Drift Creek Restoration Monitoring

USFWS

Terra M. Hauser

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex 2127 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, Oregon 97365

September 2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In March 2019, over 1,000 native trees and shrubs were planted in the Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The planting site, known as the Drift Creek Gorton Road Unit, is located between a privately-owned pasture and Drift Creek, with a levee separating the pasture from the creek. The goal is to create a riparian buffer zone along this levee and improve wildlife habitat. Establishing this riparian zone is only one component of a larger project to enhance and restore fish and wildlife habitat in and along Drift Creek. Other tasks to achieve this purpose include widening the historic wetland channels, strategically placing large woody debris along the banks to create log jams, and removing the levee to restore floodplain connectivity and the natural flow of the creek. When the levee is removed, the buffer can trap woody debris during flooding and prevent damage to the neighboring private land. The trees and shrubs in the buffer zone, as well as any woody debris that may get trapped among them, will provide habitat for fish, wildlife, and invertebrates in the process. In addition, the vegetation in the buffer zone will play an important role in improving water quality in Drift Creek, including by providing shade to decrease the water temperature, stabilizing the banks to reduce erosion, and catching agricultural runoff, preventing it from contaminating the creek. The riparian buffer will be completed in five phases, of which the 2019 planting was the first. To prepare the site for this task, an animal exclusion fence was built to reduce the risk of browsing; most trees and shrubs were planted inside this fenced area. In August 2019, a monitoring team revisited the planting site to evaluate first year survival, health, and growth of each species. The results indicated the survival rate of trees and shrubs inside the fence was higher than that in a control row planted outside the fence, where plants had been grazed and trampled. The lowest survival rate inside the fenced area was vine maple (Acer circinatum) at 4.0%, followed by red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) at 42.1%. Two other species achieved 100% survival. On the other hand, outside the exclusion fence, the lowest survival rate was red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) at 25%, while three species, all of which had one individual planted, achieved 100% survival. Likely the most significant threat facing the plants inside the fenced area is competition, particularly from the invasive reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Many trees and shrubs died among dense patches of reed canarygrass, and even more were not found at all. In the future, both mechanical and chemical means of controlling invasive species prior to and after planting will be employed.

BACKGROUND

Estuaries are some of the most productive habitats in the world, hosting thousands of species of plants, animals, and insects (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association 2019). They are known as nurseries due to their importance to many species at various periods of their life cycle; namely, juvenile Pacific salmon that spend more time in estuaries tend to have higher survival rates than those that do not (Bonneville Power Administration and US Army Corps of Engineers 2013). However, the quality of the estuary can have a significant impact on the survival rate of salmon, and some studies even suggest that salmon that develop in more natural or restored estuaries have up to three times the survival rate of those that develop in estuaries in poor condition (ibid.). Since the 19th century, development has contributed to the tidal marsh ecosystem in Siletz Bay declining by nearly half (USFWS 2013). In particular, agriculture, logging, and urban expansion have negatively impacted native salmon runs through habitat degradation including widening channels to allow large logs to travel downstream and destroy spawning grounds, and increasing runoff and erosion by removing buffer vegetation (Sedell et al. 1991). Meanwhile, Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), an indicator species, had once experienced runs of up to 2 million along the Oregon Coast as recently as the early 1900s, but the numbers have since dropped to 57,000 in 2015 (National Marine Fisheries Service 2016). To combat the effects of habitat degradation, the Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge is beginning a restoration project that aims to restore and enhance historical salmon habitat (Spann 2018.). Ultimately, the goal of the restoration project is to remove the levees that are blocking historical salmon habitat, restore natural floodplains and tidal exchanges, and widen channels (ibid.). This project will take place on several parcels of refuge property, one of which is the Drift Creek Gorton Road Unit. The Gorton Road Unit is a parcel of the Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge located between Drift Creek and private farmland. A levee constructed between 1945 and 1952 separates the creek from the pasture used for cattle grazing. The first phase of the restoration project is to establish a riparian buffer between the private land and the creek. When the levee is eventually removed, the buffer will prevent erosion and block woody debris from entering and damaging private land (National Agroforestry Center 2012); this woody debris can also be beneficial to the creek and the buffer zone by providing shade and habitat for animals and insects (Hawkes and Smith 2005). Other benefits to creating a riparian buffer include higher water quality from vegetation soaking up harmful substances before they reach the creek, lower water temperatures from tree canopies providing shade, and bank stabilization from the roots (National Agroforestry Center 2012). The recent planting in March 2019 marks the first of five phases in creating a full riparian buffer. We hope to use lessons learned from monitoring this first section to improve subsequent sections of the buffer and ultimately contribute to a healthy ecosystem.

