2010 Gsp Forest Monitoring Team

Home , Frink Park, Kubota Garden, Schmitz Park (Seattle)

2011 GSP FOREST MONITORING TEAM END-OF-SEASON REPORT

Malia Caracoglia GSP Forest Monitoring Team Program Coordinator November 2011

Contents 2011 GSP Forest Monitoring Program Summary of Accomplishments and Recommendations ...... 2 Recruitment ...... 4 Training ...... 4 Public Relations ...... 6 Communications ...... 6 Field Work ...... 7 Equipment ...... 9 Volunteer Management ...... 9 Data Management ...... 9 Monitoring Protocol ...... 10 Contractor Training ...... 11 Recommendations ...... 12 Appendix A ...... 19 Appendix B ...... 20 Appendix C ...... 23 Appendix D ...... 24 Appendix E ...... 26 Appendix F ...... 30 Appendix G ...... 35 Appendix H ...... 36 Appendix I ...... 37 Appendix J ...... 42 Appendix K ...... 43 Appendix L ...... 45 Appendix M...... 46 Appendix N ...... 48 Appendix O ...... 53 Appendix P...... 54 Appendix Q ...... 57

2011 GSP Forest Monitoring Program Summary of Accomplishments and Recommendations

Accomplishments:

 Ten introductory trainings educated 133 individuals in the protocols of forest monitoring  41 volunteers installed an average of four plots each  Plots completed by volunteers:62 new plots installed and 26 (out of 32)plots monitored from 2010 in 34 different Seattle Parks (note: six 2010 plots were not monitored in 2011 because no change occurred)  Plots completed by contractors: 16 new plots installed in 14 different parks  Total new plots for 2011:79  Total GSP forest monitoring plots:110;Total parks with plots: 40  Approximately 952 volunteers hours were dedicated to training and installing monitoring plots  Online database was a successful means of data entry for volunteers and program coordinator.  Trained additional groups and contractors to perform monitoring such as the Nature Consortium, SCA, Seattle Conservation Corps, Washington Conservation Corps, Forterra , Green Cities Staff from Tacoma and Kent and Seattle Parks Staff.

Recommendations:

 Recruit and promote the program earlier, utilizing the Marketing Plan developed in 2012 and the knowledge of EarthCorps staff.  Design a more comprehensive website with access to documents, ability to sign up for trainings, and a more comprehensive explanation of the program and its accomplishments.  Include in budget for 2012: additional complete set of equipment, develop an incentive program for volunteers with GSP FMT branding, additional educational opportunities in the form of speakers or plant walks, time for program coordinator and EarthCorps staff to publicize program.  Three or four introductory trainings recommended in 2012 with the intent of recruiting 40+ volunteers.  Provide trainings to returning volunteers to refresh their skills and re-engage in the program.  Space trainings throughout the monitoring season (i.e. May, July, September), this can help ensure a “fresh” pool of volunteers to ensure active involvement in plot installations throughout the monitoring season (May-October).  Purchase at least one more set of equipment to meet the growing needs of the program.  Create a list of parks and plot locations to be monitored early in the season, ideally before trainings begin (March/April).  The monitoring protocol should be in a more user-friendly format: booklet, color-coded or tabbed sections.  Meet with SPR at beginning of season to help determine training needs, plot locations

and reporting requests.  It is advised that the program coordinator be present for initial plot instillation of the season for contractors as they may not be up-to-date on the protocol.  More coordination with contractors and the natural areas and trails crews would be desirable to help install plots in areas that are appropriate for volunteers. If the contractor or natural areas crew notified the GSP Forest Monitoring Team coordinator of their schedule and work locations, the program can arrange for volunteers to sample the area before work begins. This would be particularly desirable for the natural areas and trails crews and other park staff who do restoration work throughout Seattle but are not currently coordinating with the program.

2011 Forest Monitoring Team Program Recruitment

A flyer was developed that briefly described the program, its goals, training dates and contact information (Appendix A ). The flyer was emailed to contacts and then forwarded on or posted in a public location. This was used to recruit to the following groups/people (See complete recruitment list in Appendix B):

 Green Seattle Partnership current and past Forest Stewards  Washington Native Plant Society members and stewards  Community Centers in South Seattle  Nature Consortium  Mountaineers Club  Center for Urban Horticulture  UWREN  Seattle Audubon Society  Edmonds Community College, Restoration Horticulture Program  South Seattle Community College, Horticulture Program  North Seattle Community College  Friends of Seward Park

The information from the flyer was also posted on the EarthCorps website, in the EarthCorps newsletter, and on EarthCorps’ Facebook and Twitter accounts. This reached many of our alumni, supporters and volunteers.

Additionally, information about the program was posted on websites that provide volunteer opportunities such as:  Scienceforcitizens.net  Volunteermatch.org  Volunteersolutions.org (United Way of King County)  Idealist.org  Flashvolunteer.org  “citizen science central” birds.cornell.edu/citscitoolkit  UW College of Forest Resources Job List

A display board was created to promote the program at GSP volunteer events. This display board highlighted the program using pictures, quotes and short descriptive sentences. In addition, a bookmark was developed as an easy take home tool that provided contact information (Appendix C). Along with a sign-up sheet to obtain more information, this tabling method was a way to promote the program and recruit new volunteers.

Training

Several different formats and styles of trainings were offered in 2011 depending on the audience and the level of previous training (Appendix D).

Introductory trainings for the 2011 monitoring season included at total of ten sessions: two directly aimed at recruiting volunteers (15 total participants); two open to volunteers, contractors and green cities (38 total participants); one for new Washington Native Plant Stewards (26 participants); two for the Student Conservation Corps (28 participants) and one for Seattle Parks and Recreation staff (16 participants). From these trainings, the Forest Monitoring Team (FMT) obtained 24 volunteers.

There were additional, less formal introductory trainings throughout the season for contractors and volunteers who were unable to attend the scheduled trainings. In-the-field trainings were done with employees from Nature Consortium, Washington Conservation Corps and the Seattle Conservation Corps, for a total of 17 individuals. Eight individual volunteers were also trained in-the-field throughout the season.

The 2011 Forest Monitoring Team welcomed back nine returning volunteers from the 2010 monitoring season. This was a 60% return rate. Two refresher trainings were provided to volunteers to update them on protocol changes and procedures.

In preparation for the trainings, participants were sent the monitoring methods when they registered and were encouraged to read the document beforehand so that they would have a better understanding of the methods and equipment used. The format for the introductory trainings consisted of a one hour presentation in a class setting approximately two hours in the field at a sample plot. The one hour presentation addressed the following topics: introduction to the GSP Forest Monitoring Program, why it is important to collect baseline data and monitor restoration sites and an overview of the data collection methods. In the field we went through the Plot Information and Site Characteristics Data Sheets as a group. Then we found it useful to divide into smaller groups to receive more in depth instruction on: clinometers, compasses, percent vegetation cover, and tree density (DBH, overstory vs. regenerating, CWD/SNAGS).

Small group practicums were offered and conducted after the initial training for volunteers interested in the program and wanting more in depth training. The groups were between two to five volunteers and provided an opportunity to review the protocol in detail, answer individual questions and walk through the process of establishing and monitoring a full plot from start to finish. It was also a great time for volunteers to meet one another on a more personal level and forge future partnerships for installing monitoring plots. These additional trainings were not required but recommended before pursuing more plots. It is recommended that if a volunteer is unable to attend a small group practicum that they are paired up with another volunteer with experience.

Overall, it is ideal for an individual volunteer to go through the large group training, small group training at an actual plot location and also be supervised once in the field by the program coordinator. In addition, it is recommended that volunteers are partnered in groups of two, with at least one volunteer being proficient in plant ID, to install plots after training is complete. It is recognized, however, that this scenario will not be accomplished with each volunteer and exceptions will be made to accommodate schedules.

Public Relations

In June 2011 a public relations marketing plan was developed with assistance by: Pipo Bui, EarthCorps Development Director; Sharon London, Education Director; Allie May, Development and Communication Coordinator. The plan defines goals, benchmarks, audience, benefit exchange, strategies and tactics. (Appendix E ).

These are the specific public relations goals that were accomplished during the 2011 season.

Channel Audience Message Goal You Tube/GSP Current volunteers, How to collect How-to-video website? new volunteers, baseline data municipalities Facebook 1,5000+ EarthCorps Promote To gain awareness fans, alumni, green volunteer and volunteers bloggers training opportunity Twitter 700+ EarthCorps Promote To gain awareness followers, includes volunteer and volunteers local agencies, training nonprofits, green opportunity bloggers

Communications

Volunteers Communication with the volunteers was primarily conducted through email. This form of communication was successful as all of the volunteers readily accessed their email. Communications consisted of scheduling plots, arranging for equipment transfer, providing updates/reminders regarding the data collection methods, providing identification of unknown plant species and asking questions regarding data collected. Phone communication was used to a lesser extent when needed to make time-sensitive arrangements.

Park Managers/Forest Stewards In order to determine locations for plots to be established, communicating with individuals working in the parks was important. Initial requests were done via email by the FMT program coordinator as well as from Joanna Nelson de Flores, Forterra, and Rory Denovan, Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR). Additional communications were accomplished in person during site visits.

Parks Frequent email updates and question/answer emails were communicated to Rory Denovan with SPR. A weekly update was emailed regarding plots completed, plots scheduled and volunteer hours (Appendix F). This report allowed SPR to be aware of the status of the program.

EarthCorps Science/EarthCorps staff It was very beneficial to work in an office with many resources such as the volunteer program which offered insight on where to establish monitoring plots; the development staff who greatly assisted in public relations and recruitment; the EC Science staff who supervised the program and assisted with information on site location, maps, plant identification, data management and protocol questions; and the field director providing support in all areas.

Field Work

The first monitoring plot was established in May, with the majority of the plots completed June- October 2011. In total, 79 plots were established during the 2011 field season, in 34 Seattle Parks, bringing the overall total to 110 plots in 40 Seattle Parks (Appendix G ). All new plots were monitored using Tier 2, baseline data collection protocols (Appendix H). The majority of the monitoring plots were established in areas not yet in restoration, but were scheduled to experience some level of change within the year (i.e. invasive removal, planting, etc.). However, in some situations where it was deemed useful, plots were established in sites that already had some level of restoration, but have additional restoration work scheduled within the span of a year (i.e. planting, maintenance, etc.). In 2011, 81% of the plots (26 out of 32) that were initially installed in 2010 were monitored using Tier 1 protocols (Appendix I ). Six plots were not monitored due to lack of restoration occurring at the site, therefore no significant change is expected to occur.

Monitoring using Tier 1 takes less time, and when possible, volunteers who installed the plots in 2010 were asked to monitor those plots this year. This not only provided the volunteer an opportunity to see the change that has occurred at the restoration site, but also provided more comparable data collection between years and a higher likelihood that the center point would be relocated.

In 2011, we had 39 new volunteers sign up to be part of the GSP Forest Monitoring Team. Of those, 30 participated in establishing at least one monitoring plot (Appendix J ). There were 952 volunteer hours spent for training and establishing plots. The average number of plots per volunteer was 4 with the low being one and the high being 16.

Most plots were completed with at least two people and as many as five people. It is ideal to have two to three people per plot, with exceptions made for difficult plots where more may be beneficial. On average a plot was completed within a two to three hour time frame, or one hour if it was Tier 1, but could vary considerably with plot composition and volunteer skill level. The program coordinator was present at a plot when needed, but when deemed acceptable, volunteers with sufficient skill and confidence worked together to establish plots.

