Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3466; OLIVEHAIN RD WIDENING AND REALIGNMENT; FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT; 2002-09-01
I TABLE OF CONTENTS :Page. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2 I 2.1 2.0 MONITORING ..............................................................................................................7 Horticultural Monitoring ......................................................................................7 2.2 Botanical Monitoring 8 I 3.0 SUCCESS STANDARDS.............................................................................................ii 4.0 RESULTS ......................... . ............ ........... .................................................................. ....11 4.1 Tree and Shrub Heights ii I 5.0 4.2 Percent Cover 11 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS STANDARDS ............................................................... .13 5.1 Tree and Shrub Heights ........................................................................................ 13 I : 5.2 Tree and Shrub Survival ........................... . .......................................... ................. 13 5.3 Percent Cover ....................................................................................................14 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................14 6.0 REFERENCES ............................................. . ................................................... ............. 15 I APPENDIX A 16 CORRESPONDENCE 16 APPENDIXB............................................................................................................................1 I BOTANICAL- MONITORING DATA ...................................... .......... ................................................ 1 APPENDIX C.......................1 PHOTOGRAPHS OF TRANSECT LOCATIONS .......................................................................1 I LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Project Location Map 3 . Figure 2 Site Map ........................... ......... ........... ..................................................... ........... 4 I Figure 3 Olivenhain Wetland Mitigation Area - 2000 6 I 1 LIST OFTABLES . . Table 1 Olivenhaiñ Road Wetland Mitigation Area - Floral Species List . ..........................8 Table 2 Olivenhain Road Wetland Mitigation Area - Horticultural and Botanical Success Standards 10 Table 3 Olivenhain Road Wetland Mitigation Area - Percent Cover 11 I • LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Correspondence..*- -**'*"*** ... ......................................................... .... A-1 Appendix B Botanical Monitoring Data .................................................................B-i Appendix C Photographs of Transect Locations............................................ .................. ....... C-i I a I I 32540000-3003/3151 0602R046 doc Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the fourth annual report for the 5-year Olivenhain Road Widening Project wetland mitigation area (mitigation area). The Olivenhain mitigation area is located in Olivenhain along Encinitas Creek south of Olivenhain Road, approximately 0.8 mile east of the road widening impact area at the intersection of Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real. The City of Carlsbad obtained California Department of Fish and Game Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement No. 5-560-94 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 95-20096-BH to construct the project. The permit requirements included the creation, planting, 5 year maintenance, and biological monitoring of 0.5 acre of wetland habitat (0.34 acre southern willow scrub and 0.16 acre freshwater marsh). The permit also addressed the 1.1-acre flood control dike located adjacent to the mitigation area. The flood control dike was seeded with a riparian scrub transitional habitat mix and container plants were installed. The flood control dike was revegetated to prevent erosion and to create native habitat adjacent to the mitigation area. It is not mitigation for impacts associated with the Olivenhain Road Widening Project. The Olivenhain mitigation area has fulfilled most of the success standards for the fourth year I and is in good condition. The eastern portion of the mitigation area, which consists of upland riparian scrub transitional habitat, southern willow scrub, and freshwater marsh, is self- supporting and no longer requires irrigation. The western portion of the mitigation area, which I consists of southern willow scrub, freshwater marsh, and one-year-old container plants, is not self-supporting and still requires irrigation. The southern 'portion of the flood control dike, which consists of upland riparian scrub transitional habitat is also self-supporting and no longer I requires irrigation. The northern portion of the flood control dike, which consists of upland riparian scrub transitional habitat and one year old container