METHODS

On 27 and 28 March 2019, the Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex staff, interns, and volunteers planted over 1,000 native plants in a pasture in the Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge along Drift Creek (Figure 1). Several species were planted at the site, including: western redcedar (Thuja plicata), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), salmonberry (Rubus 1

spectabilis), cascara (Rhamnus purshiana), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Hooker’s willow (Salix hookeriana) and unknown willow cuttings (Salix spp.), twinberry honeysuckle (Lonicera involucrata), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), red alder (Alnus rubra), Oregon crabapple (Malus fusca), vine maple (Acer circinatum), and red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera). Salmonberry, Hooker’s willow, twinberry honeysuckle, red elderberry, red alder, Oregon crabapple, and vine maple were bare root plants. Western redcedar, Sitka spruce, and western hemlock were planted from containers. Red-osier dogwood and the unknown willow species were cuttings obtained by a volunteer. Several measures were taken to aid the plants in getting established. Despite the small size of the site (Figure 1), there are several vegetation profiles and different elevations that affect water levels. Therefore, each species was planted strategically based on flood and drought tolerance. Another challenge of this site is that it is located within a cow pasture where elk are also known to graze, so to protect plants from damage from browsing, an animal exclusion fence was built. The majority of trees and shrubs were planted within this fence, but to test whether an exclusion fence is necessary for future phases of the project, a control row was planted along the outside of the fence (Figure 1, Figure 2). There are also several species of both native and invasive grasses, rushes, and other low-elevation plants that grow very tall and fast, so new plants would face significant competition. Rather than planting each tree or shrub randomly, we planted in rows so that refuge maintenance staff could mow the site to remove competitor species. To control the competition and give new plants a chance to grow, refuge maintenance staff used herbicide to kill existing competitor species along these rows. They also periodically visited the site to mow between the rows. In addition, staff, interns, and volunteers visited the site to identify and control invasive species. After the planting was completed, a map was created to show where each individual plant was located to assist in the monitoring effort. The map divided the area inside the exclusion fence into ten grids in equal distance from each other (Figure 2). In August 2019, a monitoring team visited the site to evaluate the plant growth and health. Using the maps, they were able to find the majority of the plants within the rows. They classified each plant as alive, alive but stressed, or dead (Table 1, Appendix 2). Plants were marked as alive when they showed obvious signs of life such as new growth, or when the stems were still pliable rather than stiff and brittle (Cook-Patton et al. 2014). The height of each plant was also measured and recorded in the reference sheet in Appendix 1 to establish a baseline to track growth in the future. Finally, photos were taken of each grid from the northwest corner of the grid facing the southeast corner (Appendix 3-12). To analyze the data, the survival rate of each species was calculated with the following equation.

= × 100

𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 The survival rate equation assumes𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛that𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 the𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 plants𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 the𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝 monitoring𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 team could not locate had died. However, without observing a plant, the monitoring team could not determine if it was alive or dead. Since there were several plants that were simply not found through dense vegetation, the actual survival rate could be higher. For reference, the percentage of plants in each species that were not found is also recorded.

Figure 1. Map of Drift Creek restoration planting area. The blue line represents the control row, while the red lines represent the borders of the exclusion fence.

Figure 2. Map of the control row (left) and grids inside the animal exclusion fence. Grids 1 through 5 each have four rows that are 100 feet long. Grids 6 through 10 each have five rows that are 100 feet long. There is a 10-foot space between each row. The control row is 500 feet long and runs parallel to the fence.

