landscaping improvements
 for a proposed high-tech development  Specific functions and purposes for this  created wetland
 included flood storage and desvnchronization, groundwater modification, habitat for fisheries, food
 chain support, non-consumptive recreation, habitat for wildlife, and increased plant diversity.

 General  Description

    The entire mitigation area included several acres of pre-existing natural marsh and newly created
 wetland.   The mitigation project includes an area of mudflats, several ponds, and created and
 natural creek channels.  Because of the diversity of wetland types and the large size of the project,
 we sampled only a depression/water detention area to the north of an elbow of a channel jutting
 off of, and running parallel to,  Beavenon Creek.

    There was a steep bank leading down to the wetland from 153rd street, but elevation changed
 very little inside the bowl-shaped depression. A filled  area just west  of this detention area was
 planted with ornamental trees and shrubs.  This was done in an effort to provide a buffer zone
 between  the wetland and the industrial developments (G. Herb, ODFW, pers. conun.).  However,
 most of these shrubs and trees were dying.

    Water entered the sampled area from two sources. There was a culvert at the northwest corner,
 coming from under  153rd Street and the neighboring fill Water entering the detention area from
 this culvert flowed  across the  wetland and emptied into a created  channel that connected to
 Beaverton Creek. When high water conditions exist, water will flood the detention area through
 the created channel  At time of sampling, water conditions were low enough that the channel
 simply by-passed the detention area. The only water entering it was from  the culvert mentioned
 above.

    This  mitigation  project was approximately 10 months old when sampled in Jury of 1987.

 Hydrology an<| Substrate

    As mentioned above, water in this wetland was channelized and flowed across the wetland from
the culvert to the created channel  It was odorless and murky and had a greenish algal bloom.

    Soil chromas ranged from /3 to A).  These values indicated both hydric (/I and 10) and non-
hydric soils (/3).  12 chroma indicated a "borderline" hydric soil

Dominant Vegetation

    There was moderate floristic diversity along the transect located nearest the filled areas (See
Field Map). The transect nearest the stream channel had less diversity, with mostly Juncas efiosus
L. growing along it The size of the J. effusus plants was such that an  herbaceous understory was
                                           80

-------
largely shaded out  A species observed in the floor of the detention area was Lythrum byssopifolia
L.  A terrestrial algal bloom grew profusely from  the culvert to about midway across the site.

    See the list of 'Species Found On Site C7-SML" for an explicit account of the species identified.
Wildlife

    Common names were used for wildlife sighted or heard because information was  taken from
notes made during field sampling by an amateur birdwatcher.  No definitive wildlife survey was done
and therefore, scientific names were not determined.

    Many birds were observed. These included swallows, starlings, great blue heion, ducks, red tail
hawk, kingfisher, and yellowthroat.  There were  minnows and bullfrogs in  the creek channel

            of the Site One "Yrer i-ater
    Water levels appeared much the same as the previous year.  However, the edge of the main
channel where the rivulet from the culvert enters was not as heavily vegetated as previously.  It
appeared to be grazed by ducks and geese.  Although no birds were actually seen, sign of them was
evident

    Vegetation throughout the site was thicker and taller than the previous year.
                                           81

-------
PERMIT MAP
  C7-SML
                                 N
     New Stream or Pond Bank
     Island Nesting Area
     Pond Area Planting
 H~|  Cut Area  New-Wetlands
     Slope Buffer Area
*'^j  Beaverton Creek
     New Stream Channel
                      1 :800
                  o
                  K-
16  24  m
       ft
                       33    67
     82

-------
                                 FIELD  MAP
                                  C7-SML
     BMTI
     S
      VT
Start o» Transect
End of Transect
Basin Motphotogy Transect
Vegetation Transect
Stream
Wetland Area
Cutort
                                      N
                                                   0   8    16   24 m
                                                   .1	'l   '  •  '
                                                   0    33    67   ft
1 : 800
Sauce CtaB Cctected by Stephanie Gwin & Shen Cooler July. 1S87
                                                             lAap Oratied by Tracy 9nti
                                     83

-------
                      SITE C7-SML
                       Transect  1
Elevation  (m)
 1.6
 0.2 -
     0  3  6  9  12 15  18 21 24  27 30 33 36  39 42 45 48  51 54
                       Distance (m)

-------
   VEGETATION ANALYSIS

      Following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the species found on
   the site.  Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the regional list of plant species
   that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988) and in consultation with LaRea Johnston, Assistant Curator of
   the Oregon State University Herbarium.  Codes are:  DHL-obligate wetland species;  FACW-
   facultative wetland  species; FAC-facultative species; FACU-facultative upland species;  UPL-
   upland species; NAT-native species; and EXO-exotic species.  The symbols separating the two
   elements of each code indicate the position of that species within the wetland indicator category.
   The symbol + indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found
   in wetlands); - indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently found in
   wetlands); and \ indicates the  species is intermediate within  the  category.  ??? indicates no
   information.  Species names followed by * were common to both the "Species Listed for Planting
   in Created Wetland* and the list of "Species Found On Site".

   Species T jct«-d for Planting in Created  Wetland C7-SML

      Species                            Wetland Indicator Code

 1    Carex lyngbeii                      OBUNAT
 2    Scirpus microcarpus                  OBL\NAT
 3    Sparganium emersum                OBL\NAT
 4    Alopecurus pratensis*                FACW\EXO

  Species Found On Site C7-SML Paring Summer 1987

                                        Wetland  Indicator Code
 1    Salix lasiandra                      FACW+NAT
 2    Typha latifolia                      OBUNAT
 3    Bidens cernua                      FACW+EXO
 4    Callitriche verna                     OBL\NAT
 5    Juncus effusus                      FACW+NAT
 6    Leersia oryzoides                    OBUNAT
 7    Eleocharis ovata                     OBUNAT
 8    Alisma plantago-aquatica             OBUNAT
 9    Salix piperi                         FACW\NAT
10    Trifolium pretense                   FACIAEXO
11    Porygonum lapathifolium             FACW+EXO
12    Ranunculus repens                   FACW\EXO
13    Phalaris arundinacea                 FACW\NAT
14    Scirpus acutus                      OBL\NAT
15    Plantago major                      FAC+EXO
16    Porygonum punctatum                OBL\NAT
17    Trifolium dubium                    FAOEXO
18    Veronica peregrina                   OBL\NAT
19    Rorippa islandica                    OBL\NAT
20    Juncus bufonius                     FACW+NAT
21    Lythrum hyssopifolia                 OBUEXO
22    Anthemis cotula                     FACIAEXO
23    Agrostis tenuis                      UPUEXO
24    Echinochloa crusgalli                 FACW\NAT

                                          85

-------
 25    Polygonnm aviculare
 26    Lindernia dubia
 27    Lolium multiQorum
 28    Tanacetum vulgare
 29    Agrostis exarata
 30    Rumex crispus
 31    Alopecurus pratensis*
 32    Trifolium repens
 33    Oenanthe saraientosa
 34    Ludwigia palustris
 35    Epilobium watsonii
 36    Leontodon nudicaulis
 37    Cam stipata
 38    Populus trichocarpa
 39    Lotus corniculatus
 40    Gratiola neglecta
 41    Bidens frondosa
 42    Gnaphaliun uliginosum
 43    Lolium perenne
 44    Juncus tenuis
 45    Salix sitchensis
 46    Ranunculus lobbii
 47    Ranunculus sceleratus
 48    Veronica americana
 49    Rorippa curvisiliqua
 50    Carex unilateralis
51    Lathyrus hirsutus
52    Equisetum arvense
53   Vida tetnsperma
54   Qrsiuni arvense
55   Dipsacus sylvestris
FACW-EXO
OBL\NAT
FACUNEXO
ABS\EXO
FACW\NAT
FACW\EXO
FACW\EXO
FACU+EXO
OBUNAT
OBL\NAT
FACW-NAT
UPUEXO
OBUNAT
FACW\NAT
FAQEXO
OBL\NAT
FACW+NAT
FAQNAT
FACUNEXO
FAQNAT
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBUNAT
OBUNAT
FACW+NAT
FACW\NAT
UPL\EXO
FAONAT
UPL\EXO
FACU+EXO
FACU\EXO
                                       86

-------
 DESCRIPTION:  SITE C8-BSP

 Function/Purpose

    This wetland was created as mitigation for an illegal  fill.  The area was excavated to form a
 detention pond to replace storm water/surface runoff detention area that was filled.  The plans
 called for the creation  of 0.06 ha (0.14  acres) of  *nish-sedge-canarygrass" wetland with  the
 construction of the surface detention pond.