In some situations, plots were established with the help of local forest stewards or other land managers who were contacted to find appropriate plot locations in certain parks. Usually, these volunteers had not gone through the GSP Forest Monitoring training and were only interested in collecting data in their park. In those situations, the program coordinator conducted an abbreviated training with these individuals while establishing a plot at their work site.

The parks and site locations used during the 2011 monitoring season were determined with the help from many sources. SPR provided a list of parks in which to establish plots, but more research was needed to determine exact locations where restoration work was planned in the near future. This involved speaking with Forest Stewards, SPR gardeners, the EarthCorps Volunteer department and EarthCorps Science. Site visits were often needed to determine exact locations for plots, which often required meeting with local park contacts. It is important to visit sites prior to bringing volunteers to the area as often there are obstacles which prevent plot placement such as: steep, slippery slopes; homeless encampments; inaccessibility due to thick vegetation; private boundary issues; or areas that have already been placed in restoration.

The volunteers themselves were another source of plot location information. Some of the volunteers were already involved or interested in particular parks. This was a great opportunity for the volunteers to have a direct connection with the collection of relevant data and to apply the results from their efforts.

Also, this season we used plot locations from existing Vegetation Management Plans (VMPs) to help determine new plot locations in several parks. This tactic was used at seven parks: Camp Long, Cheasty Greenspace: Cheasty Blvd., Cowen Park, Discovery Park, Fauntleroy Park, Seward Park, and Woodland Park and (see table below). New plots were installed at or near existing VMP plot locations in order to utilize additional reference data that can be compared with existing conditions.

Table: FMT plots and corresponding VMP plot number Park Name FMT Plot Name VMP Plot Number Camp Long Zone 18 S Forest-1 15 Camp Long Zone 12_13_14 E Forest 4 Camp Long Zone 6 Central Forest 11 Cheasty GS: Cheasty Blvd EC6 9 Cheasty GS: Cheasty Blvd Chebvd_06 20 Cheasty GS: Cheasty Blvd Cheasty yard 36 Cowen Park Cowen North Slope 2 Cowen Park Cowen Playground Forest 3 Discovery Park Tom Palm Site 98 Discovery Park Illinois Ave. Corner 39 Discovery Park 03c-01-2 44 Fauntleroy Park SE Ravine East- zone 10 10 Fauntleroy Park SE Ravine West- zone 12 12 Seward Park GO 16 Seward Park FES2 20 Seward Park FES3 22 Seward Park FES4 8 Seward Park MF5-N 28 Woodland Park South Mixed Forest 7

Equipment

One complete set of equipment was purchased with funding for this program in 2010 (Appendix K). In 2011 we purchased a second full set of equipment. The equipment was stored in a backpack for ease of transport to the field. An inventory was done of equipment prior to and after a monitoring plot was installed. In some cases the program coordinator was not present during plot installation. In these instances, the equipment backpack was checked out to the volunteers and an arrangement was made for the return of the equipment. A form was developed to “sign-out” the backpack of equipment for liability reasons (Appendix L ).

Additionally a set of equipment was purchased for SPR, so another set was available to park staff and contractors.

On occasions when more equipment was necessary, such as multiple plots installed on the same day or trainings of large groups, additional equipment was borrowed from EarthCorps Science and WNPS.

Volunteer Management

Volunteers were asked to sign-in at each training and every monitoring plot they were present at. A revised version of the “GSP Group Volunteer Sign-In Sheet” was used (Appendix L). This was useful for keeping track of volunteer hours, which were included in the weekly update reports sent to those involved with the project. These sign-in sheets also provide a release of liability statement.

Work logs were also completed for each plot that was established and entered into CEDAR.

In 2010, a “Standard Operating Procedure” was developed in regard to interacting with the public (Appendix M ). This was used again in 2011 and distributed in the trainings.

An evaluation of the monitoring program was sent out to all active volunteers in the program. Eight evaluations were returned. See Appendix N, for the questions asked and a summary of the participant’s responses.

Data Management

During the 2011 field season, data was collected manually using data sheets in the field. Data sheets were kept by one volunteer and entered into the online database, accessed at http://www.earthcorps.org/gspmt-data-entry.php.

The online database has proven to be user friendly with feedback received from multiple volunteers. The development of the database, and trial period at the end of the 2010 season, provided an accessible and adequate platform for volunteers in the 2011 field season to be able to

9 enter data soon after completing a plot. Volunteers can also upload photos of plots as well as scanned copies of the “plot information” data sheet to the on-line database. This is beneficial in many ways in that it empowers the volunteers, can provided quicker feedback in terms of reports and will enhance their accuracy in the field with data collection. It is necessary to note that in many cases the plot photos are left on the camera that is returned to the program coordinator. It is then the responsibility of the program coordinator to upload photos directly to the monitoring database.

All data is edited and checked for inconsistencies by the program coordinator. The data is then transferred to a Microsoft Access database. This includes attached files such as photographs of the plot and scanned images of the “plot information” data sheet which includes a hand-drawn map. In many cases, if the volunteer does not have access to a scanner or does not upload the image of the plot information data sheet, the program coordinator will need to contact them directly and request a digital copy emailed to them or a hard copy sent in the mail. Hard copies of the data sheets to some of the plots, as well as digital images of photos and scanned data sheets are stored separately as a backup.

Reports are then generated from the Access database (Appendix O). These reports are sent via email to the volunteers involved in the plot as well as to appropriate forest stewards and SPR staff.

Additionally, a summary of plots completed in 2011 was developed for quick reference use in future monitoring (Appendix P). This list includes new plots (Tier 2) installed by volunteers, new plots (Tier 2) installed by contractors and plots monitored (Tier 1) by volunteers.

Monitoring Protocol

Small revisions have been made to the protocol since 2010, mostly grammatical or for ease of reading/understanding. The most significant addition to the protocol was collecting data on two witness trees (or objects) on the Plot Information data sheet. This was deemed necessary in order to help relocate the plots in the future.

It is important to note that although the collection of GPS coordinates were attempted at all monitoring plots, coordinates were not always obtained or were inaccurate. Some reasons include:  Lack of satellite reception  Lack of comfort level using a GPS by volunteer  Lack of a GPS by contractor Many plot centers were estimated and mapped using knowledge of the plot location and feedback from volunteers and contractors, regardless of GPS coordinate availability.

With feedback from last year, a summarized protocols field sheet was developed (Appendix Q). Also, recognizing the difficulty that many volunteers have with using a compass or GPS, quick reference sheets were developed. For the compass, the quick reference sheet was added as an appendix to the data collection methods. Because the GPS guide only relates to the particular model found with the FMT equipment, this document was laminated and remained with the

10 equipment.

In 2011, the Tier 1 monitoring methods (Appendix I) were finalized. Volunteers returned to plots established in 2010 that had undergone some level of restoration and performed Tier 1 monitoring protocols. The methods highlight how to find the center point, what to do if the center point was not found and what specific data to collect.

Contractor Training

Throughout the 2011 monitoring season, trainings were provided for contractors who work within Seattle Parks. This training was requested by Rory Denovan, SPR ecologist, with the idea to require the installation of monitoring plots prior to work commencing to collect baseline data. The trainings involved managers and crew leaders from private companies, city employees, Forterra, Washington Native Plant Stewards, the Washington Conservation Corps, the Student Conservation Corps and the Nature Consortium. Trainings varied from participants joining an introductory training to the program coordinator working with a small group to train in the field and actually install a monitoring plot.

Recommendations

Recruitment Based on participant numbers over the past two years and assuming a similar level of staffing and resources in 2012, the GSP Forest Monitoring Program should aim to engage 40 active volunteers, both new and returning. It is estimated that this would require three to four trainings with an average of 13 to 17 participants per training. These numbers are based on previous information that 77% of individuals attending an introductory training will follow through to install at least one plot. This goal can be adjusted depending on the number of volunteers who return. At this point in time there are 110 plots established that will need to be monitored. Volunteer numbers should reflect the need to accomplish this task as well as establishing additional new plots. It is estimated that with the 110 plots, it will take at least 27 volunteers monitoring an average of eight plots (two monitoring plots can be accomplished in one volunteer day). This is assuming the average of four plots per volunteer is maintained with two volunteers per plot. An additional 50 new plots would require 25 more volunteers (with an average of four plots per volunteer and 2 volunteers per plot). This of course does not include the ability of the program coordinator to assist with plots and also is under the assumption that all 110 plots will need to be monitored in 2012. Therefore it is recommended that a minimum of 40 volunteers are recruited into the program.

Recruitment should be targeted in the early spring months from April-June, however, it should also continue throughout the season as long as there are scheduled introductory trainings available. If resources are available, it would be great to continue to publicize the program during the winter months (November-March). A contact list could be developed to include names and emails so in the spring there is a generated list of people to contact regarding the program and upcoming training dates.

Beyond the recruitment list used in 2011 (Appendix B ), other avenues suggested by volunteers include: UWRP (University of WA Retirement Association) More environment/ecology classes in area universities/colleges Thornton Creek Alliance and other community groups High School Science Programs College level service learning students Student Restoration group at UW http://students.washington.edu/seruw/ Farmer’s markets REI

Other ideas include arranging speaking engagements at community meetings, in classrooms and at other public venues. In addition, tabling at events, particularly GSP volunteer events could be increased. Providing more of a physical presence with posters and flyers in public spaces such as campuses, visitor and environmental learning centers, community centers, and park kiosks would also be beneficial. The main time commitment for outreach and recruitment should be early in the season the active field season begins in June.

Retaining volunteer interest throughout the summer/fall should also be looked at more closely.

As the season progresses, volunteer participation decreases. Providing an incentive may encourage more active participation in the latter months. Although it was not advertised to the volunteers, a small gift (insulated travel mug) was given to the 11 volunteers who completed five or more monitoring plots. The gift was used as a “thank you”, but perhaps could be utilized as an incentive. During the trainings, it may be beneficial to promote a tiered incentive program. For example with 5 plots you receive a canvas bag, with 10 plots you receive a mug, etc. It would be beneficial to brand these items with the GSP Forest Monitoring Team name (Appendix S). This should be determined at the beginning of the season and have funds appropriated for these items during the budgeting process.

Other ways to maintain volunteer involvement could be to provide learning opportunities and meet-ups in the form of plant ID walks, BBQs, and evening speakers. Coordinating these opportunities could involve speaking with Sharon London, Education Director at EarthCorps and require extra budgeting considerations.

Providing a user-friendly website for those seeking out more information or to sign-up for a training date would be beneficial. This will save the program coordinator time and provide the community with a central on-line location to get information, training dates and see data collected from past years.

Training

It is recommend that three to four trainings are conducted in 2012, following the same Introductory training format used in 2011 (Appendix D ). The first training should take place in May, with subsequent trainings in July and September. Additional trainings could be set up in September if more volunteers are needed to complete the monitoring of past plots (110 from 2010 and 2011). The time in between the trainings will give ample opportunity to ensure the first group of volunteers are trained, and have had time to install at least one plot before the coordinator starts to train the next wave of volunteers. It will also provide the program coordinator more time to advertise and promote the next training. Staggering the training of volunteers will also hopefully provide a longer lasting pool of volunteers into the fall. It is suggested that the trainings are limited to 20-25 participants in order to ensure an efficient and productive outcome. Trainings should be provided in both the North and South end of the city, and during different times and days (i.e. weekday/weekend and AM/PM). If a training is scheduled in the PM, it should be done earlier in the season (June/July), where light availability will not be as much of an issue.