RESULTS

Survival rate and the quality of each plant varied greatly by species and by location (Table 1, Appendix 2).

Hooker’s willow and unknown willow cuttings Both Hooker’s willow and the unknown willow cuttings were generally in good health. 160 of 218 plants survived overall; those that were found dead were all outside the exclusion fence and were the result of browsing and trampling from cows and elk. 8 were not found through the thick vegetation. 5 were alive but stressed (Table 1, Appendix 2).

Twinberry honeysuckle Twinberry honeysuckle had an overall 66.9% survival rate but, inside the exclusion fence, the survival rate was 77.9%. Only 2 were stressed, but 20 out of 130 plants were not found in the thick vegetation (Table 1, Appendix 2).

Salmonberry Salmonberry had an overall 73.3% survival rate, but inside the exclusion fence, the survival rate was 82.3%. 22 plants were not found through thick vegetation, and 35 plants inside the exclusion fence were stressed (Table 1, Appendix 2). Most plants that were stressed had leaves, but the leaves were brown and disintegrating along the edges. The shade of green was variable between individual plants as well. The cause of the browning along the edges of the leaves is not clear, but some possibilities include too little water or nutrient deficiency.

Red-osier dogwood Red-osier dogwood had an overall survival rate of 65.9%, but inside the exclusion fence, the survival rate was 74.7%. However, 17 out of 96 total plants were not found, and, unlike willow cuttings, very few showed obvious signs of establishment (Table 1, Appendix 2). While most other planted species grew leaves, flowers, and fruit, only one dogwood had leaves.

Western redcedar Western redcedar had an overall survival rate of 100%. While this is encouraging, all plants were stressed (Table 1). The tree outside of the exclusion fence was missing all needles from browsing, and all trees inside the exclusion fence had some degree of browning on the needles. However, all cedar trees had some brown needles before they were planted and many needed to be supported by stakes.

Sitka spruce Like western redcedar, Sitka spruce also had an overall survival rate of 100% but all needles on the tree planted outside the exclusion fence were missing (Table 1). However, unlike the cedar trees, all spruce trees inside the exclusion fence appeared to be in good health, and some even had evidence of new growth. There were no brown needles or other signs of disease or dehydration.

Table 1: Summary of survival rate and condition of each species in the planting site. The survival rates are calculated as the number of plants in each species found alive divided by the total number of that species that was planted. Percent stressed is calculated using the number of plants that were stressed divided by those that were found alive. Percent not found is also calculated. Species Survival In Survival In Percent Percent Not Average Control Row Fenced Area Stressed Found Height (cm) Willow species 39.0% 94.1% 2.4% 3.8% 79.93 Twinberry honeysuckle 37.1% 77.9% 1.5% 15.4% 49.66 Salmonberry 30.8% 82.3% 23.3% 14.7% 45.85 Red-osier dogwood 25% 74.7% 3.3% 18.4% 58.10 Western redcedar 100% 100% 100% 0% 151.96 Sitka spruce 100% 100% 2.0% 0% 134.51 Cascara 100% 69.7% 17.1% 15.6% 63.24 Western hemlock N/A 71.0% 2.9% 25.8% 38.44 Red elderberry N/A 42.1% 16.7% 57.9% 63.25 Red alder N/A 80.3% 14.3% 19.7% 74.78 Vine maple N/A 4.0% 100% 96% 29.00 Oregon crabapple N/A 85.5% 1.9% 12.9% 60.11

Western hemlock All western hemlock were planted inside the exclusion fence, where 71.0% of trees found had survived. Only 2 were stressed with brown and missing needles. However, over 25% were not found (Table 1, Appendix 2). When these trees were planted, they were only about 12 centimeters tall with drooping branches. Both of these factors possibly contributed to the low detection rate.

Red elderberry Red elderberry had a 42.1% survival rate, with 4 plants showing signs of stress. However, 33 of the total 57 planted were not found due to tall, thick vegetation (Table 1, Appendix 2). The stressed plants were also typically located in areas with thick vegetation.