plants, is not self-supporting and still requires irrigation. I All success standards in year 4 were met or exceeded except for the tree height success standard. The project's success standards in year 4 state that tree (willow) heights will be I 2.7 meters and shrub (Baccharis sp.) heights will be 1.5 meters. In year 4 container tree survival will be 90 percent and container shrub survival will be 80 percent. The success standards also require 85 percent ground cover by all species in year 4 at the, mitigation area. Approximately I 44 percent of trees in the mitigation area met or exceeded the success standard of 2.7 meters and approximately 89 percent of the shrubs met or 'exceeded the success standard of 1.5 meters. The tree and shrub survival rate exceeded 90 percent in the mitigation area. Ground I . cover by all species was 135.92 percent throughout the mitigation area. The project's success standards apply to the mitigation area and do not apply to the adjacent flood control dike. I Encroachment into the riparian scrub transitional habitat on the flood control dike occurred during construction of an adjacent housing development in 2001. Approximately 0.69 acre located on the southern portion of the flood control dike was bladed and is now part of a housing I development. Concordia Homes developed portions of ,the flood control dike after the City vacated an easement for temporary construction and permanent slope maintenance. The mitigation area history, loss of mitigation acreage, and current site conditions were discussed I during the triannual formal field meeting that occurred on 19 October 2001 with Native Landscape, Dudek and Associates (Dudek), andAMEC (Appendix A). A written account about 32540000-3003/3151-0602R046.doc Pagel I I the flood control dike from John L. Minchin of Dudek is also included in Appendix A. The I subsequent letter refers to 0.991 acre that was bladed diring construction. located on the southern portion of the flood control dike. It was later determined that 0.691 acre of the flood control dike was impacted. Revegetation of a portion of the flood control dike by the Colina Roble project reflects a net loss of 0.40 acres of area; after consideration of the revegetation that has occurred. AMEC recommends the following remedial measures for 2002 based on the current site. I conditions: 'I . Discontinue, irrigation during the rainy, season if rainfall is 'adequate to keep the plants healthy. if necessary, irrigation will begin again in spring as the rainy season comes to an end. The irrigation schedule will be tapered off by June so plants adapt to natural conditions. I This will also help to wean the remaining container plants off irrigation. .lnspect the irrigation system regularly and prune growth around sprinkler heads, as' needed, to maintain adequate sprinkler coverage. . . . I . Control the following invasive exotic weed species whenever they appear on-site: salt cedar (Tamarix sp.), pampas grass (Cortaderia sp.), castor bean (Ricinus communis), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), gum tree seedlings (Eucalyptus sp.), yellow star-thistle (Centaurea I soistitialls), and giant'reed (Arundo donax). . ' Prevent annual weeds from becoming competitive and dominant. Such species in need of control may include black mustard (Brassica nigra), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), milk I .thistle (Silybum mrianum), bur clover (M8dicago hispida), 'and sow thistle (Sonchus asper). 1.0' INTRODUCTION I This is the fourth of five annual reports for, the Olivenhain Road Widening Project wetland ' mitigation area (mitigation area). This report covers the period from December2000 through December 2001. AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AMEC) is the biological consultant for the I 'mitigation area for the City of Carlsbad (City). ,The mitigation area and, flood control dike are located along Encinitas Creek south of Olivenhain Road, approximately 0.8 mile east of the road widening impact area at the intersection of Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real (Figures 1 and I 2)i Based on a biological survey and report (Mooney 1991), the City Obtained California I Department Of.. Fish and Game (CDFG) Section. 1601 Streambed 'Alteration Agreement No. 5-560-94 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 95-20096-BH to construct the project. The permit requirements included the creation, I .planting, 5 year maintenance, and biological monitoring of 0.5 acre of wetland habitat (0.34 acre southern willow scrub and 0.16 acre freshwater marsh). The permit also addressed the 1.1-acre flood control dike located adjacent to the mitigation area.. The flood control dike was seeded with I a riparian scrub transitional habitat mix and container plants were installed. The flood control dike was revegetated to prevent erosion .'and to create native habitat adjacent to the mitigation area; 32540000-3003/3151-0602RO46.doc Page 2 I '.