A volunteer training packet to be handed out at the introductory training or with first in-field training, should include the following documents:  Monitoring Data Collection Methods (Appendix H )  Tier 1 Forest Monitoring Methods (Appendix I )  Summarized methods field sheet for Tier 2(Appendix P )  Sample Monitoring Report (Appendix O)  GSP Forest Monitoring Team: Interactions with a confrontational individual (Appendix M )  GSP Forest Monitoring Team: Quick Reference Guide to Plants (found in the methods

document)  A copy of each of the data sheets (found in the methods document)

Small group practicums (Appendix D) should be encouraged, but not mandatory, and discussed at the beginning of each training. This will give volunteers an opportunity to immediately sign up to assist with the establishment of a monitoring plot. These training sites should utilize actual sites that should be monitored. During the small group practicum, if the park location has a plot from a previous year, it may be beneficial to discuss how to find a plot and what data are collected using Tier 1 monitoring methods. This could help volunteers understand the importance of writing clear walking directions and plot descriptions as well as illustrate the value of a well drawn map in locating an existing plot. This is important since up to 110 plots will need to be located during the 2012 monitoring season.

It would also be helpful to have a list of parks where plots are needed prior to trainings, which would require the program coordinator to begin making contacts and scouting in early spring (March/April). This can give the new volunteers an opportunity to sign up for parks that they would like to be involved with on the day of training. Then the coordinator can work at scheduling those plots to fit the time schedules of each particular volunteer.

Returning volunteers are an important resource that should be utilized to the fullest during the 2012 season. In 2012, some volunteers may have two seasons of experience with the monitoring protocols. After reaching out and identifying the skilled volunteers who are returning from the 2011 field season, it is recommended to meet with this group prior to the new 2011 training sessions. This meeting should include:

 Reviewing protocols (highlighting any changes)  Determining their abilities to assist in trainings, or lead new volunteers in plot installation  Enrolling them as “senior volunteers” after determining their interest and current abilities

“Senior volunteers” (volunteers who are returning from the previous season) could be used during large and small group trainings and can assist with new volunteers during their first monitoring plot.

An additional training that the program could consider offering next year is a workshop on plant identification. This workshop should be offered to those who have already gone through the introductory Forest Monitoring Training or are returning volunteers. This would be a basics class for the novice and would highlight the most common species found in urban forests. The structure would be field-based; group size should be limited to 15-20 people and span about 1.5 to 2.5 hours.

Public Relations

Public outreach efforts should start prior to the beginning of the monitoring season (March/April). Efforts should focus on program recruitment as well as marketing the program to create public awareness. The marketing plan developed in June 2011 is comprehensive, however, was not utilized during the 2011 season (Appendix E).

The Forest Monitoring Team could utilize the experience and resources of individuals at EarthCorps to market the program. However, these resources need be reflected in the budgeting of this program.

More details can be found in the Marketing Report (Appendix E ).

Communications

Volunteers Email has successfully been used as the primary form of correspondence. It is recommended when sending out emails to the entire FMT, to utilize the option of Bcc, to hide the email addresses of individuals for privacy and prevent mass reply responses. Additionally, having phone numbers for every volunteer is important as well. A recommendation for next year would be to provide a volunteer roster with emails and phone numbers to provide to the entire Forest Monitoring Team (with consent). This will help communication between volunteers when meeting at plot locations, coordinating carpools and arranging equipment transfers.

Developing a Facebook page or Twitter account are other possibilities to explore for the 2012 season.

Parks Meetings with parks managers at the onset of the program should highlight expectations for the coming year. This would also provide an opportunity to outline and coordinate the coming year’s training schedule and targeted goals. Additionally this would be a time to discuss what parks/sites would be appropriate locations for new plots in 2012 and to develop a system to communicate as new potential plot locations arise throughout the season. The structure and format of reporting and weekly updates, including the year-end report, can also be discussed at this time. It would also be beneficial to create a plan for communicating with the natural areas and trails crew to receive their schedules for working in various parks.

Field Work

The field work for the 2012 season will involve not only the establishment of new baseline data plots, but will also look at monitoring the 2010 and 2011 plots, which total 110. It is recommended that the program coordinator scout or find local contacts to determine if some level of restoration has occurred and if they should be monitored in the 2012 season. This can be useful also in determining the location of the plot center before sending volunteers to the area and marking the center with flagging that is visible. The protocol for Tier 1 monitoring is less time intensive than collecting baseline data (Tier 2) and can take an average of one hour. It is conceivable that volunteers could collect Tier 1 data on more than one plot within a day if plots are relatively close in vicinity. It is also useful to send returning volunteers back to the plots that they helped to install the previous year(s).

It was proven difficult in many cases to locate the 2010 center points. There are many reasons for this: 1. No witness tree information was taken in 2010 2. Walking and plot descriptions were poor and some maps were unclear. 3. The protocol in 2010 was to use one foot rebar stakes and hammer flush with ground, which is difficult to see. 4. Satellites were not always available to utilize GPS coordiantes and assist with locating the center point. 5. Sites had changed considerably due to restoration activities (i.e. deep mulch present, debris piles)

Recommendations to help locate permanent plots in the future: 1. Starting in 2011, witness tree information was collected. Continue collecting witness tree information, stressing its importance, accuracy and selection of suitable trees or objects. 2. Stress to volunteers the importance of the plot information data sheet and give more examples during training. Include finding a plot in the small group practicum lesson. 3. Starting in 2011, a two foot rebar stake was used and left to remain one foot above ground. Continue to use this method. 4. GPS coordinates will be available on reports which can be accessed from the Interactive Habitat Map. 5. Pictures will be included as part of the data that is linked on the Interactive Habitat Map, making them easily available to volunteers. 6. Consider adding an option to the monitoring methods to take additional photos of prominent features of the plot or surrounding area to help relocate the plot in the future. 7. Educate the project managers, forest stewards and contractors to be aware of the monitoring plot and make efforts to not cover or remove rebar or orange caps.

It is necessary to scout sites for plots and it is recommended that this is done early in the season, although it will be done throughout the season as more areas go into restoration. Many contacts need to be made and coordinating site visits takes time. Getting a detailed list of parks that are ideal candidates for monitoring from SPR early is imperative. To some extent this is time sensitive, as it is imperative to get into a site before restoration begins. Speak with the EarthCorps volunteer program and Joanna Nelson de Flores with Forterra to see if there are volunteer events involving new areas to be cleared. Contacting Forest Stewards or Parks' gardeners at each of the parks is also important to obtain information on when and where they will be working and a timeline for the activities. Engaging the Forest stewards or gardeners is important because they are often making restoration decisions and may find the monitoring activities to be useful for their future decision-making.

Equipment As the program increases in number of plots and number of volunteers, more equipment will be needed. At least one more full backpack of equipment is recommended for the 2012 monitoring season (Appendix K). At times in 2011, it was logistically difficult to ensure the equipment was returned in time for another group of volunteers to utilize the pack. This caused some delay in installing and monitoring plots. At times it was necessary to have volunteers pass off the equipment directly to one another if their proximity to one another allowed for this. This was

16 helpful to reduce drive times for volunteers, however, the program coordinator will need to plan ahead and ensure enough equipment and supplies are in the backpack.

Due to the size of the city, the span of parks from north to south and the number of volunteers that do not have cars, getting equipment to them was problematic at times. Having one or two additional backpacks will help solve this difficulty.

If time allows, it is conceivable to have the program coordinator meet volunteers on site, this also gives the coordinator opportunity to meet with volunteers and show them the location of the intended plot. This works well if the program coordinator can combine this trip with site visits, on-site trainings, or assisting with other monitoring.

Volunteer Management

It is recommended that a link be provided from the online monitoring database to CEDAR, to allow for volunteers to enter a work log. A complete description of how to enter data should be provided on the online database, this would need to be coordinated between EarthCorps Science and Forterra.

Data Management

When feasible, data should be reviewed immediately as soon as it is entered into the online database. In some cases, this is important because if data was collected incorrectly, the site may need to be revisited by the volunteer or the program coordinator before restoration occurs.

Monitoring Protocol

Feedback received from volunteers made it clear that the protocol was comprehensive; however, it can benefit from editing and re-formatting to make it more user-friendly. It could also be easier to reference, for example: using tabs or color coded sections to distinguish the different areas (i.e. how to set up a plot; site characteristics; tree density, etc.).

A couple suggestions from a volunteer were to streamline the data collection methods where possible. This may become more evident and needed as numbers of plots increase and therefore monitoring efforts are greater. For example, to what extent is tree height used? Would it be possible to have tree height categories (ie, <5’, 5-20’, 20-100’, 100’+). This could potentially eliminate the costly clinometer tool and the extensive training involved with the clinometers (compasses could be used to estimate slope). Another idea was to not measure each piece of Coarse Woody Debris (CWD), but instead collect that data using solely percent cover. Other suggestions may include eliminating soil stability, soil moisture and average overstory tree diameter found on the plot characteristics data sheet. . Contractor Training

It is recommended that the program coordinator go out with the contractors at least one time (possibly more) before they collect data on their own monitoring plots in 2012, even if they have

17 already completed plots previously.. It was revealed during the initial training and the subsequent plots established with the help of contractors that abilities vary greatly. Plant ID, compass skills, attention to detail, interest in collecting accurate data and time involved in data collection are all areas that may be of concern.

Due to the fact that the training for contractors has been conducted at various times; October 2010 and throughout the 2011 season, most contractors will likely need to be re-trained for the 2012 season. When monitoring plots are not done on a regular basis by an individual, it is easy to forget the methods and nuances of the protocol.

Although it is the intention of SPR that contractors and staff members establish plots and collect baseline data prior to commencing restoration activities, this may not always be possible or practical. Other options should also be considered, such as close collaboration with the GSP Forest Monitoring Team to achieve these goals. For example, with tight budgets and significant budget cuts in SPR, the Natural Areas Crew might not have the time or resources to establish monitoring plots in each area they work. By notifying the GSP Forest Monitoring Team coordinator of their schedule and work locations, the program can arrange for volunteers to sample the area before work begins. More planning may be involved than in the past but it could be a better use of staff time and volunteer time (doing plots that actually need to be done, while also freeing up time that the coordinator needs to “look” for plots). It is recognized that it may not be feasible to sample all sites on a timely basis. In these cases the natural areas crew could go ahead and do the monitoring plot if they are prepared to do so. This model could also be implemented for WCC crews or private contractors.

If other groups will be doing monitoring plots during the 2012 season, it needs to be determined who will field questions from these crews, how data will be managed and quality controlled, how information will be disseminated if there are changes in protocol, etc. . The GSP Forest Monitoring program coordinator needs to communicate regularly with these groups of contractors to ensure that duplication of plots does not happen and to be able to receive data and conduct quality control of collected data. If it is decided that the program coordinator will coordinate with contractors and parks staff to and oversee their data collection, additional hours need to be provided for this task.