 General Description

    A very steep-sided pond has been created. The pond itself appeared several feet  deep along
 the south, east and west edges, but very shallow along the north edge. Mudflats extended from the
 north edge out toward the center of the pond. There was some emergent vegetation growing on
 the mudflats, but none in the deeper water along the other edges.

    There were several inlets to the pond-4 visible culverts, a small stream, and, according to G.
 Herb (ODFW), an underground seep. There was a large culvert (Inlet 1 on the Field Map) midway
 along the west bank.  When the pond was sampled, this inlet was dry and above the water level of
 the pond. The other 3 culverts (Inlets 2, 3, & 4 on the Field Map) were smaller in diameter than
 Inlet  1.   All were flowing at sampling time.  These  inlets appeared to carry water from  the
 neighboring City Operations plant.

    The pond outlet was a drainage ditch dug from the southwest comer of the pond, leading to
 Fanno Creek.

    The project was completed in September  of 1986.   At the time it was sampled (June,  1987),
 it was about 9 months old.

 Hydrology and Substrate

    The pond's surface was covered with patches of a filamentous blue-green algae and petroleum
 slicks which gave the water a bluish cast  The water in the main pond area was almost stagnant,
 but flowing  slowly toward the  outlet   The water was  odorless.  Water from Inlet 2  had  a very
 strong petroleum odor.  This water was probably runoff from the City Operations parking lot.
 Water flowing in from Inlet 3  was odorless.  The pond surface near this inlet supported a thick
 algal growth.

    The culvert midway down the east  bank, Inlet 4, had  a strong sewage odor, was brownish in
color, and had  a plume of brownish water extending from it out into the pond.

    Inlet 5 was a small stream flowing over the surface of the bank at the southeast corner  of the
 pond.  This  water was both clear and odorless. Water flow at the outlet was very slow.

    Eight of the ten soil  pits were dug  on Transects 1  & 2 which were placed along the edges of
 the pond (See Field Map). Only one pit each was dug on Transects 3 & 4 (across the mudflats)
because our crew leader was worried about possible sewage contamination.  Soil sample chromas
 (according to the MunseO Color Book) were all  in the hydric range, either /I or A).  There was
mottling in the upper 5 cm of most soil  samples, indicating periodic inundation (Soil Conservation
Service  1975).  Soil structure was heavy and clayey on all transects, but on Transects 1 & 2 large
particles and pebbles were also present The two soil pits dug on the mudflats (Transects 3 & 4)
                                           87

-------
 contained a layer of straw at depths of approximately 25 to 30 cm.   The straw was intact and
 showed little sign of decomposition.

 Dominant VegC*a>X>n

    Vegetation along the periphery of the pond on the disturbed sides was mostly annual herbs,
 primarily Joncus bnfbnins L.  A variety of weedy taxa existed on the upper banks.  The area to the
 south of the created pond was a lush  forest, including  a  thick herbaceous  layer, a deciduous
 understory, and an  overstory  of both conifers and deciduous trees.  This  forested marsh was the
 natural vegetation regime that existed before the area was disturbed  (Gene Herb, ODFW,  pers.
 comm.).   Species here included Pseodotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco., Oemleria cerasifbnnis H.
 & A., and lyaghimm americanum Hulten & St. John.
    See the list of "Species Found On Site C8-BSP* for an explicit account of the species identified.

Wildlife

    Common names were used for wildlife sighted or heard because information was taken from
notes made during field sampling by an amateur birdwatcher.  No definitive wildlife survey was done
and therefore, scientific names were not determined.

    Mallard ducks were seen in the pond and various birds were heard in the forest nearby. Upon
returning to this site a few days later to gather water samples, one of the mallards was found dead.

impressions of the Site One Year later

    The mudflats along the northeast edges of the pond extending toward its center were becoming
vegetated.  The plants seemed stunted.  The banks of the pond were much more heavily vegetated
than the previous year.  In some cases, the rocky banks were completely covered with vegetation.

    The water level appeared higher than the previous year, and the pollution seemed less (at least
it was less visible).   The south bank, between the natural  forested wetland  and  the water, had
become vegetated. The pond still was occupied  by ducks. This year they were tame and wanted
fed.
                                           88

-------
                                   PERMIT MAP
                                      C8-BSP
                       •- -*--V'.-*-:.*v>X  ^'-T^-A-i «i-^^SH:
             7:500
           0    5   10   m
           I  'i 'i' ,i \
           0     21    « ft
                                    A/
Existing WettancJ

Wedand to be Created

Wetland Wet (ppe)

Water Flow Direction
Mao Craned by Tracy Snifr
                                     89

-------
                                    FIELD  MAP
                                     C8-BSP

                                                                               / v
                                                                               N
                                                                                 BMT3
VT  —   Vegetation Transect
BMT ~»-   Basin Morphology Transect
   A       Start of Transect
   •       End of Transect
  O      Culvert
   ""~*   Wetland Outlet or Inlet
          Pond
 ~-~,-*    Emergent Vegetation
 "*"->.    Survey Boundary
           1:500
        0     5    10
        I  ".'I','  \  m
        0     20.S  41.6 1t
Pond and emergent vegetation boundari«s are in.
approximate locations observ«O in July. |
-------
                                                ant
SO   M •
      t—   I  g  t	1	1
i - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1
                                                 V- .

-------
  VEGETATION ANALYSIS

      Following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the species found on
  the site. Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the regional list of plant species
  that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988) and in consultation with LaRea Johnston, Assistant Curator of
  the Oregon State University Herbarium.  Codes  are:  OBL-obligate wetland species; FACW--
  facultative wetland  species; FAC-facultative species; FACU-facultative upland species; UPL--
  upland species; NAT—native species; and EXO-exotic species.  The symbols separating the two
  elements of each code indicate the position of that species within the wetland indicator category.
  The symbol 4- indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found
  in wetlands); - indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently found in
  wetlands);  and \ indicates the species is  intermediate within  the category.  ??? indicates  no
  information.  Species names followed by * were common to both the "Species Listed for Planting
  in Created Wetland" and the list of "Species Found On  Site".

  Species F jcted for Planting in Created Wetland C8-BSF

      Species                            Wetland Indicator Code

 1    Carexobnupta                      OBUNAT
 2    Porygonum persicaria*                FACW\EXO
 3    Porygonum lapathifolium             FACW+NAT
 4    Potentilla anserina                  OBLVNAT
 5    Echinochloa cnisgalli                 FACW\EXO
 6    Cyperus esculentus                  FACW\NAT
 7    Stirpus americanus                  OBLNNAT
 8    Sparganium eurycarpum              OBLVNAT
 9    Phalaris arundinacea*                FACW\NAT
10    Lysichiton americanum               OBLVNAT
11    "Nutsedge"                          ???
                                                       •
      The planting  list for this site included common names. Efforts were made to determine the
  correct genus and species.  Where this was not possible, the common name was listed above in
  "quotes'.