&4 WMj • I. TSITE MTA 3Wp4S if RD • Nip • NOT TO SCALE i Project Location Map amec,9 Biology/OUvenhain 2000/01ivenhain Proj LOCA.FHB I 1 ••'__ . I...-., CAM/NO AL VARo - SANTA F RIDGE \ CARLSBAD TRACI NO I \ •. - I .. • .•• - - - - -- -:-. : 15 cS DIRT ROAD - OLJVNI-JA1N MUNICIPAL WATER DISTFJCT 0 LOT 13 - MAP NC 543 - :• - ANC}jC) LAS NCJ1 TAS . •'• .• - AREA . •. - .... .•• - •• Li . • ••-• TRANSITIONAL - - •. O7rn7cw - - HABITAT - - - ON DIKES WGAND PROPERTIES ENCINITAS Z. 10 LOT 13 MA-P No, 845. -• RANCHO LAS NCij\iTA5 1/u/is c - st:WK •• • - • .•. - -. •••- FOR 017EN1?ON DIKE AND 9RUWAY N . FIGURE ameiiii:~SfteMap 2 Bioogy/OIWenhain 2000liverthain Site Map.FI-18 . •• . . I I ,. The mitigation area and flood control dike were well maintained during the first 3 months I following planting in late 1997 by the landscape contractor, Tarzian Landscape. After the first three months, the landscape contractor did not maintain the mitigation area. Weeding was not performed and gullies that had formed from an off-site water source were not fixed. Some I willows died due to lack of irrigation and the success of the mitigation area and flood control - dike was compromised by overall lack of maintenance. No maintenance occurred on the mitigation area in 1999 or through spring 2000. In April 2000 AMEC met with Marshall Plantz of , I the City of Carlsbad and Ardis Perry of Native Landscape, Inc. (Native Landscape) to discuss necessary remedial measures at the mitigation site., - - I In April 2001 remedial actions were implemented at the mitigation area and on the flood control dike according to recommendations made in the third annual report from 2000 (Appendix A). Soil amendments were added to all of the growing areas on the mitigation area and I 125 container plants were planted in the mitigation area and on the flood control dike. Weeding occurred for invasive and noninvasive, nonnative plants throughout the mitigation area and flood control dike. - I Encroachment into the riparian scrub transitional habitat on the flood control dike occurred during construction of an adjacent housing development in 2001. Concordia Homes developed I portions of the flood control dike after the City vacated an easement for temporary construction and permanent slope maintenance. Approximately 0.69 acre located on the southern flood control dike portion (Figure 3) was bladed and is now part of a housing development. It was I determined after research and GIS work that the flood control dike was 1.1 acre instead of 1.4 acre as originally assumed which changed the acreage from 0.99 acre to 0.69 acre. Revegetation of a portion of the flood control dike by the Colina Roble project reflects a net loss - I of 0.40 acres of area, after consideration of the revegetation that has occurred. The flood control dike is separate from the mitigation area and was not included in the mitigation - package as it was riot mitigation for a loss in acreage during construction of the Olivenhain I Road Widening Project. A letter from John L. Minchin of Dudek is included in Appendix A which discusses the purpose of the flood control dike in relation to the mitigation area and the function that it would serve for future developments. I- - I - - - - - - - - I - I - 32540000-3003/3151-0602R046.doã - Page 1 - - - -- :- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 20 MONITORING I The established monitoring program for the mitigation area is comprised of three purposes: (1) ensure that proper installation, rriaintenance, and establishment procedures are followed, I (2) quantitatively and qualitatively assess site conditions relative to defined success criteria in order to evaluate project progress, and (3) recommend remedial actions, if the project does not meet the success standards. Horticultural monitoring is the primary method for evaluating I achievement of establishment and a combination of horticultural and botanical monitoring is used to evaluate achievement of the success standards. Remedial actions are also recommended to achieve success standards. 2.1 Horticultural Monitoring I AMEC conducted three horticultural monitoring visits during the fourth year, in April, August, and September 2001. Horticultural monitoring of the mitigation area includes an assessment of the following parameters; container plant establishment and health, natural recruitment, nonnative I weed issues, irrigation, trash removal, and pest/pathogens. - Container plant establishment at the mitigation area is, appropriate for site and climatic I conditions. Most of the trees and shribs in the mitigation area have established and have survived since the April 2001 planting. There are many naturally occurring tree and shrub species that are established in the mitigation area. All of these species established from seed that was either part of the original seed mix, or seed that came from the established trees and shrubs in the mitigation area and flood control dike. Tree species such as narrow-leafed willow (Salix exigua) and Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and shrub species such as coastal goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), California encelia (Encella cáliforn!ca), and arrow weed (Pluchea sericea) are abundant throughout the mitigation area and occur in several diverse age classes. - Weeding has occurred on a regular basis in the mitigation area by the landscape maintenance contractor. Invasive, nonnative perennial weed species such as pampas grass (Cortaderia sp), salt cedar (Tamarix sp.), castor bean (Ricinus communis), giant reed (Arundo donax), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) were completely eradicated from the mitigation area and the flood control dike in 2001. All annual, nonnative species such as black mustard (Brassica nigra), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), bur clover (Medicago hispida), and sow thistle (Sonchus aspei) were also controlled during 2001. Irrigation has occurred inconsistently at the mitigation area since 1997. However, in 2001 both the mitigation area were irrigated consistently and at appropriate levels. The eastern portion of the mitigation area, which consists of upland riparian scrub transitional habitat, southern willow scrub, and freshwater marsh, is self-supporting and no longer requires irrigation. The western portion of the mitigation area, which consists of southern willow scrub, freshwater marsh, and one-year-old container plants, is not self-supporting and still requires irrigation. The southern portion of the flood control dike, which consists of upland riparian scrub transitional habitat is - ' 32540000-3003/3151-0602R046.doc - Page also self-supporting and no longer requires irrigation. The northern portion of the flood control' dike, which consists of upland riparian scrub transitional habitat and one year old container plants is not self-supporting and still requires irrigation Trash removal and pest/pathogen issues have not been problems in the mitigation area in the pastor during 2001. , The.flood control dike is performing well at this time. Recruitment from seeded and volunteer species is occurring on the flood control dike. Little bare ground exists on the flood control dike and most of the flood control dike appears stabilized against erosion due to the Vegetative recruitment and cover. The southern portion of the flood control dike no longer requires irrigation and is persisting on natural conditions. The northern, portion still requires irrigation to support container plants that were planted in 2000. Table 1 is a floral species list indicating vegetative composition for the mitigation area and the flood control dike. A total of 39 species have been observed as of to date. 2.2 'Botanical Monitoring'' Botanical monitoring was conducted in 2001. Quantitative botanical monitoring was conducted in thp mitigation area and on the flood control dike, but was only required for the mitigation area. Therefore, the results of the botanical monitoring will only focus on the mitigation area aside from tree and shrub heights, which will be presented for both the mitigation area and the flood control dike. Quantitative botanical monitoring consisted of measuring container tree and shrub heights and percent cover of on-site vegetation. Tree and shrub heights were collected for all trees and shrubs existing in the mitigation area a'nd on the flood control dike. Tree and shrub heights were collected with a tree height measurement instrument. Percent cover was collected using the line-intercept method. Four transects were required by the mitigation plan, however, two transects were erroneously placed on the flood control dike which is not subject to success criteria (Figure 3). Two transects will have to be established during year 5 botanical monitoring. The raw botanical monitoring data are located in Appendix B. These data were used to evaluate the project performance relative to specific success standards. Photographs of transect 1 and 2 locations are located in Appendix C. The transect locations were marked with one t-post and flagging. Table 1 Olivenhain Road Mitigation Area and Flood control dike Floral Species List Scientific Name Common Name Anagallis ai'vensis scarlet pimpernel Anemopsis califomica yerba mansa - Artemisia douglasiana Douglas mugwort Artemisia califomica California sagebrush 32540000-3003/3151 -0602R046.doc Page 8 Scientific Name Common Name Artemisia pa/men -. Palmer's sagewort Baccharis salicifolia mulefat * Baccharis pilularis coyote bush * Brassica nigra black mustard * Carpobrotus edulis Hotentot fig * Conium maculatum Poison hemlock Conyza canadensis horseweed Cyperus esculentus yellow nutsedge Distich!isspicata saltgrass - Encelia californica coastal sunflower Frankenia sauna alkali heath * Gnaphauium Iuteo-album cudweed Heteromeles atbutifolia toyoñ Isocoma menziesii coastal goldenbush Isomerisatborea bladderpod Juncus acutus spiny rush Leymus condensatus giant wild rye Lotus scoparius deerweed Ma/ye/la leprosa alkali mallow * Me/ilotus a/ba sweetciover * Mel/lotus indica .