Red alder Red alder had an 80.3% survival rate, but 12 of 61 plants, nearly 20%, were not found. 7 plants were stressed, particularly in areas with longer grass (Table 1, Appendix 2). Many stressed plants had leaves, but the leaves had died or had fallen. Similar to other species, the missing alder was typically in areas with tall, thick vegetation.

Cascara Cascara had a 70.0% survival rate overall. Only one was planted outside the exclusion fence, and had lived. 13 plants were stressed. This species seemed to flourish in areas with grasses that were approximately 40 centimeters tall, but were stressed in areas with shorter vegetation, particularly silverweed. The plants that died were located in areas with tall, thick patches of reed canarygrass. Like the red alder, stressed cascara had leaves that had died or dried up. 14 plants were not found, and these were also in areas with tall, thick vegetation (Table 1, Appendix 2).

Vine maple Vine maple had a 4.0% survival rate; however, as one of the shortest plants, only 2 of 50 were found. Both plants that were found were alive but stressed (Table 1, Appendix 2).

Oregon crabapple Oregon crabapple had an 85.5% survival rate, and of 53 live plants, only 1 was stressed. 8 were not found (Table 1, Appendix 2). Crabapple seemed to be healthier in drier areas with fewer rushes.

RECOMMENDATIONS While few plants the monitoring team located inside the exclusion fence had been observed as dead, many were not found due to the height of competitor species such as grasses, rushes, and silverweed. Therefore, the total survival rate is not known, and the plants that were not found may not be getting enough sunlight. Other plants had died among the taller vegetation, possibly due to this competition. To combat the competition, there are several options to explore for future phases of this project. A chemical solution to prepare the site for planting would include mowing and applying a post-emergence herbicide to kill competitor species, followed by a seed germination inhibitor, or pre-emergence herbicide. Rather than simply killing the grasses and rushes, pre-emergence herbicide prevents further competition from germinating and gives the native species a chance to get established before the competitor species return (David Thompson, personal communication). This method is known to last longer than other herbicides and can even reduce the number of times applications of post-emergence herbicide is necessary (Jhala and Sandell 2013). However, staff would need to be careful to choose an herbicide that is targeted at grasses and have little risk of harming broadleaf or woody plants (Wisconsin Reed Canary Grass Management Working Group 2009). In addition to herbicide, another option to control grasses before planting is to cover the entire site with mulch or fabric. While this option is effective, it requires the material to remain in place for at least one year (Wisconsin Reed Canary Grass Management Working Group 2009). If this option is not feasible, wider planting strips can be created instead. Weed-free planting strips that are between 4 and 6 feet wide allow trees to grow faster and reduce damage from mowing (Gover et al. 2007). The key to success in the planting strips, however, is to keep them weed-free. The final option to consider that may reduce plant death from competition is to use taller plants. Even among reed canarygrass, shrubs and trees were alive with new growth if they were taller than the grass, while those that had died and those that were not found were typically buried by the dense patches of reed canarygrass. If the trees and shrubs are able to create a canopy over reed canarygrass, they can even reduce ground cover of this invasive species, but a full canopy works best with tightly planted trees rather than shrubs (King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 2015). However, planting taller seedlings may not be necessary if the competition is effectively controlled using other methods. In addition to controlling competition, it may be appropriate to water the plants. Many were stressed due to dried and dead leaves; many salmonberry bushes had browning on the leaf margins, and several alder and cascara leaves had died. While there can be a myriad of possible causes including disease, lack of moisture commonly leads to this type of stress (Moorman 2011). Watering the plants about every 2 weeks during the growing season until they are fully