Appendix A Promotional Flyer

Appendix B 2011 Recruitment List (not comprehensive) Name/Organization Email Status volunteered at carkeek, interested in other Nika Gannon [email protected] opportunities Charisma Ganders [email protected] Registered July '10 training, did not attend Donald Rankin [email protected] Registered July '10 training, did not attend Ann Stevens [email protected] Attended July '10 training Sharon Baker [email protected] Registered July '10 training, did not attend Markus Rook [email protected] Registered July '10 training, did not attend Annabelle Lota [email protected] Registered July '10 training, did not attend Rhonda Goebel [email protected] Registered July '10 training, did not attend Margaret Thouless [email protected] Attended July '10 training Jami Bodonyi [email protected] Registered July '10 training, did not attend Attended July '10 training (assisted with Lewis Park Dee Dunbar [email protected] plot) Dianne Kelso [email protected] Attended July '10 training Catharina Penberthy [email protected] Attended July '10 training Barbara Banks [email protected] Attended July '10 training Vivian Korneliussen [email protected] Attended July '10 training Gina Massoni [email protected] Attended July '10 training Mamie Bolender [email protected] Registered for August '10 training, did not attend Nancy Rauhauser [email protected] Chaley Hinson [email protected] Registered for August '10 training, did not attend Dale Paulson [email protected] Attended August '10 training Maeve Doolittle [email protected] Thomas Hargrave [email protected] Attended August '10 training Daryl Howe [email protected] Bonnie Miller [email protected] Registered for August '10 training, did not attend Brett Austin [email protected] Attended August '10 training Simon Goitom [email protected] Registered for August '10 training, did not attend Dylan Mendenhall [email protected] 2010- 2011 Volunteer Monitoring Team Member Aaron Utigard [email protected] Registered for August '10 training, did not attend Attended August '10 training- 2010 Volunteer Kim Kuykendall [email protected], Monitoring Team Member Connie King [email protected] Attended August '10 training Attended June '10 training (interested by bad

Laura Lippman [email protected] timing) Registered for July '10 and August '10, did not

Barbara Laslett [email protected] attend Liz Howard [email protected] Registered for August '10 training, did not attend

Laurel Kaminski [email protected] Attended June '10 training Thornton Creek Steward, had abbreviated training,

Steff Zimsen [email protected] did one plot

Stephen Fralich [email protected] Contacted Ella, part-time restoration hort. Student

at Edmonds

John Aber [email protected] Attended 2011 training, has not done any plots BA/BS in ecology/environmental studies, spoke

James Ayer [email protected] with bill at event

Monty Pratt [email protected] signed up at event

Nhut Minh Phan (Jack) [email protected] Attended 2011 training, did one plot

Kyle Britz [email protected] contacted via email, lives in Vashon

Zack McBride [email protected] EC CL- attended and assisted with one training

Kate Gregory [email protected] signed up at Kiwanis event

Lisa Garcia [email protected] signed up at Kiwanis event

Paul Tomlinson [email protected] signed up at golden gardens earth day event

Claudia Navas [email protected] former EC corps member

Ross Kirschenbaum [email protected] former EC corps member

Paul D'Agnolo [email protected] Former Corps leader

Bryan Castello [email protected] former corps member, married to Irena

Anthony Kusske [email protected] signed up at golden gardens earth day event david Former board member, son participated in green Dave Powell and son [email protected] teen camp

Bob Gerrish [email protected] former EC project manager, environmental

Joe Pursley [email protected] consultant

Laurie Cange [email protected] inquired about FMT at end of Oct. 2011

Chris Papa [email protected] Did one plot at end of season 2011

Matt Haliday [email protected] contacted program nov. 2011 425-247-9042

GROUPS Mt. Baker Community Club Board See steve Seattle Parks and Rec. Naturalist (get the word

Christina Gallegos [email protected] out) EC board member, EC volunteer (get the word

Damon Kruger [email protected] out)

Linda Vane [email protected] King Co. DNR, grant administrator for urban forests Community centers in south seattle Shan @ seattle parks (see Erin)

Nature Consortium [email protected] Lily Allala "Friends of" groups Contact Joanna Nelson at CLC? Washington Native Plant [email protected]; Society [email protected] Gary Smith and Deb Gurney GSP Forest Stewards Contact Joanna Nelson at CLC [email protected]; [email protected] Contact Sarah Krueger, Conservation manager;

Mountaineers Club rg Director: Martinique Grigg Center for Urban Horticulture

(UofW) [email protected] Kern Ewing

UWREN [email protected] Contact Rodney Pond

Puget Sound Mycological Society Duwamish River Clean-up [email protected]; BJ Cummings, coordinator; Cari Simson, program

Coalition [email protected] manager [email protected]; Seattle Audubon Society [email protected] volunteer coordinator; Science manager; Edmonds Community College, Restoration Horticulture Polly Hankin, organizing professor: highlight program [email protected] monitoring protocols, plant ID, soils. South Seattle Community [email protected];

College [email protected] Van Bobbitt, FT Facutly, Horticulture progam North Seattle Community

college [email protected] Christian Rusby

Friends of Seward Park [email protected] CC'd Anne Roda scienceforcitizens.net posted volunteer opportunity birds.cornell.edu/citscito olkit "citizen science central" posted volunteer opportunity Seattle Dept. of

Neighborhoods [email protected] Yun Petrie Volunteermatch.org United Way of King Co. (Volunteersolutions.org Idealist.org flashvolunteer.org Posted in August

Appendix C Promotional Bookmark

Front Back

Appendix D Description of Trainings

EarthCorps

GSP Forest Monitoring Training and Practical Descriptions

The following provides an overview of the different trainings and practicum’s offered by EarthCorps for the Green Seattle Partnership (GSP) Forest Monitoring Team (FMT) Program. Note that the trainings outlined below can be adjusted according to the needs of the audience.

1. Introductory Training- Volunteers

Goal: To provide an overview of the GSP FMT program, why monitoring is important, an introduction to the monitoring protocols, and to encourage enrollment in the program.

Objective:  Understand why monitoring is important and how it is used in adaptive management  Introduce the GSP forest monitoring protocols  Practice using the forest monitoring protocols in the field with the equipment  Gain familiarity with the steps involved entering information on data collection sheets

Time: 3 ½ hours-- 1 ¼ hour classroom discussion with PowerPoint and 2 hours simulating a monitoring plot.

Audience: Potential Volunteers with the GSP FMT program (forest stewards, community members, students).

1a. Small Group Practicum- Volunteers

Goal: To ensure volunteers have a thorough understanding of the monitoring protocols and are able to install a monitoring plot. Completion of this practicum will enable volunteers to participate in monitoring plots with other trained volunteers without the assistance of the Program Coordinator.

Objective: Provide a hands-on session where volunteers work closely with the Program Coordinator to install an actual monitoring plot while reviewing all aspects of the introductory training.

Time: 3-4 hours

Audience: Volunteers signed up to be a member of the GSP FMT after participating in the introductory training. Note that this practical may be provided as a refresher course. 2. Introductory Training- Contractors

Goal: Provide an overview of the GSP monitoring program, why monitoring is important, and an introduction to the monitoring protocols.

Time: 3 hours-- 30 minute overview and approximately 2 ½ hours simulating a monitoring plot

Audience: Contractors, Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR) employees or groups that are conducting restoration work in Seattle Parks (i.e. NAC, WCC, SCA, Nature Consortium, etc.)

2a. Plot Practicum- Contractors

Goal: To ensure contractors have a thorough understanding of the monitoring protocols and are able to establish a monitoring plot.

Objective: Provide a hands-on session where contractors work closely with the Program Coordinator to install an actual monitoring plot reviewing all aspects of the introductory training.

Time: 3-4 hours (time may vary depending on site)

Audience: Contractors, SPR employees or groups that participated in the introductory training. Note that this practical may be provided as a refresher course.

Appendix E Marketing Plan GSP Forest Monitoring Team Marketing Brief 2011

Goals

 Engage community volunteers in urban forest stewardship  Attract new people to EarthCorps by offering advanced volunteer opportunities  Gather forest restoration monitoring data for use by city and on-site managers (forest stewards, park staff, EarthCorps)  Data: create monitoring reports, include in IHM, make more accessible OPPERATIONAL GOALS

 Recruit and train volunteers to do baseline data gathering and monitoring  Retain volunteers to return each year.  Train and support contractor and park staff to do baseline plot data gathering. Benchmarks

 The Forest Monitoring Team consist of 35 volunteers (returning and new)  Establish 100 new baseline plots (includes Forest Monitoring Team and Contractors)  Provide 3 new volunteer training days and 10 on-site support (training/refresher) days  Provide one ”first-time” training for contractors/staff and 6 on-site plot trainings.  Create a useful webpage for volunteers and inquiring individuals that provides resources (protocol, plant list, map of plots, etc.) and a detailed description of program, with pictures.  Press Release  Journalist interview SPR and volunteer team member  Explore creating an FMT icon/brand Situation Analysis

 Our staff resources are networking and design resources  Scope of work (in particular marketing) is not defined (scope creep)  Second year of program  Seasonal employee (will be gone for one month, mid-July to mid-August), will need assistance with recruiting for August training.  Little knowledge of other citizen science programs o Kym’s resource list o Consult more local organizations (Audubon Society, COASST, Aquarium, Tree Ambassadors  Sustainable Path grant

 GSP/CLC: portal, IHM Target Audiences (18+, interested in environment/plants, willing to get dirty, eager to learn new things)

 PERSONA 1 – College student in environmental field, senior/just graduated, internship phase  PERSONA 2 – South Seattle resident  PERSONA 3- Unemployed (college grad or recently laid-off), wanting to get into or return to Natural resource field, networker  PERSONA 4- EarthCorps alumni  PERSONA 5- EarthCorps repeat volunteer/highly interested in other non-traditional volunteer opportunities  PERSONA 6- Retired, educated, interested in volunteer opportunities  PERSONA 7- GSP Forest Steward or WNPS Plant Steward  PERSONA 8- Environmental Consultants, EPA staff, Landscape architects (or retired/unemployed) Calls to Action

 Attend one training o June 18th , 9:30am-1pm at Camp Long o August (Date/Time TBA)  Assist with at least two monitoring plots during the season (June-October) however, more are encouraged.  Spread the word and bring a family member or friend.  Appreciate the value of the data being collected.  Contact Malia Caracoglia at [email protected] for questions or to sign up for a training. Framing the Message

Meta-Narrative

Citizen Science for Seattle’s urban forests

Key Messages

 Persona 1 – College student  Learn about urban forest ecology and plant identification.  Build your work experience and resume  Network  Help steer forest restoration decision-making by collecting valuable data.  Contribute to the city’s understanding of the urban forests.

 Persona 2 – South Seattle resident

 Learn about urban forest ecology and plant identification.  Meet other volunteers with similar interests and varying backgrounds  Explore Seattle Parks in your neighborhood or beyond  Help steer forest restoration decision-making by collecting valuable data.  Contribute to the city’s understanding of the urban forests.

 Persona 3 – Unemployed, seeking work in field  Learn about urban forest ecology and plant identification.  Build your work experience and resume  Network  Help steer forest restoration decision-making by collecting valuable data.  Contribute to the city’s understanding of the urban forests.

 Persona 4 – EarthCorps alumni  Learn about urban forest ecology and plant identification.  Build your work experience and resume  Network  Help steer forest restoration decision-making by collecting valuable data.  Contribute to the city’s understanding of the urban forests.