- sourclover Oenothera elata ssp. hirsutissima evening primrose • Picn's echioides bristly ox-tongue - Pluchea odorata salt marsh fleabane Pluchea sericea arrow weed * Polypogon monspliensis - rabbit's foot grass • Rumexcnspus curly dock Salicomia virginica pickleweed Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow Scirpus ca/ifomicus bulrush - Scirpus robusta alkali rush * Solanum douglas/i black nightshade * Sonchus oleraceus annual sow thistle Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm - *Denotes nonnative and/or invasive species 32540000-300313151-0602R046.doc - Page 30 SUCCESS STANDARDS Success standards for the project during years 3 through 5 are outlined in Table 2 Table 2 Olivenhain Road Mitigation Area Horticultural and Botanical Success Standards Success Requirements Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Standard Remedial Action Willow Heights 2.Om 2.7m.. '3.4m 'Replant or receive remedial measures, substitutions possible; Mulefat Heights 1.2m 1.5m 1.8m Replant or receive remedial measures, substitutions possible. Tree Survival Plantings1 90% . 90% 90% Replant.if riot met. Shrub Survival Plantings' 80% 80% 80% Replant if not met Groundcover by All Species 75% 85% 90% Additional seed or container plantings as recommended by revegetation designer. Irrigation will gradually be All plantings must survive Final project evaluation will not be withdrawn from the through one full dry season made until the first March after revegetation/mitigation without supplemental irrigation has been discontinued. areas during years 3 and 4. irrigation.. At the discretion of the revegetation monitor, dead container plants can be mitigated for by naturally invading native seedlings, if such seedlings are within 5 feet of the original plantings, and of similar species or habitat value. m=meters - 40 RESULTS The tree and shrub heights and percent cover for the mitigation area are discussed below. 4.1 Tree and Shrub Heights Willow species and Baccharis species heights were collected in the .mitigation area. Willow species are referred to as trees and Baccharis species are referred to as shrubs. All tree and shrub heights were taken for all trees and shrubs occurring in the mitigation area because it was difficult to distinguish container plants from the volunteers. Each tree or shrub was recorded as a container, a volunteer, or an unknown. The tree assessment included 98 trees, 'of' which 40 were container trees, 15 were volunteer trees, 41 were unknown trees, and 2 were dead. The shrub assessment included 110 shrub individuals of which 51'.were container shrubs, 8 were volunteer shrubs, 50 were unknown shrubs, and 1 dead shrub. 4.2 Percent Cover - - The total percent vegetative cover for' all species is 135.92 percent. The native species cover is .132.69 percent and the nonnative species cover is 3.23 percent. Percent cover data are • presented in Table 3. - 32540000-3003/3151-0602R046,doc Page 10 I I Table I . OLIVENHAIN ROAD WETLAND MITIGATION AREA PERCENT COVER / Scientific Name Common Name Percent Absolute Cover Isocoma menziesii * coastal goldenbush 50.50 Artemisia pa/men * Palmer's sagebrush 28.69 Ambrosia psiostachya * western ragweed 13.20 Leymus condensatus * giant wild rye 10.82 Oenothera elata spp. Hirsutissima * primrose 7.90 Piuchea sericea * arrowweed 5.47 Encelia califomica * California encelia * 5.00. Bacchans salicifolia • mulefat 3.83 Brassicanigra black mustard 2.44 Anemopsis califomica * lizard tail 2.40 Baccharis pilularis * coyote bush 1.50 Artemisia dougiasiana Douglas mugwort 1.30 Conyzacanadensis * horseweed 1.04 Artemisia califomica * California sagebrush 0.50 Sa/ix exigua * narrow-leaved willow 0.50 Anagallis arvensis . Scarlet pimpernel 0.42 Picris echioides bristlyox-tongue . 0.37 Solanum douglasii black nightshade 0.04 Percent Total Cover 135.92 Percent Native Cover 132.69 Percent Nonnative Cover 3.23 5.0 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS STANDARDS The evaluations of the results are discussed below in relation to the success standards. 5.1 Tree and Shrub Heights V V V The tree height success standard for year 4 was not achieved, but the shrub height success standard was achieved. The specified tree height success standard is 2.7 meters and the' shrub height success standard is 1.5 meters. V In 1997, 101 container trees were planted between the mitigation area and the flood control dike. Of the 101 trees, 23 died and approximately 20 were replanted in 2001. Currently, 98 trees are growing within the mitigation area and the flood control dike, which is approximately the original number planted in 1997. Of the 98 trees, appr'oximately.44 percent, or 42 trees, met or exceeded the success standard of 2.7 meters. Almost half of the trees at the mitigation area and the flood control dike are smaller than the success standard; however, this percentae represents a combination of container, volunteer, and unknown trees and the trees on the flood control dike are not subject to the success standards. V V Some of the container trees were only planted in 2001 and therefore