established can effectively prevent drought stress in young plants (Withrow-Robinson et al. 2011). On the other hand, the logistics of watering at the Gorton Road Unit may be complicated since there is no irrigation system in place. Watering would likely need to be done by hand and there is a risk of overwatering due to human error. The final suggestion to promote survival in the planting site applies to plant cuttings only. While there were few dogwood cuttings that had died, many did not show signs of establishment that were seen in the willow cuttings. Dogwood cuttings are recommended to be harvested between late fall and late winter (Grotta et al. 2014); however, they were harvested shortly before planting in early spring. To promote establishment in plant cuttings, using “willow water” or “willow tea” has shown to be successful (Luna 2009). “Willow water” is a solution made of live willow and boiling water to extract the hormones that allow the cuttings to root successfully; when cooled, cuttings from other species can be soaked in the solution overnight and absorb these hormones (Luna 2009). Dogwood usually does not require the hormone solution (King County 2016), but it may help when planted late. To increase the detection rate for monitoring after future phases of this project, individual plants may need to be marked with surveying flags. Taller seedlings can also be planted. However, both of these options would only be necessary if the competitor species are not controlled. Otherwise, a simple map like the one used during the monitoring in August would be suitable to ensure all plants are counted. An improved detection rate would allow us to draw more accurate conclusions about survival and the state of each species in the planting site. Overall, the first phase of the Drift Creek restoration project has been successful. However, it is still early in plant establishment, and in future phases, improvements can be made to promote plant survival and combat competition from invasive species.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank all volunteers who participated in the planting process; because of them, we were able to plant over 1,000 trees and shrubs in less than two days. In addition, we thank David Thompson and Pete Owston, who helped with the monitoring and provided advice in improvements for future phases of the Drift Creek restoration project.

REFERENCES

Bonneville Power Administration, US Army Corps of Engineers. 2013. Benefits of Habitat Improvements in the Lower Columbia River and Estuary: Results of Research, Monitoring and Evaluation. Portland, OR: Columbia Basin Federal Caucus. Report.

Cook-Patton SC, LaForgia M, Parker JD. 2014. Positive interactions between herbivores and plant diversity shape forest regeneration. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281(1783). doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0261

Gover A, Johnson J, Sellmer J. 2007. Weed Management in Riparian Forest Buffers [PDF file]. Available: https://plantscience.psu.edu/research/projects/vegetative- management/publications/crep-weed-management-factsheets/weed-management-in- riparian-forest-buffers (September 2019).

Grotta A, Wilson P, Farris L. 2014. Propagating native shrubs from seed or cuttings. Available: http://blogs.oregonstate.edu/treetopics/2014/08/26/propagating-native-shrubs-seed- cuttings/ (September 2019).

Hawkes E, Smith M. 2005. Riparian Buffer Zones: Functions and Recommended Widths. Report of Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies to the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee, Haddam, Connecticut.

Jhala A, Sandell L. 2013. Recommendations for Pre-plant and Pre-emergence Weed Control. Available: https://cropwatch.unl.edu/recommendations-pre-plant-and-pre-emergence- weed-control (September 2019).

King County. 2016. Live stakes for restoration plantings for native plant restoration. Available: https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/stewardship/nw-yard-and-garden/live- stake-plantings.aspx (September 2019).

King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. 2015. Reed Canarygrass. Available: https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-and-land/weeds/BMPs/Reed-Canarygrass- Control.pdf (September 2019).

Luna T. 2009. 9: Vegetative propagation. Pages 153-175 in: Dumroese RK, Luna T, Landis TD editors. Nursery manual for native plants: A guide for tribal nurseries - Volume 1: Nursery management. Agriculture Handbook 730. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook 730.

Moorman GW. 2011. Diagnosing Poor Plant Health. Available: https://extension.psu.edu/diagnosing-poor-plant-health (September 2019).

National Agroforestry Center. 2012. What is a riparian forest buffer?. Lincoln, NE: US Department of Agriculture National Agroforestry Center. Infosheet.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Recovery Plan Summary. Portland, OR: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Report summary. Available: https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/recovery_planning/salmon_steelhe ad/domains/oregon_coast/oc_coho_plan_exec_summary_12_16.pdf (September 2019).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. 2019. What is an esturary? Silver Spring, MD: National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Webpage. Available: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/estuary.html (September 2019).

Sedell JR, Leone FN, Duval WS. 1991. Water Transportation and Storage of Logs. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats 19:325-368.

