Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHMP 05-06; CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES; YEAR 3 REVEGETATION MONITORING REPORT; 2011-06-292.1 Monitoring Methodology Project monitoring methodology is as follows: 1. Quarterly Monitoring of the irrigation system, trash/vandalism, weed infestation, erosion, pests/disease, container survival, cover of indicator species, percent of key species, and observations/ recommendations 2. Photodocumentation -Permanent stations are established at locations which best capture project views (see Figure 2). 3. Performance Standards I year Performance standard I Year2 50% achievement of ultimate vegetative cover of native species By year-end of second dry season, shut off supplemental irrigation. No highly invasive species present; maximum 10% ultimate cover of weeds considered not a threat to displace native vegetation. I Year3 50% achievement of ultimate vegetative cover of native species. 100% survival of remaining dominant/sub-dominant species No highly invasive species present; maximum 10% ultimate cover of weeds considered not a threat to displace native vegetation. Qualitative Monitoring Monitoring sampling methods are not prescribed in the revegetation program. For this report, qualitative monitoring was utilized, which is the collection of data by visual assessment. 3.0 Monitoring Results On March 28, 2011 Planning Systems monitored the revegetation to collect data for this report. Greg Evans, restoration ecologist, performed the assessment. 3.1 Qualitative Assessment I. Irrigation System -Irrigation of the revegetation was discontinued in September 2010. 2. Trash/ Vandalism -The site is free of trash and garbage at this time. 3. Weed Infestation -Very limited naturally-occurring weed cover exists, estimated at presently less than 3%. A cultivar ofBaccharis pilularis (probably Baccharis pilularis 'Twin Peaks') was planted as a ground cover throughout the plot as an erosion control measure. This cultivar is interdigitated with natives. In an erosion control setting this plant is well placed, but in native habitat this plant is a weed. However, it is not a weed that will survive long-term in a non-irrigated setting, as taller natives overtop and shade this ground cover. It is presently assisting the project in providing erosion control and in suppressing weeds, so at this time it will be tolerated. This cultivar will not reproduce like other weeds and will eventually die off once horticultural practices utilized in growing the revegetation are discontinued. In terms of vegetative cover assessment for this report, this plant will be ignored in the data set. Year 3 Revegetation Monitoring Report, Cassia Professional Offices, 6-29-11 4. Erosion -Past erosion problems have been corrected. 5. Pests/Disease-None observed 6. Container survival-The initial container installation totaled 125 plants comprised of eight species. A year 1 requirement of this project was "80% survival of installed container material unless their function and value has been replaced by natural recruitment". In 2009, two- hundred additional containers were installed with an expanded species list of nine species. In 2011 considerably more that 125 plants of these nine species survive as established containers. Eight of the nine container species installed have survived. Only the Scrub oak (Quercus berberdifolia) did not establish. 7. Cover of Indicator Species -Cover is measured qualitatively for this project (by visual estimate). As of March 28, 2011, the estimated average plot cover of native plants is 50% cover or greater. When the Baccharis cultivar is excluded from the data set, the project meets or exceeds the Year 3 performance standard 50% ultimate vegetative cover of native species" criteria. In terms of native plant density, the distribution of individuals across the plot is very good. The revegetated natives are considered established. Over the next several years, the revegetation area is likely to become increasingly dominated by native plant cover. 8. Percent of Key Species (dominant and sub-dominant)-Seven key species were identified for this project, six of which are presently established in the revegetation; the Scrub oak (Quercus berberdifolia) has not established. Dominant species to date are Black sage (Salvia mellifera), and Coast sage brush (Artemesia califomica). The sub-dominant species is Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). The project is required is to establish an "erosion control planting" that is comprised of 50% native cover. Therefore our objective has been to encourage the natives most likely to pioneer the site. The most successfully establishing species have been black sage coastal sagebrush and coyote brush. It is our opinion that over time, desirable chaparral species will outcompete and eventually dominate these coastal sage scrub associates. 4.0 Conclusions The project has substantively met its requirements as described below. 1. The ultimate cover of existing native plants is 5 0% or greater. 2. Supplemental irrigation has been discontinued, and the existing planting are considered established. 3. No invasive species are present on the revegetation plot. 4. Weed species comprise significantly less than the maximum allowable 10% cover. 5. Erosion, trash, pests and disease are not issues. 5.0 Recommendations Based on the survey results of March 28, 2011, the project has met or exceeded its revegetation performance requirements and is in our opinion eligible for tum over to the long term manager. It is our understanding that upon acceptance the long-term manager shall assume all future maintenance of the revegetation. Year 3 Revegetation Monitoring Report, Cassia Professional Offices, 6-29-11 7.0 References Hickman, J.C., Editor, 1993, The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California, Berkeley, CA, pp. 1392. Holland, R.F., 1986, Preliminary Description of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California, Unpublished technical report. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Natural History Division, Sacramento, CA. Munz, P.A., 1974, A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. pp. 1084 Sawyer, J.O. and Keeler-Wolf, T.,2009, A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. pp. 1300. Brenzel, Kathleen N., Editor, 2001. Sunset Garden Book. Sunset Publishing Corporation, Menlo Park, CA. pp. 768. Rebman, Jon P., and Simpson, Michael G., 2006, Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Diego County 4th Edition. San Diego Natural History Museum, San Diego, CA. pp. 99. Planning Systems, 2006. Upland Habitat Revegetation Program, Cassia Professional Offices, Carlsbad, CA, February 10, 2006. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Growers Weed Identification Handbook. Publication Number 4030, University of California, Oakland, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California (Region 0). Biological Report 88 (26.10). May 1988. Year 3 Revegetation Monitoring Report, Cassia Professional Offices, 6-29-11