are not expected to meet the year 4 height success standard. It should also be noted that naturally occurring ,trees adjacent to the mitigation area that existed prior to the construction of the mitigation area are typically smaller in stature and do not exceed 6 meters. It can be surmised from the naturally occurring trees adjacent to the site, that large trees, taller than 6 meters, are not typical for the site and may not be possible due to pre-existing site constraints. The trees in the mitigation area are healthy and volunteer trees occur throughout the mitigation area in several age classes. In time, all the trees will meet heights that are supported by and suited to the.mitigation area. No remedial measures are recommended for the trees although the tree height standard was not achieved for all trees on the mitigation area. In 1997, 58 container shrubs were planted between the mitigation area and the flood control dike. Of the 58 shrubs, none died, but 20 were replanted in 2001. There are currently 109 shrubs planted between the mitigation area. and the flood control dike. Of the 109 shrubs, V approximately 89 percent, or 97 shrubs met or exceeded the success standard of 1.5 meters. 5.2 Tree and Shrub Survival The container tree and shrub survival success standard for year 4 has been achieved The percent survival success standard for year 4 i& 90 percent for container trees and 80 percent for container shrubs. Since the 2001 planting, 10 out of 125 (8%) container plant species have died, including 7 upland shrub species, 2 narrow-leaved willow trees, and 1 mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). The tree and shrub survival percentages are presently both above 90 percent. Some of the shrub species do not appear to be suited for some portions of the mitigation area and are stunted and unhealthy. However, many other native container plant species such as arrow weed and giant wild rye (Leymus condensatus) have established well throughout the mitigation area and produced seed this past year. Natural recruitment and volunteer species in the mitigation area far outweigh the percentage of dead container plants. V 32540000-3003/3151-0602flO46.doc V - Page 12 I I . 5.3 Percent Cover. '.. The percent cover standard for year 4 has been achieved. The percent cover success standard by all species in the mitigation area for year 4 is 85 percent. The total cover for all species after . I year 4 for the mitigation area is' 135.92 percent. The native species cover is 132.69 percent and the nonnative species cover is 3.23 percent. The dominant native species is giant wild rye' with a * percent óover of 50.50. Palmer's sagebrush is the second most dominant species at the I .mitigation area with a percent cover of 28.69. Wetland indicator species such as willow species and rush species (Juncus sp.) are underrepresented in the percent cover data, however, these .species do occur in the mitigation area and just happen to occur in areas where the transects I . were not placed. Black mustard is the most dominant nonnative species with a percent cover of 2.44, which is,-.extremely low. .. . .. •. ., 1 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS •. . I AMEC recommends the following for year 5 of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring program: Discontinue irrigation during the rainy season it rainfall is adequate to keep the plants healthy: If necessary, irrigation will begin again in spring as the rainy season comes to an I end. The irrigation schedule will be tapered off by June so plants adapt to natural conditions. This will also help to wean the remaining container plants off irrigation. Inspect the irrigation system regularly and prune growth around sprinkler heads, as needed, to maintain I .adequate sprinkler coverage. Control the following invasive exotic weed species whenever they appear in the mitigation area and the flood control dike: salt cedar (Tamarix sp.), pampas grass (Cortaderia sp.), - I castor bean (Ricinus communis), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), gum tree seedlings' (Eucalyptus sp.), yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and giant reed (Arundo dànax). Control annual weeds-to keep them from becoming competitive and dominant. Such species I in need of control may include black mustard (Brass/ca nigra), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), bur clover (Med/ca go hispida), and sow thistle (Sonchus aspe,). I •1" ' . -- I H . I . . . . 