  Species Rwmd On Site C8-BSP During S"*"«"gr 1987

      Species                            Wetland Indicator Code

 1    Juncus bufonius                     FACW+NAT
 2    Trifolium pretense                  FACIAEXO
 3    Viria tetraspenna                    UPLVEXO
 4    Eleocharis ovata                    OBLNNAT
 5    Trifolium hybridum                  UPLVEXO
 6    Alnus nibra                        FAQNAT
 7    Lolium perenne                     FACIAEXO
 8    Vicia sativa                         UPLVEXO
 9    Juncus ensifolius                    FACWVNAT
10    Epilobium watsonii                  FACW-NAT
11    Holcus lanatus                      FACVEXO
12    Equiseium telmateia                 FACW\NAT
13    Caucus carota                      FAOEXO

                                          92

-------
14   Phalaris anindinacea*
IS   Hypochaeris radicata
16   Agrostis alba
17   Trifolium dubium
18   Trifolium arvense
19   Lamium amplexicaule
20   Geum macrophyllum
21   Rumex conglomeratus
22   Poa palustris
23   Agropyron repens
24   Impatiens capensis
25   Rumex crispus
26   Oenanthe sannentosa
27   Panicum capillare
28   Potygonum persicaria*
29   Lapsana oommunis
FACW\NAT
UPL\EXO
FACW\EXO
UPL\EXO
FAQEXO
UPL\EXO
FACW+NAT
FACW\EXO
FAQEXO
NO\EXO
FACW\NAT
FACW\EXO
OBLNNAT
FAONAT
FACW\EXO
UPL\EXO
                                       93

-------
 DESCRIPTION:  STIE C9-GP

 Function/Purpose

     This wetland was created to mitigate the placement of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of clay,
 gravel and rock to construct 400 feet of roadway embankment across Rock Creek and the adjacent
 wetland.  The project plans called for the existing creek channels to be enlarged to improve their
 hydraulic capacity and the stability of the channel banks.  The plans also stated that the existing
 man-made channel was to be improved by widening and sloping the channel banks to create flatter
 slopes and more stable banks.   The  banks of  this channel were to be planted with riparian
 vegetation to prevent erosion and provide cover for  wildlife.  The pond on the northwest side of
 the roadway was to be enlarged and revegetated with native and introduced wetland-type vegetation.
 In addition to the original plans, an area south of the roadway was excavated to form a pond within
 the marshy meadow. This was the portion of the project most recently completed.  It was the area
 sampled by the field team because it was the area Gene Herb (ODFW) indicated was important

    This pond  had several proposed functions.  It was designed to allow storage and detention of
 surface water runoff, contain backfill from creek overflow, maintain wildlife habitat, and provide a
 quiet and aesthetically pleasing setting.

 General Description

    Rock Creek was split into two channels that flow  under the new roadway via two large culverts.
 The pond sampled lies south of the road just west of where the two channels rejoin.  A small dam
 separated the pond from the creek channel at the pond's southwestern-most point  When high
 water conditions occur, the channel will overflow its banks and water will collect  in the pond.
 During low water/drought conditions, water will be maintained in the pond by the dam.  The dam
 is the pond's outlet when water level in the pond  is  above the height of the dam.

    There was  a  large culvert leading into the pond from under the hillside at its nonheastern-
 most point  This culvert may divert upland runoff  from  abandoned sewage ponds north of the
 project  Other than creek overflow and some underground seeps that G. Herb (ODFW) indicated
 might be present, this culvert was the only direct inlet to the pond.
    The pond's banks sloped steeply from a hayfield  on the west side. The north  and east banks
 have very gradual, almost level slopes that form mudflats from the edge of the grass to  the water
 level. There was very little established vegetation on the mudflats.  The southeast bank of the pond
was  formed by a  grassy berrn that separated  the pond from the creek channel.  The sides of the
 berra were steeply sloped.

    The bulk of the pond appeared shallow and had patches of emergent vegetation growing in it
The deepest area was directly behind the dam.

    The area directly north of the pond, between it and the roadway, was a grassy meadow. The
 meadow  included both dry, upland areas and wet, marshy areas with standing water.

    The project was  approximately one year and nine months old when sampled (June of 1987).

 Hydrology and  SuLabate

    The pond water was odorless. It had a  tan, cloudy color.  It contained patches of emergent
vegetation and a filamentous, green alga.
                                           94

-------
     The water was stagnant and below the level of the dam at the outlet.  Very little water flowed
 in via the culvert

     The chroma of soil samples along Transects 1 & 2 (See Field Map) indicate hydric soils (/I and
 A)).   The chroma of soil samples taken along Transect 3 were 'borderline' hydric (/2).  Mottling
 occurred in the upper 5 cm of all soil samples, indicating periodic inundation (Soil Conservation
 Service 1975). Soils were very fine and clayey.

 Dominant Vegetation

     The pond supported patches of emergent vegetation. An algal bloom was especially lush along
 the  pond's banks, extending from one to five feet across the water's surface.   The dominant
 vegetation types in the meadow and along the berm were upland grasses, Douglas fir (Psendotsnga
 menziesii (Mirbel) Franco.), and ash (Frannus latifotia Benth.).  Wetland vegetation was starting
 to propagate along the mudflats of the north  and east  sides of the pond, and was well established
 in the area closest to  the culvert.  Species that were  to  be planted by the contractor,  including
 Scirpas americanus Pen. and Heochoiis palnstris (L.) R. & S., seemed to be taking hold, and will
 probably dominate the area within the next decade (B.  Meinke, Botanist, pers. comm.)-  The steep
 banks of the west and south edges supported mostly upland grasses.

     See the list of "Species Found On Site C9-GP* for an explicit account of the species identified.


 Wildlife

     Common  names were used for wildlife sighted or heard because information was taken from
 notes made during field sampling by an amateur birdwatcher. No definitive wildlife survey was done
 and  therefore, scientific names were not determined.

     A population of tiny, biting, black flies was in residence.   They were most abundant near the
 culvert and along the northwest banks of the  pond.

     Birds observed included Mallard ducks, killdeer, redwing blackbirds, starlings, goldfinches, tree
 swallows, barn swallows, and violet-green swallows.  A bullfrog was heard and many dragonflies were
 observed.
    After studying the permit file for this project, I have concluded that the area sampled was not
included in the original plans.   It seems to have been an afterthought.   The area sampled was
denoted as a •meadow*  on Exhibit F-l, and  the pond  was  referred to only  once in  the
mitigation/permit paperwork:   '—especially the  new pond created  south of Evergreen".   This
statement was included in a letter from Gene Herb (ODFW) to the applicant concerning changes
made in the project

Impressions of the Site One Year I ater

    The reduced amount of upland area along the shoreline indicated  that water levels were higher
during 1988 than during sampling the previous summer.  However,  there were  more patches of
emergent vegetation growing throughout the pond, indicating that the pond may  be silting in.
While sampling during the summer of 1987, the pond was shallow but almost entirely open water,
there were no large patches of emergent vegetation.

                                            95

-------
    Aesthetics was one of the major objectives of this mitigation project.   In  this respect, the
wetland seemed to be fulfilling its purpose.
                                             96

-------
                                 PERMIT  MAP
                                    C9-GP
                                                                1 : 500
                                                                 S   10
                                                                  21
                                                                       42 ft
                                                                         m
                                                  •\   Boundary- Portion of Wetland
                                                          to be Created
                                                  V
Mao Drafted by Tracy Smith
Wetland Intot (pipe)

Water Flow Direction

Rip Rap

100 Year Flood Plata

Existing Wetland Boundary
                                       97

-------
                                       FIELD  MAP
                                         C9-GP
  VT1
                                                                    BMT
   N
             1:500

          0    5    10
          I •  '  •  '   t  ",
          I  I   I   I   t
          0    20.8  41.6 fl
Pood and emergent vegetation  boundaries are the
approximate locations observed in July. 1987
Data collected by Stephanie Gwin & Sheri Confer
Map drafted by Tracy Smith
 Vegetation Transect
 Basin Morphology Transect
 Start of Transect
 End of Transect
 Oam
Culvert
 Wetland Outlet or Inlet
Pond
Emergent Vegetation
Survey Boundary
                                        98

-------
                       SITE  C9-GP
                       Transect  1
Elevation  (m)
 1.6
       3 6
9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66
            Distance (m)

-------
   VEGETATION ANALYSIS

      Following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the species found on
   the site.  Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the regional list of plant species
   that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988) and in consultation with LaRea Johnston, Assistant Curator of
   the Oregon State University Herbarium.  Codes are:  OBL-obligate wetland species; FACW-
   facultative wetland  species; FAC-facultative species; FACU-facultative upland  species; UPL-
   upland species; NAT-native species; and EXO-exotic species.  The symbols separating the two
   elements of each code indicate the position of that species within the wetland indicator category.
   The symbol + indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found
   in wetlands); - indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently found in
   wetlands); and \ indicates the species is intermediate within the  category.  ??? indicates no
   information.  Species names followed by * were common to both the "Species Listed for Planting
   in Created Wetland' and the list of 'Species Found On Site".