 Persona 5 – EarthCorps volunteer seeking to advance  Learn about urban forest ecology and plant identification.  Meet other volunteers with similar interests and varying backgrounds  Explore Seattle Parks in your neighborhood or beyond  Help steer forest restoration decision-making by collecting valuable data.  Contribute to the city’s understanding of the urban forests.

 Persona 6 – Retired, well-educated  Learn about urban forest ecology and plant identification.  Meet other volunteers with similar interests and varying backgrounds  Explore Seattle Parks in your neighborhood or beyond  Help steer forest restoration decision-making by collecting valuable data.  Contribute to the city’s understanding of the urban forests.

 Persona 7 – Forest or native plant steward  Learn a new tool to help steer forest restoration decision-making by collecting valuable data.  Obtain direct scientific feedback on restoration sites in areas you are working.  Contribute to the city’s understanding of the urban forests.

 Persona 8 – Environmental consultant/professional

 Utilize your background and knowledge to assist a local citizen science program.  Get outside, get dirty and have fun.  Explore Seattle Parks in your neighborhood or beyond  Help steer forest restoration decision-making by collecting valuable data.  Contribute to the city’s understanding of the urban forests.

Benefit Exchange

 Knowledge about urban ecology and restoration/ plant identification  Career building experience, networking  Incentives (“gifts” for completing goals- 3+ plots)  Be a part of restoring Seattle’s urban forests  Recognition in print (?)  Party (end-of-season dessert and data, GSP party, ?)

Challenges/Barriers for Audiences

 Limited time to contribute  Unfamiliar with monitoring practices or protocols Strategies

 Engage people who are highly motivated to learn and apply monitoring techniques  Use EarthCorps ecologists and Malia to teach and supervise  Use incentives (schwag, presentation of data) to get people to complete more plots Tactics

 Personal emails from EC staff to individuals, professors or list-servs to recruit workshop attendees  General email and flier posting to Job-Event for alumni, community centers, Idealist/Craigslist Resources

 Staff resources: Malia, Allie, Steve, Sharon, Pipo, Su for networks  Malia, Ella, Nelson for workshops  Workshop curriculum already exists, protocols in place  Need to develop webpage – does Allie have time or is this something Bob needs to do?  Kelly O’Callahan is working on schwag/incentives for regular volunteers – tap into that system?  Who could organize a data-sharing/appreciation event? Possibly use Sustainable Path Foundation event in July? Or GreenDrinks in November?

Appendix F Weekly Report Weekly GSP Forest Monitoring Report

10/16/2011-10/22/2011

2011 Plots completed to date: 59

 Burke Gilman/65th to 70th West, 4/21/11  Thornton Creek Park 6/ North 4A, 5/19/11  Lincoln Park/ lincpk_H2, 6/1/11  Seward Park/ FES4, 6/2/11  Northacres Park/ Northacres Central Forest, 6/4/11  Seward Park/ FES3, 6/13/11  Thornton Cr. Park 6/ South 1A  Burke Gilman/ 65th to 70th East, 6/17/11  Seward Park/ Hatchery, 6/23/11  Westcrest/ North of water towers, 6/28/11  Harrison Ridge/ The Clearing 6/29/2011  Magnuson/Firing Range, 7/11/11  Seward Park/MF5-N, 7/14/11  Discovery Park/Illinois Ave Corner, 7/18/11  Discovery Park/Disco 03c-01-1, 7/18/11  Lakeridge Park/Bird flats, 7/20/11  Magnuson Park/Promontory Point-west slope, 7/25/11  Martha Washington Park/North End Forest Plot 1, 7/30/11  Magnuson Park, Promontory Point Central Forest, 8/1/2011  Discovery Park, 20-02, 8/3/2011  Discovery Park, 20-03, 8/3/2011  Magnuson Park, Sand Point Head North Slope, 8/12/11  Martha Washington, Gary Oak Slop, 8/13/11  Fauntleroy, South Ridge Zone 11, 8/15/11  Longfellow Creek/Brandon St., 28th St. , 8/18/11  Westcrest, Cambridge and 4th, 8/23/2011

 Martha Washington, North End Forest Plot 2, 8/23/2011  Washington Park Arboretum, Japanese Garden Parking Lot, 8/25/2011  Thornton Creek Park 6/Beaver Pond, Central 2B, 8/26/2011  Seward Park, MF5-S, 9/1/2011  St. Mark’s GB, west slope. 9/6/2011  Kingfisher, Outlook Point, 9/8/2011  Seward, GO, 9/12/2011  Yesler Creek Headwaters, South Ravine North End, 9/12/2011  Washington Park Arboretum/Alder Creek, Lower Alder Creek, 9/13/2011  North Beach, North Beach Central Valley, 9/20/2011  Discovery Park, Kennedy 500-1 & Kennedy 500-2, 9/21/2011  Lewis Park, Central, 9/24/2011  Schmitz, SW Conifer Forest-1, 9/24/2011  SW Queen Anne GB, Lee St., 9/27/2011  Seola, Central Seola, 9/29/2011  Discovery Park, 03c-01-2, 9/30/2011  St. Marks GB, Leffler House, 9/30/2011  Carkeek, 2B12-1, 10/6/11  Schmitz, SW Conifer Forest-2, 10/9/2011  Kiwanis, KRSb, 10/10/2011  Cheasty GS, Cheblv_06, 10/13/2011  Cowen, cowen playground forest, 10/13/2011  Carkeek, 2B12-2, 10/14/2011  Schmitz, Hinds Slope, 10/17/2011  Cheasty GS, EC6, 10/17/2011  Kubota Garden, Kugapk_04, 10/18/2011  Discovery Park, Kennedy 500-3, 10/18/2011  Camp Long, zone 12_13_14 E Forest, 10/20/2011  Kiwanis, KWC, 10/21/2011  Kiwanis, KRS5, 10/21/2011  Me-Kwa-Mooks, Big Firs, 10/24/2011  Cowen Park, cowen north slope, 10/25/2011  Camp Long, zone 6 central forest, 10/29/2011

2010 Plots monitored using Tier 1: 26

 Frink Park/ Upper Leschi, 5/9/11

 Lakeridge Park/ Rustic Road, 6/8/11  West Duwamish GB, soundway 02, 7/11  Longfellow Creek/Brandon St., Ivy Town, 8/18/11  Lewis Park, central north, 8/29/11  Discovery Park, Tom Palm Utah Ave., 8/29/2011  Carkeek, 2A7-1, 9/8/11  Colman, C11_C12_C13, 9/12/2011  Cheasty GS, Cheasty Yard, 9/22/2011  Magnuson, Starflower site, 9/23/2011  Kiwanis Ravine, KRM5, 9/26/2011  Me-Kwa-Mooks, Mid slope, 9/26/2011  Seola, West Upper Trail, 9/29/2011  Golden Gardens, Cistern, 9/29/2011  Woodland Park, soap box, 10/4/2011  Woodland Park, South mixed forest, 10/4/2011  Kubota, west Kubota, 10/4/2011  Maple School Ravine, south of stairs, 10/4/2011  Camp Long, Zone 18 S Forest 1, 10/5/2011  Carkeek, 2A7-2, 10/7/2011  Carkeek, 2A7-3, 10/7/2011  Westcrest, Westcrest N. Central, 10/11/2011  Northacres, NE 130th St., 10/12/2011  Fauntleroy, SE Ravine W-zone 12, 10/13/2011  Camp Long, zone 18 S Forest 2, 10/20/2011  Frink Park, Frink Ridge, 10/20/2011

Volunteer Hours to date (plots and volunteer trainings): (5/2 to present) : 948

 This week (10/23-10/29): 15  This month (10/1-10/31): 112

Plots Scheduled:

 Camp Long, Zone15_17, 10/31  Discovery, Pearl Jam Acres, tier 1, 11/11

Contractor Plots: 16

Schmitz Central mixed forest 5/2/2011 WCC crew (Parks)

Arroyos Natural Area Arroyos South Bluffs 5/3/2011 WCC crew (Parks)

Fauntleroy SE Ravine zone 10 5/3/2011 WCC crew (Parks)

Frank Maduzia's Frink Park upper Leschi-2 5/3/2011 Crew

Pelly place natural area Pelly Place Natural Area east 5/5/5011 WCC crew (Parks)

Pigeon Point pigeon point 03 5/5/2011 WCC crew (Parks)

Schmitz 53rd Ave Social Trail 5/23/2011 WCC Crew (CLC)

College St. Ravine College St. Ravine Entry 6/15/2011 Nature Consortium

Lincoln Park Lincpk_H8 6/28/2011 WNPS

Westcrest WC Central SW 6/30/2011 WNPS

Sturtevant sturrv_01 7/1/2011 WNPS

Colman Park B6 7/5/2011 SCA

Westcrest Park 8th Ave 7/6/2011 SCA

East Duwamish GS: S. Chicago St. Trenton and 42nd 7/6/2011 WNPS

Westcrest 4th Ave SW 8/10/2011 Jesse Alton

Cheasty GS Cheasty yard East 8/11/2011 Jesse Alton

Plots monitored in 2010: 33

Park Site Frink Park Frink Ridge (2008) Golden Gardens Park Cistern Woodland Park Soap Box Discovery Park Tom Palm Site Woodland Park South Mixed Forest Lawton Park Area 3a Forest Frink Park Upper Leschi Warren G. Magnuson Park Starflower Project Carkeek Park 2A71 Camp Long Zone 18 S Forest 1 Seward Park FES2 Cheasty GS: Cheasty Blvd Cheasty Yard Carkeek Park 2A72 Westcrest Park Westcrest N Central Carkeek Park 2A73 Lakeridge Park Rustic Road Thornton Creek Park 2 Roberson wetland Seola Park west upper trail Lewis Park Central (North) Discovery Park Tom Palm Utah Ave Colman Park C11_C12_C13 Schmitz Preserve Park princess angeline Me-Kwa-Mooks Mid Slope West Duwamish GS: Riverview Soundway 02

Maple School Ravine South of Stairs Fauntleroy Park SE Ravine West - Zone 12

Kubota garden West Kubota Northacres Park NE 130th Street Longfellow Creek GS: Brandon Ivy Town Street Camp Long Zone 18 S Forest 2 Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park KRW 5

Thornton Creek NA: Ravenna Ave TCNA Ravenna 1

Discovery Park Pearl Jam Acres

Appendix G Map of GSP Forest Monitoring Program Plots

Appendix H Monitoring Data Collection Methods (Tier 2) See Accompanying Document

Appendix I Tier 1 Monitoring Protocol (without sections: Laying out the plot, plot characteristics inventory, Measuring percent cover, data sheets and appendices as they are similar to Tier 2 protocol) Monitoring Plots (Tier 1) Methods

Summary (Data to be collected)

Plot Information Data sheet

 Review previous year’s information to confirm accuracy.  Take GPS points if previously none have been taken.  Take photos  Add this year’s recorders names (this information will be asked for data entry)  Modify walking directions, plot description or Map drawing if necessary.  Select new witness trees if no witness trees were determined previously. Plot Characteristics Inventory Data Sheet

 Review previous year’s information to confirm no changes have occurred. If changes have occurred, mark appropriately.  Record habitat type if not previously noted (2010 data this was not collected) Cover Data Sheet for Shrubs, Herbaceous Plants and Vines

 Record all species percent cover (same as Tier 2 data collection) Density Data Sheet for Overstory, Regenerating Trees, Snags and Course Woody Debris (CWD)

 ONLY record Species Code, Common Name and Health of live trees under 5in DBH (regenerating trees). Do not record snags or CWD.