Spann G. 2018. Drift Creek Site Assessment and Restoration Alternatives Report. Newport, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished report.

USFWS. 2013. Comprehensive conservation plan. Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Lincoln County, Oregon. Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Newport, OR.

Wisconsin Reed Canary Grass Management Working Group. 2009. Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) Management Guide: Recommendations for Landowners and Restoration Professionals. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. PUB-FR-428 2009.

Withrow-Robinson B, Bennett M, Ahrens G. 2011. A guide to Riparian Tree and Shrub Planting in the Willamette Valley: Steps to Success. Available: https://www.newbergoregon.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/operations/page/4520/ riparian20tree20and20shrub20planting20osu20guide.pdf

Appendix 1. Data sheet used to record measurements of each plant. If a plant was dead, an “X” was placed in the “Ht (cm)” column. If a plant was not found, a “?” was placed in the “Ht (cm)” column. If a plant was stressed, an “S” was written next to the plant name.

Appendix 1 (cont.).

Appendix 2. Status of plants of each species based on location. Grid Species Number Number Number Number Number Survival Planted Survived Stressed Dead Not Rate Found Outside Hooker 82 32 1 50 0 39.0243902 Line Willow Outside Twinberry 35 13 2 22 0 37.1428571 Line Honeysuckle Outside Salmonberry 26 8 2 18 0 30.7692308 Line Outside Red-osier 16 4 0 12 0 25 Line Dogwood Outside Cascara 1 1 0 0 0 100 Line Buckthorn Outside Western 1 1 1 0 0 100 Line Redcedar Outside Sitka Spruce 1 1 1 0 0 100 Line 1 Western 18 14 0 2 2 77.77777778 Hemlock 1 Salmonberry 23 22 9 0 1 95.65217391 1 Sitka Spruce 7 7 0 0 0 100 1 Western 8 8 8 0 0 100 Redcedar 1 Red 14 10 0 0 4 71.42857143 Elderberry 1 Twinberry 1 0 0 0 1 0 Honeysuckle 1 Red Alder 12 10 0 0 2 83.33333333 2 Sitka Spruce 8 8 0 0 0 100 2 Salmonberry 25 21 1 0 4 84 2 Western 14 13 0 0 1 92.85714286 Hemlock 2 Western 9 9 9 0 0 100 Redcedar 2 Red 7 5 2 0 2 71.42857143 Elderberry 2 Red Alder 7 6 0 0 1 85.71428571 2 Cascara 6 6 0 0 0 100 Buckthorn 2 Vine Maple 1 1 1 0 0 100 2 Oregon 1 1 0 0 0 100 Crabapple

Appendix 2. (cont.). Grid Species Number Number Number Number Number Survival Planted Survived Stressed Dead Not Rate Found 3 Sitka Spruce 8 8 0 0 0 100 3 Salmonberry 11 8 2 0 3 72.72727273 3 Western 19 15 0 0 4 78.94736842 Hemlock 3 Western 5 5 5 0 0 100 Redcedar 3 Red Alder 7 6 4 0 1 85.71428571 3 Vine Maple 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 Twinberry 18 14 0 0 4 77.77777778 Honeysuckle 3 Cascara 3 2 0 0 1 66.66666667 Buckthorn 3 Oregon 9 8 0 0 1 88.88888889 Crabapple 3 Red-osier 1 1 0 0 0 100 Dogwood 3 Red 5 1 1 0 4 20 Elderberry 4 Salmonberry 24 20 16 0 4 83.33333333 4 Sitka Spruce 8 8 0 0 0 100 4 Western 17 12 0 0 5 70.58823529 Hemlock 4 Western 8 8 8 0 0 100 Redcedar 4 Twinberry 6 4 0 0 2 66.66666667 Honeysuckle 4 Red 10 2 1 0 8 20 Elderberry 4 Red-osier 15 6 1 0 9 40 Dogwood 4 Red Alder 13 8 2 0 5 61.53846154