   Species listed for Planting in Created  Wetland C9-GP

      Species                            Wetland Indicator Code

  1    Agrostis palustris                    FAC+NAT
  2   Alopecurus pratensis*                FACW\EXO
  3   Bromus inennis                     FACU\EXO
  4    Dactylis glomerata                   FACLAEXO
  5    Scirpus americanus                  OBUNAT
  6    Cyperus erythrorhizos                OBL\NAT
  7    Eleocharis palustris*                 OBL\NAT

  Species Found On Site C9-GP Poring  Summer 1967

                                        Wetland  Indicator Codes
 1    Alopecurus geniculatus               FACW+NAT
 2    Heocharis acicularis                 OBL\NAT
 3    Epilobium watsonii                  FACW-NAT
 4    Callitriche stagnalis                  OBL\NAT
 5    Scirpus fluviatilis                    OBUNAT
 6    Veronica americana                  OBUNAT
 7    Gnaphalium uliginosum              FAQNAT
 8    Plantago major                      FAC+EXO
 9    Ju'ncus patens                       FACW\NAT
10    Agrostis alba                       FACWNEXO
11    Juncus tenuis                       FAONAT
12    Juncus bufonius                     FACW+NAT
13    Holcus lanatus                      FAOEXO
14    Ranunculus sceleratus                OBL\NAT
IS    Plagiobothrys scouleri                FACW\NAT
16    Poa trivialis                         FACW-EXO
17    Cirsium arvense                     FACU+EXO
18    Agrostis tenuis                      UPUEXO
19    Trifolium repens                    FACU+EXO
20    Trifolium dubium                    UPUEXO
21    Bidens vulgata                       FACW+NAT

                                         100

-------
22   Alopecunis pratensis*               FACW\£XO
23   Polygonum lapathifolium            FACW+EXO
24   Lemna minor                     OBLANAT
25   Leontodon nudicaulis               UPL\EXO
26   Caret arcta                       FACW+NAT
27   Leersia oiyzoides                  OBL\NAT
28   Centunculus minimus               FACW\NAT
29   Scirpus microcarpus                OBLANAT
30   Heocharis palustris*                OBUNAT
31   TVpha latifolia                     OBL\NAT
32   Rorippa curvisiliqua                FACW+NAT
33   Lolium perenne      '              FACIAEXO
34   Gnaphalium palustre                FAC+NAT
35   Eleocharis ovata                   OBL\NAT
36   Poa annua                        FAC-NAT
37   Anthemis ootula                   FACLAEXO
38   Senetio vulgaris                    FACLAEXO
                                      101

-------
 DESCRIPTION:  SITE C10-PP

 Function/Purpose

    This project was mitigation for the removal of up to 1,500 cubic yards of silt and the placement
 of up to 6,100 cubic yards of material in the Columbia Slough to provide railroad access for a new
 automobile shipping facility.  To replace the emergent marsh lost within  the Columbia Slough, a
 pond was  excavated, and the  slopes seeded with clover.  Proposed functions of the new  pond
 included food chain support,  habitat for wildlife, habitat for fisheries, nutrient retention and
 removal, and  non-consumptive recreation.

 General Description

    The pond was deep, and was at the  bottom of a very steeply sloped excavation within several
 feet of the Columbia Slough. A high, grassy, and shrub-covered berm separated the pond from the
 slough.  A deep ditch has been cut in the berm to connect the pond with the slough.  The  pond
 had very steep banks, so steep  that field crew members had difficulty walking along the pond  edge.
 The mitigation design plans show that the pond was 150 by 75 feet across, and an average of twelve
 feet deep from the top of the  bank to the pond floor.  The water's surface was several feet lower
 than the top of  the bank, but  the  bank  appeared- to continue at the same steep angle under the
 water.  The bottom could not  be seen.

    The channel connecting the pond and Columbia Slough appears to be both the inlet and outlet
 for the pond.  Water level in the pond was lower than the floor of the channel The sides of the
 ditch appeared to drop almost vertically from the meadow to the floor.

    The banks of the pond edge have  been seeded with mostly Trifoliom  pratense L. in an effort
 to control  erosion.  However,  ravines from erosion were beginning to form on the sides of the
 banks in several  places.

    The project was completed in August of 1985. When sampled in Jury of 1985, it was almost
 two years old.

 Hydrology and Substrate

    Water in the pond was odorless and very murky.  The pond contained stagnant water, and the
 channel connecting it to Columbia slough was dry.  When high water conditions exist, water will
 flow into the pond from Columbia Slough via this channel.

    Soils consisted of very heavy and fine clays with some sand. The Munsell Color Book indicated
 non-hydric soil chromas, ranging from /4  to fZ.  However,  there were mottles in the upper  5 cm of
 all soil samples indicating periodic  inundation  (Soil Conservation Service 1975).  Most of the soil
 pits remained dry  during the sampling protocol's required  30  minute period to  allow for
 stabilization of water levels, but a few nearest the pond edge  did  fill with a few  centimeters  of
 water.

 Dominant Vegetation

    Wetland vegetation was found only in a narrow band  (about two feet wide) in and around the
water's edge. Clover extended from this band up the slopes to the meadow above. Our crew leader
and head botanist believed the  clover had been seeded into the bank to try to prevent erosion, but
                                           102

-------
because of its tenacity, he feared that it might also prevent wetland species from establishing (B.
Meinke, Botanist, pers. comm.).

    Green algae grew around the edge of the pond.  Phalaris arandinacea L. and Salix speaes grew
on top of the berm separating the pond from the slough.  There was a variety of native wetland
species present, but all had a low frequency of occurrence.  This diversity probably reflects input
of propagules from the nearby slough.  Colonization by wetland species may be retarded, however,
by  the depth of the  pond (and  its  steep banks) and the pervasive weedy species already  well
established (ie., the clover).   Sagittaria latifolia Willd.,  the dominant herbaceous species in the
slough was present as scattered individuals in the mitigated area, along with several species of Carex
and Juncus.

    See the list of "Species Found On Site C10-PP" for an explicit account of the species identified.
Wildlife

    Common names were used for wildlife sighted or heard because information was taken from
notes made during field sampling by an amateur birdwatcher. No definitive wildlife survey was done
and therefore, scientific names were not determined.

    Many small fish fry and a bullfrog were observed in the pond.  Gold finches, swallows, and a
red tailed hawk were the only birds sighted.