Introduction

Tier 1 data collection can be used to monitor the success of restoration efforts and to track plant survival over time. In general, it is recommended that the full Tier 2 protocol is implemented when a plot is established to collect comprehensive baseline conditions prior to restoration on the site. Following restoration, the plot should be revisited annually for a minimum of three years, and Tier 1 data collected on the site. The full Tier 2 data can be collected again every five years following restoration efforts.

The Tier 1 protocol can be used as the primary monitoring protocol if the goal is to track plant survival on a site. The plot should be established and data collected as soon as possible after planting is complete to obtain an accurate count of trees and shrubs on the site. To track groundcover survival, the visual percent cover estimates in the plot can be used.

The plot characteristics inventory needs to be collected once when the plot is first established. If the inventory was completed during the baseline data collection and no significant changes have occurred on the site, the inventory does not need to be completed again. If there have been significant changes on the site such as trail building or falling trees adding coarse woody debris or changing canopy cover on the site, then the plot characteristics inventory form should be filled out during the visit.

It may be necessary to review the data collected during the baseline inventory year to determine if any characteristics have changed. The following information is collected in the Tier 1 protocol:

Percent cover of vegetation: Percent cover of native and non-native shrubs, vines and herbaceous species on the site. This information will enable you to understand the state of native and non-native vegetation in your site and the diversity present.

Tree density: This information covers density and composition of regenerating trees. Data collected will include the species count and health. This information allows you to track survival of planted trees and enables you to understand how many trees of each species are regenerating on the site. The same protocol can also be used to track survival of individual shrubs, if so desired.

Equipment Needs

A full kit with the following equipment is available from the Forest Monitoring Team for your use. You can check it out anytime. Please contact the forest monitoring program coordinator at EarthCorps to reserve the kit ([email protected]).

1. Three 100-foot/30-meter measuring tapes

2. A English/metric tree-diameter tape

3. Compass (with ability to adjust for declination)

4. Digital Camera

5. GPS (for marking point)

6. One 1’ long piece of rebar with a plastic cap

7. Small sledge hammer for pounding in stake and rebar (optional)

8. Field data sheets

9. Flagging

10. Pencil/ Permanent marker

11. Four laminated placards with the cardinal directions (N,E,S,W)

12. Pojar & MacKinnon's Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast or other reference book. Arthur Lee Jacobson’s Wild Plants of Greater Seattle is recommended to help identify common invasive species.

Locating an Already Established Plot

To locate a plot that has already been established, you will need the Plot Information Data Sheet, which includes walking directions to the plot, plot description, witness trees (not available from 2010 data), and a hand-drawn map of the plot and surroundings. Also, GPS data points may be available, but accuracy can be variable.

Although a foot long rebar stake with orange cap was placed at the center of the plot, it may be missing or not easily located due to vegetation or natural debris.

Witness trees (or other distinct object): On data sheets that include witness tree information, you will be able to better narrow down the location of the center stake. Other distinct objects can include, for example: large boulders, signs, trail junctions, fences, etc. The witness tree or object should be something that will be present at least 10 years in the future, lies within or near the plot and is easily recognized. You will first need to reach the general vicinity of the plot center using the walking directions, plot description and hand-drawn map. Then look for the “distinct” witness trees or object that was documented the previous year.

From the witness tree you will use the back azimuth, which is 180 degrees opposite the azimuth (degree) given on the data sheet. This is due to the fact that you are getting a bearing from the object to the center instead of from the center to the object. For example, using the following data collected during the baseline survey: Witness Trees (or other distinct object): Species (or object)___Douglas Fir______Compass bearing (from center to tree)____70 degrees_____Distance (ft)_____8 ft_____ Species (or object)___Big Leaf Maple (3-stems)______Compass bearing (from center to tree)____210 degrees_____Distance (ft)_____15 ft_____

The back azimuth from the Douglas fir would be 250 degrees (70 degrees plus 180 degrees). Therefore, standing at the base of the Douglas fir you will walk 8 feet at a bearing of 250 degrees to reach plot center. Use the second witness tree to further help you narrow down your search area. From the Big Leaf Maple you will walk 15 feet at a bearing of 30 degrees (210 degrees minus 180 degrees). Both of these directions should take you to the same spot. Look around the area for the rebar capped stake.

If the center point to the plot cannot be located, then a new center point with rebar stake and cap should be established. This should be done if the original rebar cannot be

40 located. Use the site description and witness tree information to get as close to the original center point as possible. After re-establishing the permanent plot, a new GPS point should be taken. Also, make a note on the Plot Information Data Sheet that a new point was established. At this point it is crucial to re-establish witness trees (or other distinctive objects) and to alter the map or plot description to better assist others in the future to locate the center.

Measuring Tree Density

It is best to collect vegetation information prior to density information so that trampling is minimal. Once the percent cover of vegetation has been collected, tree density information can be gathered within the plot. Use the Density Data Sheet for Overstory and Regenerating Trees in Appendix B to record all data regardless of which tier you are using.

Recommended sampling frequency: All information should be collected during the growing season and during the same month if possible. Information collected in Tier 1 is geared towards monitoring plant survival and can be collected on an annual basis or as part of a regular monitoring schedule for the first three years after restoration has occured or until the site is established.

The data collected for tree density is minimal in Tier 1 and only includes regenerating trees (less than 5” DBH). Species name, number of species and tree health (healthy or stressed). Dead trees are not counted.

Example Data Sheet for Tier 1

Plot Number: 1 Recorders: AS, GM

Date: 5/15/2010 Site Name: WNPS 2008 Site Park Name: Ravenna Park

Species Code Common Name Health

ACMA Bigleaf maple Healthy

ILAQ English holly Stressed

Appendix J 2011 FMT Volunteers

Plots Training Completed Name Email Year in 2011

Tom Kelly [email protected] 2010 11

Tom Palm [email protected] 2010 12

Dass Adams [email protected] 2010 3

Darrell Howe [email protected] 2010 9

Nancy Rauhauser [email protected] 2010 9

Dylan Mendenhall [email protected] 2010 5

Margaret Metz-Holland [email protected] 2010 1

Tad Anderson [email protected] 2010 10

Loren McElvain [email protected] 2010 6

Sam Israel [email protected] 2011 1

Stephen Fralich [email protected] 2011 6

Anya Belova [email protected] 2011 2

Collene Gaolach [email protected] 2011 4

Susan Barczak [email protected] 2011 6

Paul Shannon [email protected] 2011 1

Zach Fortenbaugh [email protected] 2011 3

Mike Shellenberger [email protected] 2011 3

Rony Thi [email protected] 2011 6

Branda DesChamps [email protected] 2011 2

Stuart Klorfine [email protected] 2011 1

Rachel Stampfer [email protected] 2011 3

Luke McGuff [email protected] 2011 16

Tuan Le [email protected] 2011 1

Nhut Phan (Jack) [email protected] 2011 1

Asher Christl [email protected] 2011 3

Siva Hope [email protected] 2011 2

Zoey Chanin [email protected] 2011 1

Maria Jesus [email protected] 2011 2

Angela Armenta [email protected] 2011 2

Catherine Carter [email protected] 2011 3

Joey Baumgartner [email protected] 2011 2

Karen Cleghorn [email protected] 2011 1

Kay Humm [email protected] 2011 1

Cadi Poile [email protected] 2011 4

Kate Knox [email protected] 2011 2

Rachael Mensching [email protected] 2011 3

Chris Papa [email protected] 2011 1

Beth Kilkline [email protected] 2011 2

Bill Brookerson [email protected] 2010 2

Jim Corson [email protected] 2011 2

Scott Luchessa [email protected] 2011 1 SIGNED UP FOR 2011 FMT BUT NO MONITORING PLOTS COMPLETED

Mary Goldman [email protected] 2011 N/A

laura Lippman [email protected] 2011 N/A

Pat Whempner [email protected] 2011 N/A

Krystine Husband [email protected] 2010 N/A

Michael Oxman [email protected] 2011 N/A

John Aber [email protected] 2011 N/A

Curtis Calder [email protected] 2011 N/A

Julie Carlson [email protected] 2011 N/A

Marcia Mellinger [email protected] 2011 N/A

Angeline Zalben [email protected] 2011 N/A

Appendix K Detailed Forest Monitoring Equipment List

GSP FOREST MONITORING EQUIPMENT LIST Availability and Price Subject to Change

Equipment Quantity Price (total) Vendor/Item #

Keson Fiberglass 3 28.30 x 3= 84.90 Ben Meadows/ 122632 Measuring Tape (10 series open reel), 100 ft. Suunto Navigator MC-2 1 43.90 Ben Meadows/101884 Compass Haglof electric 1 233.00 Ben Meadows/8Y955 clinometers (ft/percent) Spencer Logger Diameter 1 53.80 Ben Meadows/121570 Tape, 50’ GPS/ Garmin eTrex H 1 99.95 REI GPS Digital Camera- Cannon 1 99.99 Office Depot/ 229662 PowerShot A490 Camera Case- Pelican 1 20.95 REI/778215 1020 hard case Small sledge hammer 1 14.28 Lowes/ 25381

Wild Plants of Seattle by 1 20.00 WNPS Arthur Jacobson Plants of the Pacific 1 20.00 WNPS Northwest by Pojar and Mackinnon Backpack- Kelty Redwing 1 99.95 REI/ 811573 44 day pack (or other suitably sized pack) Orange Caps 25 9.86 Lowes /194749

1/2 “ x 2’ Rebar stakes 25 1.63 x 25 = 40.75 Lowes/ 5895

Flagging 1-2 These items may need to be Pin Flags 4-8 replenished due to loss or wear. Data forms w/ clipboard 1 (clipboard) Total Cost = 10.00

Permanent marker & 1 pencil/pen Wooden stake (optional) 1

Agreement to Borrow Equipment

Agreement to Borrow Seattle Parks & Recreation/ EarthCorps Equipment

I request the use of the GSP Forest Monitoring equipment (inventory below) for the dates from: to:

Equipment Inventory:

Equipment Quantity

GPS unit 1

Camera 1

Measuring Tape (100’) 3

DBH Tape 1

Clinometer 1

Compass 1

2’ Rebar 1

Plastic rebar caps 1

Flagging and pin flags 1 roll/4 flags

Wild Plants of Greater Seattle (Jacobsen) 1

Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast (Pojar) 1

Quick Reference Guide Plant List 1

Data Sheets 5

Ziplock bags 20

Index cards 20

In consideration for the privilege of borrowing Seattle Parks & Recreation/ EarthCorps equipment, I understand and acknowledge that I am responsible for this equipment while is in my custody and control, and agree to return the equipment in the same condition in which it was received. I understand that I may be held financially responsible for replacement or repair of the equipment.