Appendix 2 (cont.). Grid Species Number Number Number Number Number Survival Planted Survived Stressed Dead Not Rate Found 5 Salmonberry 22 15 7 0 7 68.18181818 5 Sitka Spruce 7 7 0 0 0 100 5 Western 13 2 0 0 11 15.38461538 Hemlock 5 Western 9 9 9 0 0 100 Redcedar 5 Twinberry 4 2 0 0 2 50 Honeysuckle 5 Red-osier 1 0 0 0 1 0 Dogwood 5 Red Alder 10 7 0 0 3 70 5 Red 12 0 0 0 12 0 Elderberry 6 Sitka Spruce 10 10 0 0 0 100 6 Salmonberry 16 16 0 0 0 100 6 Western 10 10 10 0 0 100 Redcedar 6 Red 9 6 0 0 3 66.66666667 Elderberry 6 Red Alder 11 11 1 0 0 100 6 Cascara 7 7 1 0 0 100 Buckthorn 6 Oregon 6 6 0 0 0 100 Crabapple 6 Vine Maple 5 0 0 0 5 0 6 Red-osier 4 3 0 0 1 75 Dogwood 6 Western 12 10 2 1 1 83.33333333 Hemlock 7 Oregon 10 9 0 0 1 90 Crabapple 7 Cascara 15 14 1 0 1 93.33333333 Buckthorn 7 Twinberry 16 14 0 0 2 87.5 Honeysuckle 7 Hooker 41 39 0 0 2 95.12195122 Willow 7 Red-osier 19 16 0 0 3 84.21052632 Dogwood 7 Red Alder 1 1 0 0 0 100 7 Vine Maple 6 0 0 0 6 0

Appendix 2 (cont.). Grid Species Number Number Number Number Number Survival Planted Survived Stressed Dead Not Rate Found 8 Vine Maple 17 1 1 0 16 5.882352941 8 Cascara 29 24 8 2 3 82.75862069 Buckthorn 8 Oregon 19 18 0 0 1 94.73684211 Crabapple 8 Hooker 16 16 1 0 0 100 Willow 8 Twinberry 9 8 0 0 1 88.88888889 Honeysuckle 8 Red-osier 20 16 1 2 2 80 Dogwood 9 Vine Maple 9 0 0 0 9 0 9 Hooker 48 46 3 0 2 95.83333333 Willow 9 Twinberry 22 19 0 0 3 86.36363636 Honeysuckle 9 Red-osier 8 7 0 0 1 87.5 Dogwood 9 Salmonberry 2 0 0 0 2 0 9 Cascara 14 4 2 4 6 28.57142857 Buckthorn 9 Oregon 6 4 1 1 1 66.66666667 Crabapple 10 Oregon 11 7 0 0 4 63.63636364 Crabapple 10 Cascara 15 5 1 7 3 33.33333333 Buckthorn 10 Vine Maple 10 0 0 0 10 0 10 Hooker 31 27 0 0 4 87.09677419 Willow 10 Twinberry 19 13 0 1 5 68.42105263 Honeysuckle 10 Red-osier 7 7 0 0 0 100 Dogwood 10 Salmonberry 1 0 0 0 1 0

Figure 3: Grid 1 viewed from northwest corner of grid, photograph taken 20 August 2019

Figure 4: Grid 2 viewed from northwest corner of grid, photograph taken 20 August 2019

Figure 5: Grid 3 viewed from northwest corner of grid, photograph taken 20 August 2019

Figure 6: Grid 4 viewed from northwest corner of grid, photograph taken 20 August 2019

Figure 7: Grid 5 viewed from northwest corner of grid, photograph taken 20 August 2019

Figure 8: Grid 6 viewed from northwest corner of grid, photograph taken 20 August 2019

Figure 9: Grid 7 viewed from northwest corner of grid, photograph taken 20 August 2019

Figure 10: Grid 8 viewed from northwest corner of grid, photograph taken 20 August 2019

Figure 11: Grid 9 viewed from northwest corner of grid, photograph taken 20 August 2019

Figure 12: Grid 10 viewed from northwest corner of grid, photograph taken 20 August 2019