    Southern Pacific Railroad's tracks were several hundred feet across the meadow from the pond
and ran parallel to its south side.

impressions of the Site  One Year Later

    This wetland  appeared much the same as the  previous summer.  The banks were becoming
more vegetated, mostly  with clover, which appears to be minimizing erosion of the steep banks.
Wetland vegetation was located in a narrow  band along the water's edge about one meter below
the top of the bank.
                                           103

-------
                           PERMIT MAP

                             C10-PP
Pond
                    N
                                   5  10
                                           m
                                    .  .  .
                                I .   *  i  i
                                0    21  42  ft
                                  1:500
                                Map g r a (led by Lori J e n sen
                      104

-------
                                           FIELD MAP
                                             C10-PP
                      BMT2
      VT
     BMT
Start  of Transect
End of Transect
Vegetation Transect
Basin Morphology Transect
Upland Vegetation
Emergent  Vegetation
Pond
Ditch
                                                      BMT 1
                                              0   5   10   m
                                              I	.-I-.—.1—.
                                              I    I    i
                                              0   21   42  ft
                                                1:500
                                       N
Map dratted by Lori Jensen
Source: Data collected by Stephanie  Gwin & Sheri Center
                                 105

-------
                                         STTE C10-PP
                                                11
\	*	1	*	fr
                                          SITE C10-PP
                                                11
                                          SITE C10-PP

-------
   VEGETATION ANALYSIS

      Following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the species found on
   the site.  Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the regional list of plant species
   that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988) and in consultation with LaRea Johnston, Assistant Curator of
   the Oregon State University  Herbarium.  Codes are:  OBL~obligate wetland species; FACW--
   facultative  wetland species; FAC-facultative species; FACU-facultative upland species; UPL-
   upland species; NAT-native species; and EXO~exotic species.  The symbols separating the two
   elements of each code indicate the position of that species within the wetland indicator category.
   The symbol + indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found
   in wetlands); • indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently found in
   wetlands); and \ indicates  the species is intermediate within the  category.  ??? indicates no
   information.  Species names followed by * were common to both the 'Species Listed for Planting
   in Created  Wetland* and the list of "Species Found On Site*.

   Suedes Listed for Planting  in Created Wetland C1O-PP
      There was no planting list included in the permit file for this site.  However, the banks were
  to be seeded with grasses and legumes.

  Species Found On Site C10-PP During Summer 1987
      Species

 1    Phalaris anmdinacea
 2    Lolium perenne
 3    Salix piperi
 4    Lotus corniculatus
 5    Epilobium watsonii
 6    Eleocharis palustris
 7    Gnaphalium uliginosum
 8    Trifoh'um repens
 9    Cirsium arvense
10    Porygonum spergulariaeforme
11    Juncus oxymeris
12    Eleocharis ovata
13    Trifblium pratense
14    Bidens tripartita
15    Juncus tenuis
16  •  Spnchus asper
17    Festuca bromoides
18    Leersia oryzoides
19    Trifolium dubium
20    Plantago  major
21    Carex lenticularis
22    Sagittaria latifolia
23    Bidens cernua
24    Cyperus erythrorhizos
25    Salix fluviatilis
26    Fraxinus  latifolia
27    Lindernia dubia
28    Rumex crispus
Wetland Indicator Code

FACW\NAT
FACU\EXO
FACW\NAT
FAOEXO
FACW-NAT
OBUNAT
FAONAT
FACU+EXO
FACU+EXO
ABSNNAT
FACW+NAT
OBUNAT
FACU\EXO
FACWVEXO
FAQNAT
FAC-EXO
FAQEXO
OBUNAT
UPUEXO
FAC+EXO
FACW+NAT
OBUNAT •
FACW+EXO
OBL\NAT
OBUNAT
FACWVNAT
OBL\NAT   '
FACW\EXO
                                          107

-------
29   Equisetura arvense                 FAC\NAT
30   Poa palustris                     FAQEXO
31   Graiiola neglecta                  OBL\NAT
32   Veronica peregrina                 OBUNAT
33   Rorippa islandica                  OBL\NAT
34   Sparganium emersum               OBL\NAT
35   Mazus japonicus                   FACW\EXO
36   Poa annua                       FAC-NAT
37   Agrostis exarata                   FACW\NAT
38   Agrostis alba                     FACW\EXO
                                     108

-------
 DESCRIPTION:  SITE Cll-SM

 Function/Purpose

    The function of this wetland creation was to mitigate for the placement of 2,600 cubic yards
 of earth fill in a 0.13 ha (0.3 acre) wetland area adjacent to Fanno Creek.  The fill was required
 to provide an elevation above the 100 year  flood plain for construction of additional parking and
 storage area.  The primary objective of the mitigation was functional replacement of the wetland
 area  destroyed, including wildlife habitat, flood storage and desynchronization,  and habitat  for
 fisheries.

 Geueial Description

    The project's design called for the creation of two small sumps, at least 30 feet by 60 feet, with
 an island  in the center and an irregular shoreline.  The field team found a shallow pond with an
 isthmus connecting an island to the southeast shoreline. As required in the design plans, the island
 stood a couple of feet above water level at its' highest point, and the wetland had an  irregular
 shoreline.  There was emergent vegetation growing in the very shallow water (5 cm) covering the
 isthmus, and along the shorelines of the bank and the island.

    The inlet was a narrow, shallow ditch running along the nonh edge of the parking lot.  There
 was water flowing into the wetland through this inlet at the time of sampling. A dry streambed
 leading from the wetland to Fanno Creek was assumed to be the wetland's outlet When high water
 conditions exist, Fanno Creek will overflow its banks and flood this wetland.

    A wire mesh fence approximately 9 feet tall separated the wetland from the parking lot. Young
 pine  trees were planted between the fence and the pond.  Directly  south  and southeast of the
 created wetland was a large marshy area almost completely covered with reed  canary grass (Phalaris
 anmdinacea L.). The fill and the created wetland were extensions of this area prior to development
 (G. Herb, ODFW, pers. comm.).
                                                     •
    A pile of broken asphalt was found on the slope leading up from the wetland to the parking
 lot.  Old tires and other debris were also observed.  The landowner informed us that they would
 be cleaned up as per the design plans.

    This project was approximately ten months old when sampled in July of 1987.

 Hydrology and Substrate

    Although there was flow into the wetland via  the inlet, water in  the sump was stagnant and
 turbid, and had a brown-colored algal growth. The water had no odor.

    All  but one of the chromas of the soil samples were in the  hydric range, either /I  or /O (as
 determined using a Munsell Color Book). The one non-hydric chroma was /2 (borderline hydric).
 Periodic inundation was indicated by mottling in the upper  5 to  10 cm of the soil  samples (Soil
 Conservation Service 1975). Water was observed in all soil pits dug along transect 2, and most pits
along transect 1 (See Field Map). No water was observed in soil pits dug along transect 3.

 Dominant Vegetation

    The created wetland was bordered by an upland grassy meadow to the  North, and a marshy
stand of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) to the south.  Within the wetland, emergent

                                          109

-------
vegetation was prevalent At sampling time, there was a large mudflat area where vegetation was
not growing.  Some of the plants on the site were weeds known to be established only along the
Columbia River near Portland, where they were apparently established from seed that was carried
in the ballast of ships (E. Alverson, OSU, pers. comm.).  A few were native, such as jointed rush
(Juncus articnlatus L.).

    See the list of" Species Found On Site Cll-SM" for an explicit account of the species identified.
Wildlife

    Common names were used for wildlife sighted or heard because information was taken from
notes nude during field sampling by an amateur birdwatcher. No definitive wildlife survey was done
and therefore, scientific names were not determined.

    Swallows, kflldeer, goldfinches, and the tracks of a great blue heron were observed. The design
plans specified that the ponds were to be stocked with a species  of Gambusia, a mosquito-eating
fish, but none were observed.

Impressions of the Site One Year later

    Most of the debris Uttering the site during the summer of 1987 was removed.  The broken
asphalt near the gate in the fence along the east side of the wetland was becoming vegetated.