Name (signature): Date:

Name (printed):

Street address:

City: State: Zip:

Telephone: E-mail:

Signed out by: Date:

Appendix L Volunteer Sign-in Sheet Group Volunteer Sign-Up Sheet

THE FOLLOWING RELEASE INFORMATION IS REQUIRED FOR VOLUNTEER INSURANCE AND RECOGNITION PURPOSES. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY. For and in consideration of my participation in the Green Seattle Partnership (City of Seattle, Cascade Land Conservancy, and EarthCorps) volunteer program, a voluntary, public/private cooperative program, I release, acquit, and forever discharge the City of Seattle, a municipal corporation, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers (“the released parties”), and Cascade Land Conservancy and EarthCorps, non-profit organizations, their officers, agents, employees, and volunteers (“the released parties”), from any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, action, or liability, on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all known and unknown, foreseen and unforeseen bodily injuries or death, or damage to property resulting from or by reason of my participation in, or transportation to or from, any activity, work, or work site in any way related to the program. I understand that the City of Seattle provides volunteer insurance for bodily injury to self and personal and property damage while I volunteer. The undersigned give their permission to be photographed and/or filmed and have their image used by Green Seattle Partnership.

SPECIAL EVENT/GROUP NAME: GSP FOREST MONITORING TEAM PROJECT TYPE: (check all that apply)

Forest Restoration/Maintenance GSP Training Trails

Other:______

Name Date Park & Site Name Baseline (Tier 2) OR Monitoring (Tier 1) PLEASE PRINT Start Time End Time Total Hours

Appendix M Standard Operating Procedures

GSP Forest Monitoring Team

Interactions with a confrontational individual

In general most people you encounter while monitoring will be curious and may ask questions about the program, yourself, and/or how they can get involved. If you feel comfortable explaining your role in the GSP Forest Monitoring Team, it is a great opportunity to educate people about what the program is aiming to accomplish. At the least, please provide EarthCorps’ website for more information about the Forest Monitoring Program and/ or the Cascade Land Conservancy’s web site for more information about the Green Seattle Partnership, both provided in the backpack of equipment so that the interested person can follow up.

In rare cases you may meet someone who does not agree with the management, philosophies or strategies of the Seattle Parks Department or the Green Seattle Partnership. This may stem from misperceptions or just their views of best management practices. Unfortunately, their opinions and beliefs can manifest and become very confrontational and misdirected. This misdirected anger may be directed at you, the volunteer visible and in the field.

Emergency situations

If you are ever verbally or physically threatened or feel that the situation may escalate and get out of control, consider it an emergency, and CALL THE POLICE, 911 or (206) 625-5011 (non-emergency). At this point please do not worry about the monitoring plot, or the data already collected- leave the area. After your safety is assured and the appropriate authorities have been called please contact the Forest Monitoring Program Coordinator.

How to handle the situation

If the individual is not threatening but is confrontational, only speak to your comfort level and to what you know. At the least, please just provide Parks Department contact information which is provided in the backpack of equipment. This will give the individual a more appropriate outlet to voice their concerns.

If you feel comfortable explaining your role in the GSP Forest Monitoring Team, it is a great opportunity to educate people about what the program is aiming to accomplish. You can also provide the individual with the GSP Forest Monitoring Program Coordinator’s information if they have more questions about this project. If you feel it will escalate the situation, do not proceed and again, just refer them to the Parks Department’s contact information.

Remember you are not there to defend the Parks management practices nor are you a representative of the Parks Department.

Contact information (See Back)

Rory Denovan Malia Caracoglia Plant Ecologist Forest Monitoring Team Program Coordinator Natural Resource Management Unit 6310 NE 74th St. Suite 201E 1600 South Dakota St. Seattle, WA 98115 Seattle, WA 98108-1546 206-992-6853 206-601-7423 [email protected] [email protected]

Appendix N Program Evaluations with Summary of Response

2011 GSP Forest Volunteer Monitoring Team Evaluation

Please write any constructive comments that you feel will improve this program. Think in terms of the benefits to the volunteers as well as the integrity of the program. This was the second year of the program, but feel we will always have much to learn from you. Your feedback is critical in how this program will evolve. Use the following categories to frame your comments. Thank You.

Name (optional- you can mail your response in if you want to be anonymous) :

How did you learn about this volunteer program?

 EarthCorps science department

 Green Seattle website.

 Through GSP participation

 Signboard at an EarthCorps event in April.

 Email from Joanna Nelson (Green Seattle Partnership).

 Did it last year.

 EarthCorps listserve

 Pipo Bui suggested the program

Do you volunteer with other programs? (Forest Steward, Washington Native Plant Society, or any other organizations)

 Beach Naturalist,

 Cedar River Salmon Journey Naturalist

 Washington Park Arboretum

 Hyde Herbarium at the Center for Urban Horticulture (UW).

 Forest Steward with Green Seattle Partnership

 Washington Native Plant Society

 EarthCorps

What was the best part of the program, what was the most challenging? Please be specific

The best parts:

 collecting data

 Getting out, explore our beautiful parks,

 to get to know others interested in restoration, working with people passionate about nature.

 feel like we’re really contributing , Being involved in gathering information which may be useful to improving restoration techniques

 seeing where various parks are in the restoration

 New skills: learning to recognize native and invasive plants, compass and clinometers use.

The challenging parts:

 Typing the data in

 Getting things done in a timely manner

 Finding the time to go,Travelling to the park/plot site location

 Identifying plants

 the weather

 finding the plots from last year.

 physically challenging

 Fitting what is being observed into the format provided

Training (content, structure, timing, location)

 The training was great, I think it was wonderful to get a chance to do a monitoring site with Malia. There were many things I learned in the field that I don’t think I would have been able to learn as well in a classroom.

 Make it easier for volunteers to remember or look up what counts as a snag and what is to be ignored.

 It would be great to have a plant identification class.

 the in-field practicum was very helpful

 was sufficient

Protocol (comprehensive, clarity)

 is easy to use

 I found the protocol to be very clear and easy to follow, but some of the volunteers I worked with had difficulty at times. Perhaps this was a training/experience issue?

 I’m glad it’s being refined as we go, that we’re open to learning from our mistakes. And I like the gentle reminders when we forget some protocols.

 Thanks for the shorter reference sheet. That was very helpful.

 Once data is entered is should be available on a master database.

 Almost too much information in a 30 page instruction guide. Could be streamlined into a sample sheet format or could look more like a recipe, step-by-step process. Simplify the process with low-tech tools such as a simple 45-degree angle for establishing tree heights. Rounding could be employed for much of the data such as tree diameters for larger trunks, % cover or heights.

 Goal would be to gather field data in same sequence and format as entering data into the website

Field plots (any comments about the actual field work, how can it be made better, more efficient, accuracy of data, etc.) –

 better directions to the plots

 Making sure that the person with the most knowledge/experience/understanding of the protocols is the person nominally leading the effort would help a lot.

 Also, there were times when knowing people's contact info, esp. cell numbers, was really necessary for last-minute changes to plans.

 Coordination of tools could possibly be streamlines with packs made available in districts.

 One thing I found helpful was putting flags up on trees or shrubs at the end of the transect lines. These were more visible than the ground stakes, and could be left behind.

 I think greater stress should be placed on not having a person in the picture. I made this mistake several times, so there you go.

 Could make the orange markers more writable. The felt tip pen ink rubs off.

 Something that would make a GREAT deal of difference when sorting photos, but I don’t know if you’d get compliance, would be to have the first picture be of a piece of paper with the date, park, and plot name written on it. That way, whoever gets the camera back after it traveling around the city for a week or so will spend a lot less time guessing about which photos go where.

 Another thing that would be very helpful for finding the plot the following year would be to take a picture from one of the edges into the center of the plot.

 In at least one plot there were several big piles of woody debris. Each piece was too small of a DBH to count, but I thought all together it was a significant feature, such as for habitat. It bothered me that we couldn’t include the piles somehow in our data

Program Coordinator (approachable, reachable, supportive)  is amazing! Wonderful!

 No problems

 Malia, thank you so much for all your work in coordinating this program! You were always available and helpful! Thank you so much for this great opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way to our parks management.

 (approachable, reachable, supportive) Very much so in all cases.

 Malia was great! Always in two places at once.

 Knowledgeable too.

Where would you suggest we recruit future volunteers for this program?

 EarthCorps corpsmembers and homestays

 UW, especially the environmental disciplines

 student restoration group on the UW campus

 UWRP (University of WA Retirement Association)

 high school science program

 professionals willing to donate expertise

 Farmer’s markets. 51

 REI.

 community groups such as Thornton Creek Alliance.

From your experience, would you volunteer again next year (regardless of your actual availability)?

 7 out of 7 responses were Yes!

Other comments

 I like to work in the North End (because I don’t like driving and don’t want to be schlepping around on busses in my grubby/wet gear). If we had carpooling options, say from the EarthCorps office, I might volunteer for plots farther afield

 It was a lot of fun, I really enjoyed the opportunity it gave me to see other parks in different parts of the city

 All and all, the program is terrific but may need to streamline process given the volume of new plots. Where will the commitment come from to continue and follow-up the efforts in the future?

PLEASE EMAIL OR MAIL YOUR RESPONSE BY NOVEMBER 9th , TO:

[email protected]

EarthCorps Attn: Forest Monitoring Team 6310 NE 74th St Suite 201E Seattle, WA 98115

Appendix O Sample Monitoring Report (Sample Report Attached)

Appendix P 2011 Monitoring Plots (Tier 2 plot in Green, Tier 1 plot in Red, Contractor plot in Orange) Park Site Date Burke-Gilman Trail 65th-70th W 4/21/2011 Thornton Creek Park 6 North 4A 5/19/2011 Lincoln Park lincpk_H2 6/1/2011 Seward Park FES4 6/2/2011 Northacres Park Northacres Central Forest 6/4/2011 Seward Park FES3 6/13/2011 Thornton Creek Park 6 South 1A 6/14/2011 Burke-Gilman Trail 65th-70th E 6/17/2011 Seward Park Hatchery 6/23/2011 Westcrest North of water towers 6/28/2011 Harrison Ridge GB The Clearing 6/29/2011 Promontory Point West Magnson Park Slope-1 7/11/2011 Seward Park MF5-N 7/14/2011 Discovery Park Illinois Ave Corner 7/18/2011 Discovery Park 03C-01-1 7/18/2011 Lakeridge Park Bird Flats 7/20/2011 Promontory Point West Magnson Park Slope-2 7/25/2011 Martha Washington North End Forest 1 7/30/2011 Promontory Point Central Magnuson Park Ridge 8/1/2011 Discovery Park 20-02 8/3/2011 Discovery Park 20-03 8/3/2011 Magnuson Park Sandpoint head north slope 8/12/2011 Martha Washington Gary Oak Slope 8/13/2011 Fauntleroy South Ridge- Zone 11 8/15/2011 Longfellow Creek/Brandon St. 28th Street 8/18/2011 Martha Washington North End Forest 2 8/23/2011 Westcrest Park Cambridge and 4th 8/23/2011 Washington Park Arboretum Japanese Garden Parking Lot 8/25/2011 Thornton Creek Park 6 Central 2B 8/26/2011 Seward Park MF5-S 9/1/2011 St. Marks Greenbelt West Slope 9/6/2011 Thornton Creek Park 2/Kingfisher outlook point 9/8/2011 Seward Park GO 9/12/2011 Yesler Creek South Ravine North End 9/12/2011 Washington Park Arboretum Lower Alder Creek 9/13/2011 54