    Water levels appeared much higher. The isthmus reaching from the south bank to the island
was flooded. The water appeared very clear. Although  the water level was higher than during the
previous summer, the pond had become dotted with patches of emergent vegetation.  The island
and banks of the pond had become heavily vegetated, and  the wetland seemed to be maturing well
                                          110

-------
                            PERMIT  MAP


                               C11-SM
Islands approximately 15 x 30 ft
                                                                 N
           1  : 4001
        048m
        I—s—•-.
        0    17    33  ft
(Because no scale was given on source mac


t>is scale is approximated trom dimensions


«r»en on source mzr)
                                          Q  island



                                                Sump (pond)
Wetland Met or Outlet



Ditch



Riprap
                                    Map dratted by Tracy Smith
                                    111

-------
                                          FIELD  MAP
                                            C11-SM
                                                                     BMT1
                                                                              VT1

                            •48     m
       1 : 400
                             17    33  tt
Map drafted by Tracy Smith  .

Pond and vegetation boundaries are
the approximate locations observed in July. 1987

Source: Data collected by Stephanie Gwin & Sheri Confer
                                                             BUT
Basin Morphology Transect
Vegetation Transect
Upland Vegetion
Emergent Vegetation
Pond
Wetland Inlet or Outlet
Ditch
Start of Transect
End of Transect
                                              112

-------
Devotion (m)
 u
                                               SITE C11-SM
                                                 Transect 1
   0    •    e    •    tt
                                                 Distance (m)
Elevation (m)
                                               srrE C11-SM
                                                 Transect 2
  •4
                                             •i     M     sr
                                                 Dhlance (m)
                                                                                                        •i

-------
   VEGETATION ANALYSIS

      Following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the species found on
   the site. Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the regional list of plant species
   that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988) and in consultation with LaRea Johnston, Assistant Curator of
   the Oregon State University Herbarium.  Codes are:  OBL-obligate wetland species;  FACW--
   facultative  wetland species; FAC-facuItative  species; FACU-faculiative upland species;  UPL--
   upland species; NAT-native species; and EXO-exotic  species.  The symbols separating the two
   elements of each code indicate the position of that species within the wetland indicator category.
   The symbol + indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found
   in wetlands); - indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently found in
   wetlands); and \ indicates the  species is  intermediate within the category.  ??? indicates  no
   information.  Species names followed by * were common to both the 'Species Listed for Planting
   in Created  Wetland' and the list of 'Species Found On Site*.

   Species T jcted for Planting in Created Wetland Cll-SM

                                         Wetland Indicator Code
 1    Salix sp.                            ???
 2    Populus sp.                         ???
 3    Taxodium distichum                  OBUEXO
 4    Potamogeton pectinatus              OBL\NAT
 5    Polygonum sp.                      ???
 6    Cyperaceae                          ???
 7    Srirpus sp.                          ???
 8    Sparganiaceae                       ???
 9    Sagittaria sp.                        ???
10    Fraxinus latifblia var oregana          FACW\NAT
11    Crataegus sp.                        ???

      Only common names were used to designate species for planting on this site.  Efforts were
  made to determine the correct genus and species.  Where this was not possible, the family or genus
  name was determined.

  Species Found On Site Cll-SM During Summer 1987

      Species                             Wetland Indicator Code

 1    Juncus bufonius                      FACW+NAT
 2    Holcus lanatus                      FAQEXO
 3    Alopecunis geniculatus               FACW+NAT
 4    Phalaris anindinacea                  FACW\NAT
 5    Lindernia dubia  '                    OBL\NAT
 6    Gnaphalium uliginosum               FAC\NAT
 7    Eleocharis ovata      .              OBUNAT
 8    Lemna minor                        OBL\NAT
 9    Typha latifolia                       OBUNAT
10    Leersia oryzoides                    OBL\NAT
11    Callitriche stagnalis                   OBL\NAT
12    Ludwigia palustris                    OBL\NAT
13    Alisma plantago-aquatica              OBL\NAT

                                           114

-------
 14   Agrostis alba
 15   Echinochloa crusgalli
 16   Eleocharis palustris
 17   Juncus tenuis
 18   Polygonum persicaria
 19   Polygonum punctatum
 20   Salix sitchensis
 21   Mimulus moschatus
 22   Trifolium repens
 23   Equisetum arvense
 24   Rorippa islandica
 25   Gratiola neglecta
 26   EpOobium watsonii
 27   Gnaphalium palustre
 28   Veronica americana
 29   Rorippa cuivisiliqua
 30   Ranunculus repens
 31    Sparganium emersum
 32    Polygonum aviculare
 33    Unknown Seedling 1
 34    Plantago major
 35    Juncus oxymeris
 36    Lotus oorniculatus
 37    Anthemis cotula
 38    Trifolium pratense
 39    Poa trivialis
 40    Cirsium vulgare
 41    Vicia dispenna
42    Sonchus asper
43    Rumex crispus
 FACW\EXO
 FACW\NAT
 OBL\NAT
 FAONAT
 FACW\EXO
 OBUNAT
 FACW\NAT
 FACW+NAT
 FACU-fEXO
 FAQNAT
 OBUNAT
 OBUNAT
 FACW-NAT
 FAC+NAT
 OBUNAT
 FACW+NAT
 FACW\EXO
 OBUNAT
 FACW-EXO
 ???
 FAC+EXO
 FACW+NAT
 FAQEXO
 FACU\EXO
 FAOAEXO
 FACW-EXO
 FACUNEXO
ABS\EXO
FAC-EXO
FACW\EXO
                                      115

-------
                                      LITERATURE CITED


Alverson, E  1987.  Botanist.  Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Herb, G.  1987.  Wildlife Biologist. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Johnston, L.  1989. Assistant Curator, Oregon State University Herbarium.  Oregon State University,
        Corvallis, Oregon.

Meinke, B. 1987. Botanist.  Oregon State University Herbarium.  Oregon State University, Corvallis,
        Oregon.

Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988.  National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9).
        U.S. Fish WildL Serv. BioL Rep. 88(26.9). Washington, DC

Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Soil Taxonomy-A  Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and
        Interpreting Soil Surveys.  Soil Survey Staff, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of
        Agriculture.  Agriculture Handbook No.  436.
                                               116

-------
                                          APPENDIX n

                      LISTS OF PLANT SPECIES TO BE ESTABLISHED AND
                           ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED ON EACH SITE
      Following are the list of all species intended for planting and the list of all species found on the created
  wetlands studied. Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the regional list of plant species
  that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988) and in consultation with LaRea Johnston, Assistant Curator of the
  Oregon State University Herbarium. Codes are: OBL—obligate wetland species; FACW-facultative wetland
  species; FAC-facultative species; FACU-facultative upland species; UPL-upland species; NAT-native
  species; and EXO-exotic species.  The symbols separating the  two elements of each code  indicate the
  position of that species within the wetland indicator category. The symbol + indicates the species is toward
  the high end of the category (more frequently found in wetlands); - indicates the species is toward the low
  end of the category (less frequently found  in wetlands); and \ indicates the species is intermediate within
  the category.  ??? indicates no information. Species names followed by • were common to both  the "List
  of All Species Intended for Planting* and the "List of All Species Found on Created  Wetlands'.
  LIST OF ALL SPECIES INTENDED FOR PLANTING

      The following list includes all species intended for planting within wetland areas of the created wetlands
  studied. Species  listed for planting in buffer areas, banks, and adjacent upland areas are not included.
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Scientific Name

Agrostis palustrisNA. stolonifera
Alopecurus pratensis*
Bromus inennis
Carex lyngbeii
Carex obnupta
Crataegus sp.
Cyperaceae (family)
Cyperus erythrorhizos*
Cyperus esculentus*
Dactylis glomerate*
Echinochloa crusgalli*
Eleocharis palustris*
Fraxinus latifolia var oregana*
Glyceria borealis
Lysichiton americanum
Phalaris arundinacea*
Polygonum hydropiper
Polygonum lapathifolium*
Polygonum persicaria*
Polygonum sp.
Populus sp..
Potamogeton crispus
Potamogeton pectinatus
Potentilla anserina
Common Name

Spreading bentgrass
Meadow foxtail
Smooth brome-grass
Lyngbye's sedge
Slough sedge
Hawthorne
Sedges
Red-root flatsedge
Chufa
California oatgrass
Barnyard grass
Creeping spikerush
Oregon ash
Small floating mannagrass
Yellow skunk cabbage
Reed canary grass
Marshpepper smartweed
Willow-weed
Lady's thumb
Smartweeds
Cottonwoods
Curly pondweed
Sago pondweed
Silverweed
Code

FAC+NAT
FACW\£XO
FACUXEXO
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
???
777
OBUNAT
FACWVNAT
FACU\EXO
FACWVEXO
OBUNAT
FACWVNAT
OBL\NAT  '
OBUNAT
FACW\NAT
OBLVEXO
FACW+NAT
FACWVEXO
77?
777
OBUEXO
OBUNAT
OBLXNAT
                                              117

-------
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 37
 38
 39
 40
 41
 42
 43
 44
 Ranunculus spp.
 Sagittaria latifolia*
 Sagittaria sp.
 Salix sitchensis*
 Salixsp.
 Scirpus acutus*
 Scirpus americanus
 Scirpus microcarpus*
 Scirpus sp.
 Scirpus validus*
 Sparganiaceae (family)
 Sparganium emersum*
 Sparganium eurycarpum*
 Spiraea douglasii
 Symphoricarpos spp.
 Taxodium disticbum
 Typha  latifolia
 Typha  spp.
 Buttercups
 Broad-leaf arrowhead
 Arrowhead
 Sitka willow
 Willow
 Hard-stem bulrush
 Olney's bulrush
 Small-fruit bulrush
 Bulrush
 Soft-stem bulrush
 Burreed family
 Narrow-leaf burreed
 Giant burreed
 Douglas' spiraea
 Snowbeny
 Bald cypress
 Broad-leaf cattail
 Cattails
 Nutsedge
 Great bulrush
 OBIANAT
 ???
 FACW\NAT
 ???
 OBUNAT
 OBUNAT
 OBLVNAT
 OBLNNAT
 ???
 OBLNNAT
 OBLNNAT
 FACWVNAT
 ???
 OBLAEXO
 OBLNNAT
 OBUNAT
 ???
 77?
  LIST OF ALL SPECIES FOUND ON CREATED WETLANDS

             The following list includes all species found along transects that were placed to represent the
  vegetation communities of each created wetland studied.  Transects were located within the wetland areas
  of the sites only. They were not placed in buffer areas, banks, and adjacent upland areas.
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Scientific Name

Agropyron repens
Agrostis alba
Agrostis exarata
Agrostis tenuis
Alisma plantago-aquatica
Alnus rubra
Alopecurus geniculatus
Alopecurus pratensis*
Anthemis cotula
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Antirrhinum orontium
Arctium minus
Bcckmann'a syzigachne
Bidens cernua
Bidens frondosa
Bidens tripartita
Bidens vulgata
Boisduvalia densiflora
Callitriche stagnalis
Callitriche verna
Camassia leichtlinii
Capsella bursa-pastoris
Common Name

Quackgrass
Red top
Spike bentgrass
Colonial bentgrass
Broadleaf water-plantain
Red alder
Meadow foxtail
Meadow foxtail
Mayweed
Sweet vernal grass
Snapdragon
Common burdock
American sloughgrass
Nodding beggar-ticks
Devil's beggar-ticks
Tree-lobe beggar-ticks
Tall beggar-ticks
Dense-flower spike-primrose
Pond water-siarwort
Spiny water-starwort
Leichtlin's Camassia
Common shepard's purse
Code

NONEXO
FACWNEXO
FACW\NAT
UPUEXO
OBUNAT
FAQNAT
FACW+NAT
FACW\EXO
FACUNEXO
FACUVEXO
FACVNAT
FACUVEXO
OBUNAT
FACW+EXO
FACW+NAT
FACWNEXO
FACW+NAT
FACW-NAT
OBLVNAT
OBLNNAT
FACW-NAT
FAC-EXO
                                              118

-------
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Cardamine oligosperma
Carex arcta
Carex athrostachya
Carex feta
Carex laeviculmis
Carex lenticularis
Carex sp.
Carex stipata
Carex unilateralis
Centaurea cyanus
Centaurium umbellatum
Centunculus minimus
Cerastium visoosum
Cbenopodium album
Chenopodium ambrosioides
Chenopodium botrys
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Cichorium intybus
Circaea alpina
Cirsium arvense
Cirsium vulgare
Cornus stolonifera
Crepis setosa
Cyperaceae (seedling)
Cyperus erytbrorhizos*
Cyperus esculentus*
Dacrylis glomerata*
Daucus carota
Deschampsia elongata
Digitaria ischaemum
Dipsacus sylvestris
Echinochloa crusgalli*
Eleocharis acicularis
Eleocharis ovata   .
Eleocharis palustris*
Epilobium paniculatum
Epilobium watsonii
Equisetum arvense
          telmateia
Euphorbia supina
Festuca arundinacea
Festuca bromoides
Fragaria vesca
Fraxinus latifolia*
Galium aparine
Galium trifidum
Geranium dissectum
Geranium molle
Geum macrophyllum
Glyoeria grandis
Glyceria leptostachya
Few-seed bitter-cress
Northern clustered sedge
Slender-beak sedge
Green-sheath sedge
Smooth-stem sedge
Shore sedge
Sedges
Stalk-grain sedge
One-side sedge
Bachelor's button
Centaury
Chaffweed
Sticky chickweed
White goosefoot
American wormseed
Jerusalem-oak
Oxeye daisy
Chicory
Small enchanter's nightshade
Creeping thistle
Bull  thistle
Red-osier dogwood
Rough hawksbeard
Sedge
Red-root flatsedge
Chufa
Orchard grass
Queen Anne's lace
Slender hairgrass
Smooth crabgrass
Teasel
Barnyard grass
Least spikerush
Ovate spikerush
Creeping spikerush
Autumn willow-weed
Watson's willow-weed
Field horsetail
Giant horsetail
Purple lovegrass
Milk spurge
Kentucky fescue
Barren fescue
Woods strawberry
Oregon ash
Catchweed bedstraw
Small bedstraw
Cut-leaf geranium
Dovefoot geranium
Large-leaf avens
Reed mannagrass
Slender-spike mannagrass
FACW\NAT
FACW-f-NAT
FACWNNAT
FACWNNAT
FACWNNAT
FACW+NAT
???
OBLVNAT
FACWVNAT
UPL\EXO
FAC-EXO
FACWVNAT
NONEXO
FAOEXO
FAOEXO
FACUNEXO
FAOEXO
UPLNEXO
FACWNNAT
FACU+EXO
FACUNEXO
FACWNNAT
UPLNEXO
???
OBLNNAT
FACWNNAT
FACUNEXO
FAOEXO
FACW-NAT
FACUNEXO
FACUNEXO
FACWNNAT
OBLNNAT
OBLNNAT
OBLNNAT
UPLNNAT
FACW-NAT
FACNNAT
FACWNNAT
FAONAT
UPLNEXO
FACU-EXO
FACNEXO
FACUNNAT
FACWNNAT
FACUNNAT
FACW+NAT
UPLNEXO
UPLNEXO
FACW+NAT
OBLNEXO
OBLNNAT
                                            119