North Beach North Beach Central Valley 9/20/2011 Discovery Park Kennedy 500-1 9/21/2011 Discovery Park Kennedy 500-2 9/21/2011 Lewis Park Central 9/24/2011 Schmitz Park SW Conifer Forest-1 9/24/2011 SW Queen Anne GB Lee St. 9/27/2011 Seola Central 9/29/2011 Discovery Park 03C-01-2 9/30/2011 St. Marks Greenbelt Leffler House 9/30/2011 Carkeek 2B12-1 10/6/2011 Schmitz Park SW Conifer Forest-2 10/9/2011 Kiwanis KRSb 10/10/2011 Cheasty GS chebvd_06 10/13/2011 Cowen cowen playground forest 10/13/2011 Carkeek 2B12-2 10/14/2011 Cheasty GS EC6 10/17/2011 Schmitz Park Hinds Slope 10/17/2011 Discovery Kennedy 500-3 10/18/2011 Kubota kugapk_04 10/18/2011 Camp Long Zone 12-13-14 E Forest 10/20/2011 Camp Long Zone 15_17 SE Forest 10/31/2011 Kiwanis KWC 10/21/2011 Kiwanis KRW5 10/21/2011 Me-Kwa-Mooks Big Firs 10/24/2011 Cowen Cowen north slope 10/25/2011 Camp Long Zone 6 Central Forest 10/29/2011 Frink Park Upper Leschi 5/9/2011 Lakeridge (Deadhorse Canyon) Rustic Road 6/8/2011 Longfellow Creek/Brandon St. Ivy Town 8/18/2011 Lewis Park Central (North) 8/29/2011 Discovery Tom Palm Utah Ave 8/29/2011 Carkeek Park 2A7-1 9/8/2011 Colman C11_C12_C13 9/12/2011 Cheasty GS Cheasty yard 9/22/2011 Magnuson Park Starflower site 9/23/2011 Me-Kwa-Mooks Mid Slope 9/26/2011 Kiwanis KRM5 9/26/2011 Golden Gardens Cistern 9/29/2011 Seola West Upper Trail 9/29/2011 Woodland Park Soap Box 10/4/2011 Woodland Park South mixed Forest 10/4/2011 Kubota Garden West Kubota 10/4/2011 Maple School Ravine South of Stairs 10/4/2011 55

Camp Long Zone 18 S. Forest-1 10/5/2011 Carkeek Park 2A7-2 10/7/2011 Carkeek Park 2A7-3 10/7/2011 Westcrest Westcrest N Central 10/11/2011 Northacres NE 130th Street 10/12/2011 Fauntleroy SE Ravine W- Zone 12 10/13/2011 Camp Long Zone 18 S. Forest-2 10/20/2011 Frink Park Frink Ridge 10/20/2011 Frink Frink Ridge 10/20/2011 Discovery Pearl Jam Acres 11/11/2011 Schmitz Central mixed forest 5/2/2011 Arroyos Natural Area Arroyos South Bluffs 5/3/2011 Fauntleroy SE Ravine zone 10 5/3/2011 Frink Park upper Leschi 5/3/2011 Pigeon Point pigeon point 03 5/5/2011 Pelly Place Natural Area Pelly place natural area east 5/5/2011 Schmitz 53rd Ave Social Trail 5/23/2011 College St. Ravine College St. Ravine Entry 6/15/2011 Lincoln Park lincpk_H8 6/28/2011 Westcrest WC Central SW 6/30/2011 Sturtevant sturrv_01 7/1/2011 Colman Park B6 7/5/2011 Westcrest Park 8th Ave 7/6/2011 East Duwamish GS: S. Chicago St. Trenton and 42nd 7/6/2011 Westcrest 4th Ave SW 8/10/2011 Cheasty GS Cheasty Yard East 8/11/2011

Appendix Q Summarized Protocol Field Sheet

TREE DENSITY What to include: All trees and snags in which at least half of the trunk lies within plot. Any coarse woody debris that lies within plot (do not measure sections that lie outside of plot) Regenerating Tree: Any tree less than five inches in DBH. Seedlings and saplings should also be counted in this tally. Overstory Tree: Any tree greater than five inches in DBH Diameter at Breast Height (DBH): Measure in inches and round to nearest O.5”. Take measurement at 4.5 feet above ground on upper slope. If tree does not have a DBH (ie. Less than 1” or shorter than 4.5’ tall, it MUST BE LABELED WITH A DBH OF 0.5”. Tree Health: (Healthy or Stressed) Stressed trees exhibit characteristics such as dead leaves, structural damage or disease. Tree Height: Measure to the nearest foot. OK to estimate after getting a few initial readings using a clinometers. Invasive Vines: (see species that qualify on opposite page). Vine needs to be attached to tree, not just present on ground. Snags: Any standing dead tree greater than 5 feet in height and greater than 5 inches DBH. Species Code: SNAG What to measure: DBH, height and decay class. Coarse Woody Debris: Any downed wood greater than 5 inches in diameter at any given point. Stumps less than 5 feet in height and at least 5 inches in diameter at any given point. Species Code: CWD What to measure: Diameter at mid way point, length and decay class Decay Class: Class I: a tree that has recently died and has intact bark, branches and hard wood. Class II: the tree is beginning to lose bark, leaves or needles and most branches are gone (in between class I and III). Class III: wood in an advanced state of decay with wood appearing spongy or full of holes.

Figure 2: Taking DBH in odd situations Figure 3: Examples of percent cover

Measuring Tree Height with Electronic Clinometer PERCENT COVER 1. Measure distance from you to tree with a measuring tape or range finder, if possible, measure height at least 50’+ away from tree. You need to Categories: <1%, 1-5%, 6-15%, 16- have a clear line of sight to the top of the tree. 2. Use DIST function to enter the distance by holding button down and 25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, 76-95%, 96- Figuretilting 4. Where instrument to up or down, release when correct number is displayed. measure DBH on a 100% 3. Clicktree once to get to DEG or % Function. With both eyes open, line up the two dashed horizontal lines (in the clinometer view) with the base of Reference for estimating cover in plot: the tree. With hand steady, hold button down until number freezes. Figure 5. Taking DBH in odd situations Release button.  3.3 ft x 3.3 ft (1 m x 1 m) = 0.25% 4. Click once to get HGT function. With both eyes open, line up the two  6.6 ft x 6.6 ft (2 m x 2 m) = 1% dashed horizontal lines with the very top of the tree. With hand steady, hold button down until number freezes. THIS IS YOUR TREE  9 ft x 9 ft (2.8 m x 2.8 m) = 2% HEIGHT.  15 ft x 15 ft (4.5 m x 4.5 m) = 5% NOTE: Device may time out and turn off. You will have to restart from the beginning, at the DIST function screen. To turn off, just click once past HGT function.

Contact Information:

Rory Denovan 57 Malia Caracoglia Plant Ecologist Forest Monitoring Team Program Coordinator th Natural Resource Management Unit 6310 NE 74 St. Suite 201E 1600 South Dakota St. Seattle, WA 98115 Seattle, WA 98108-1546 206-992 -6853 206-601-7423 [email protected]

FOREST MONITORING TEAM - SUMMARIZED PROTOCOLS FOR TIER 2 DATA PLOT SETUP (1/10th Acre)  Diameter = 74.5 feet (22.6m) Radius= 37.25ft (11.3m) NOTE: If site is too small (or narrow), do a 1/20th Acre circular plot. Diameter= 26.3 feet  MARK the rebar cap that designates the center: GSP FOREST MONITORING. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE. TODAYS DATE.  GPS: Collect one point at center of plot  TAKE 4 PHOTOS FROM CENTER POINT FACING IN FOUR CARDINAL DIRECTIONS (N,E,S,W)  FILL OUT PLOT INFORMATION DATA SHEET (this is critical to locating this plot in future years!)

PLOT CHARACTERISTICS INVENTORY DATA SHEET  ASPECT: direction plot is sloping towards  SLOPE MEASUREMENT: clinometer will be either set in percent or degrees, circle one and record number. (see directions below)  SOIL COMPACTION: based on human influence (trail, road, old building site, etc.)  SOIL TYPE: see figure 1  LITTER DEPTH: litter is un-decomposed vegetation or mulch , take average depth over plot  BARE GROUND: includes bare dirt or mulch  OVERSTORY CANOPY COVER: considering only overstory trees (>5” DBH), determine total leaf cover on plot.  OVERSTORY TREE DIAMETER: Record predominant DBH of overstory trees, if no overstory trees mark <5”  COARSE WOODY DEBRIS (CWD): CWD must be greater than 5” DBH.  HABITAT TYPE: there must be 30% or greater overstory cover of that type present o Conifer forest- Overstory dominated by conifer trees o Conifer deciduous mixed- Both conifer and deciduous trees are at least 30% present in the overstory o Deciduous forest- Overstory dominated by deciduous trees o Forested wetland- Trees growing in standing water or saturated soils; or small wetlands entirely beneath overhanging forest canopy o Madrone- Overstory dominated by madrones o Madrone conifer mixed- Both madrone and conifer trees make up at least 30% of the overstory canopy o Madrone deciduous mixed- Both madrone and deciduous trees make up at least 30% of the overstory canopy o Riparian forest- Greater than 25% tree canopy with stream as dominant influence o Shrubland- Less than 10% tree canopy and dominated by shrubs or regenerating trees (ie. blackberry, etc.) o Tree savannah- 10%-25% tree canopy with unmown grass, shrubs or both.

IS IT A TREE OR A SHRUB? IS IT AN INVASIVE VINE? TREES (DENSITY DATA SHEET) SHRUBS (PERCENT COVER DATA SHEET)

ENGLISH HOLLY (Ilex aquifolium) WILLOW SPECIES (Salix sp.) CHERRY LAUREL (Prunus laurocerasus) VINE MAPLE (Acer circinatum) PORTUGAL LAUREL (Prunus lusitanica) BEAKED HAZELNUT (Corylus cornuta) COMMON HAWTHORNE (Crataegus monogyna) INVASIVE VINE EUROPEAN MOUNTAIN ASH (Sorbus aucuparia) ENGLISH IVY (Hedera Helix) CLEMATIS (Clematis vitalba) HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY (Rubus armeniacus)

Figure 1: How to Determine Soil Types

Measuring Slope with Electronic Clinometer START 1. Click button twice to reach DEG or % function, you Place approximately 25 g of soil in palm. Add water droplets and will not need the DIST function for this. knead the soil to break down all aggregates. Soil is at the proper 2. Stand at top or bottom of slope within plot. Have consistency when plastic and moldable, like moist putty. your partner at the other end. Find the point on your

partner that is equal to the height of your eye level. Does soil remain in a Sand 3. With both eyes open, line up the two dashed ball when squeezed? No horizontal lines (in the clinometer view) at that eye- Yes level point. (ex. if the person is shorter than you, you may look at their forehead, or if they were the Place ball of soil between thumb and forefinger, gently pushing the same height you would look at their eyes, etc.) soil with the thumb, squeezing it upward into a ribbon. Form a ribbon of uniform thickness and width. Allow the ribbon to emerge 4. With hand steady, hold button down until number and extend over the forefinger, breaking from its own weight. freezes. THIS IS YOUR PERCENT OR DEGREE SLOPE. Does soil form a ribbon less Does soil form a ribbon than 5 cm long before 5cm or longer breaking? before breaking?

58 Yes Yes

Silt Clay

Appendix B. Soil texture diagram (adapted from S.J. Thien. 1979. A flow diagram for teaching texture by feel analysis. Journal of Agronomic Education. 8:54-55.

Appendix S FMT Logos

(one color for ease/cost of product printing)