-------
  75
  76
  77
  78
  79
.  80
  81
  82
  83
  84
  85
 .86
  87
  88
  89
  90
  91
  92
  93
  94
  95
  96
  97
  98
  99
 100
 101
 102
 103
 104
 105
 106
 107
 108
 109
 110
 111
 112
 113
 114
 115
 116
 117
 118
 119
 120
 121
 122
 123
 124
 125
 126
 Gnaphalium palustre
 Gnaphalium uligmosum
 Gratiola neglecta
 Hedera helix
 Heleochloa alopecuroides
 Holcus lanatus
 Hordeum brachyaotherum
 Hypericum perforatum
 Hypocbaeris radicata
 Impatiens capensis
 Juncus bufonius
 Juncus effusus
 Juncus ensifolius
 Juncus oxymeris
 Juncus patens
 Juncus tenuis
 Lacnica serriola
 Lamium atnptericaule
 Lapsana conununis
 Lathyrus hirsutus
 Leersia oiyzoides
 Lemna minor
 Leontodon nudicaulis
 LamoseUa aquatica
 Lindemia a
Lindemia dubia
Lolium multiflonun
Lolium perenne
Lotus comiculatus
Ludwigia palustris
Lupinus porypbyllus
Luzula campestris
Lythrum hyssopifolia
Mazus japonicus
Mimulus moschatus
Mollugo verticOlata
Myosotis discolor
Myosotis laxa
Navarretia squanosa
Oemleria cerasiformis
Oenanthe sarmentosa
Panicum capfllare
Peplis portula
Phalaris arundinacea*
Phleum pratense
Plagiobothiys scouleri
Plantago lanceolata
Plantago major
Poa annua
Poa compressa
Poa palustris
Poa trivialis
 Western marsh cudweed         FAC+NAT
 Marsh cudweed                 FAONAT
 Clammy hedgehyssop            OBLNNAT
 Ivy                           UPL\EXO
 Heleochloa                    OBL-EXO
 Common velvet-grass            FAOEXO
 Meadow barley                 FACWVNAT
 Common St. John's-wort         UPUEXO
 Spotted cats-ear                UPL\EXO
 Spotted touch-me-not            FACW\NAT
 Toad rush                     FACW+NAT
 Soft rush                      FACW-f NAT
 Three-stamen rush              FACW\NAT
 Pointed rush                   FACW-I-NAT
 Spreading rush                  FACWVNAT
 Slender rush                   FAONAT
 Prickly lettuce                  FAC-EXO
 Common dead-nettle            UPIAEXO
 Nipplewort                     UPL\EXO
 Hairy peavine                  UPL\EXO
 Rice cutgrass                   OBLNNAT
 Lessor duckweed                OBLNNAT
 Hairy hawkbit                  UPL\EXO
 Northern mudwort              OBLNNAT
 False pimpernel                 OBLNNAT
 Yellow-seed false pimpernel       OBLNNAT
 Australian ryegrass              FACUNEXO
 Perennial ryegrass               FACUNEXO
 Birds-foot trefoil                FAOEXO
 Marsh seedbox                  OBLNNAT
 Large-leaved lupine              FACU-NAT
 Sweep's brush                  FACIANAT
 Hyssop loosestrife               OBLNEXO
Japanese mazus                 FACW\EXO
Muskflower                    FACW+NAT
Green carpet-weed  .            FAONAT
Yellow and  blue forget-me-not    FACW\EXO
Bay forget-me-not               OBL\NAT
Skunkweed                     UPUNAT
Indian plum                    FACIANAT
Water-parsley                   OBIANAT
Witchgrass                     FAONAT
???                           FACWNEXO
Reed canary grass               FACWNNAT
Timothy                       FACUVEXO
Scouler popcorn-flower           FACWNNAT
English plantain                 FACU-i-EXO
Common plantain               FAC+EXO
Annual bluegrass                FAC-NAT
Canada bluegrass                FACUNNAT
Fowl bluegrass                  FAOEXO
Rough bluegrass                 FACW-EXO
                                             120

-------
 127
 128
 129
 130
 131
 132
 133
 134
 135
 136
 137
 138
 139
 140
 141
 142
 143
 144
 145
 146
 147
 148
 149
 150
 151
 152
 153
 154
 155
 156
 157
 158
 159
 160
 161
 162
 163
 164
 165
 166
167
 168
 169
170
171
 172
173
174
175
176
177
 178
 Polygonum aviculare
 Polygonum hydropiperoides
 Polygonum lapathifolium*
 Polygonum persicaria*
 Polygonum punctatum
 Polygonum spergulariaeforme
 Populus trichocarpa
 Potamogeton amplifolius
 Potamogeton filifonnis
 Pynis malus
 Ranunculus lobbii
 Ranunculus repens
 Ranunculus soeleratus
 Rorippa curvisiliqua
 Rorippa islandica
 Rubus discolor
 Rubus ursinus
 Rumex conglomeratus
 Rumex crispus
 Rumex salicifolius
 Sagittaria latifolia*
 Salix fluviatilis
 Salix lasiandra
 Salix piperi
 Salix sitchensis*
 Salix sp.
 Scirpus acutus*
 Scirpus fluviatilis
 Scirpus microcarpus*
 Scirpus validus*
 Senecio jacobaea
 Senecio vulgaris
 Solanum dulcamara
 Solidago occidentalis
 Sonchus asper
 Sparganium emersion"
 Sparganium eurycarpum*
 Spergularia rabra
 Stachys cooleyae
 Stachys palustris
 Stellaria media
 Symphoricarpos albus
Tanacetum vulgare
Taraxacum ofBcinale
Tellima grandiflora
Tillaea aquatica
Trifolium arvense
Trifolium dubium
Trifolium bybridum
Trifolium pratense
Trifolium repens
Trifolium subterraneum
Prostrate knotweed
Swamp smartweed
Willow-weed
Lady's thumb
Dotted smartweed
Spurry knotweed
Black cottonwood
Large-leaf pondweed
Fine-leaf pondweed
Apple (cultivated)
Lobb's water buttercup
Creeping buttercup
Celery-leaf buttercup
Curve-pod yellowcress
Marsh yellowcress
Himalayan blackberry
Pacific blackberry
Clustered dock
Curly dock
Willow dock
Broad-leaf arrowhead
River willow
Pacific willow
Dune willow
Sitka willow
Willow
Hardstem bulrush
River bulrush
Small-fruit bulrush
Soft-stem bulrush
Tansy ragwort
Common groundsel
Climbing nightshade
Western goldenrod
Prickly sowthistle
Narrow-leaf burreed
Giant burreed
Purple sandspurry
Cooley's hedgenettle
Marsh hedgenettle
duckweed
Snowbeny
Common tansy
Common dandelion
Fnngecup
Pigmy-weed
Hare's foot
Suckling clover
Alsike clover
Red clover
White clover
Subterranean clover
FACW-EXO
OBLNNAT
FACW+EXO
FACWNEXO
OBLNNAT
ABSNNAT
FACWNNAT
OBLNNAT
OBLNNAT
UPLNEXO
OBLNNAT
FACWNEXO
OBLNNAT
FACW+NAT
OBLNNAT
FACU-EXO
FACWNNAT
FACWVEXO
FACWNEXO
FACWNNAT
OBLNNAT
OBLNNAT
FACW+NAT
FACWNNAT
FACWNNAT
???
OBLNNAT
OBLNNAT
OBLNNAT
OBLNNAT
UPLNEXO
FACUNEXO
FAQEXO
FACWNNAT
FAC-EXO
OBLNNAT
OBLNNAT
FAC-EXO
FACW\NAT
FACW+NAT
UPLNEXO
FACUNNAT
ABSNEXO
FACUNEXO
FACUNNAT
OBLNNAT
UPLNEXO
UPLNEXO
UPLNEXO
FACUNEXO
FACU+EXO
UPLNEXO
                                             121

-------
179
180
181
182
183
184
18S
186
187
188
189
Typha latifolia*
Unknown Herb 2
Unknown Seedling 1
Verbascum blattaria
Veronica americana
Veronica peregrina
Veronica serpyllifolia
Vicia americana
Vicia dispenna
Vicia sativa
Vicia tetrasperma
Broadleaf cattail
Moth mullein
American speedwell
Purslane speedwell
Thyme-leaf speedwell
American purple vetch
Vetch
Common vetch
Slender vetch
OBUNAT
UPUEXO
OBUNAT
OBUNAT
FAOEXO
FAONAT
ABS\EXO
UPUEXO
UPL\EXO
                                            122

-------