32540000-3003/3151-0602R046.doc Page 13 I -- . .. •:, , - - * I I Ia I I I t I I I 'I 1 November 1, 2001 Ms. Sherri Howard Project Manager City of Carlsbad . Engineering Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad California 92008 Subject: Olivenhain Road Widening Mitigation Sité-Seôond and Third Horticultural Reports and Discussion on Loss of Mitigation Acreage During the Triannual Formal Field Meeting Dear Ms. Howard: AMEC Earth & Environmental (AMEC) submits this letter as the second and third horticultural monitoring reports for the Olivenhain road widening mitigation area to the City of Carlsbad (The City) for your records. A horticultural letter report was written that covered the month of April 2001 and this report covers the months of August and September 2001. This letter also details a site visit on 19 October 2001 to diècuss the loss of 0.991 acres of mitigation at the Olivenhain site. S The project has U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 95- 20096-BH and California Department Fish and Game Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement No. 5-560-94. According. to the Olivenhain Road Widening/Realignment and Flood Control Project Wetland Mitigatiori/Revegetation Plan Carlsbad, California, November 1995, horticultural monitoring reports must be completed and sent to The City and the landscape maintenance contractor, Native Landscape, Inc. (Native Landscape) three times a year. The August and September 2001 visits complete the horticultural monitoring for the fourth year of the Olivenhain Road widening mitigation site A representative from Native Landscape, Debbie Fromme, and a biologist from AMEC visited the site on 17 August 2001. During the site visit, the irrigation system, native plant health and recruitment, and weeding of the site were discussed. No maintenance recommendations resulted from the August meeting. During the September site visit, AMEC initiated the botanical monitoring (results to be included in the fourth annual report) of the site and completed the third and final horticultural monitoring of the site for this year. Overall, the site is progressing extremely well. Volunteer recruitment of many plants such as willow (Salix sp.), mule fat (Baccharis sailcifolia), arrow weed (Pkichea sericea), salt marsh fleabane (Pluchea odorata), goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), and giant wild rye (Leymus condensatus), have occurred throughout the site. There is continuous native plant cover, many vigorous native plants, and several evident age classes that have established throughout the site. A list of plant species t resently occurring on site was compiled during this visit (Table 1). AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 5510 Morehouse Drive San Diego, CA 92121 Tel 858-458-9044 Fax 858-458-0943 www.amec.com - U I I I I I I I I I I - 1 LI I - Ms. Sherri Howard; ame&?, November 1, 2001 - I Page I There are a small number of dead container plants at the site. One hundred twenty-five container plants Were planted in April 2001 as part of a remedial action at the site. During the September site visit; approximately 10 of these container plants were dead - I and another 10 appeared stunted and unhealthy from lack of water and/or rabbit herbivory. It is not recommended at this time that these dead container, plants be replaced since the majority of the container plants have survived and there are many I native, volunteer plant species on site. Weeds are not a problem on site at this time. The levels of, non-native and/or invasive weed species on site were low and have obviously been controlled. Many of the non- I . native and/or invasive plant species such as pampas grass (Cortadena sip) have previously been removed from the site. There are some non-native species on site such as black mustard (Brassica nigra), poison hemlock. (Conium rnaculatum), horseweed .I (Conyza canadensis), and cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium). They are present in low but should be removed by Native Landscape during one of their yegular site ,numbers, visits. - I . It has become apparent, over the last year that a portion of the mitigation site was taken over by a housing development. Approximately 0.991 acres located on the southern I dike portion of the site was bladed and is now, part of a housing development. Concordia Homes developed portions of the mitigation site after The City vacated a site easement. The site history, loss of mitigation acreage, and the current site conditions were discussed during the triannual formal field meeting which occurred on 19 October I with Native Landscape, Dudek and Associates (Dudek), and AMEC. The City determined that Dukek would determine the remaining mitigation acreage using I geographic positioning system technology, and locate a suitable wetland/upland mitigation site, at a determined mitigation ratio, to replace the 0.991 acreage that was developed. AMEC would research the site history, assist Dudek in locating •a wetland/upland mitigation parcel, coordinate discussions and proposals with necessary I agencies, and prepare a conceptual mitigation and monitoring plan for the new mitigation site. AMEC will continue site visits and submit letter reports, including the fourth annual U report, in accordance with the project's permits and agreements. Please call me at (858) 458-9044, extension 264, or e-mail me at jessica.walker@amec.com, if you have I . any. questions: . Sincerely, . • • Jes Walker Botanist - Attachment cc: Debbie Fromme -Native Landscape, Inc. I 14 I 4 amec - OLIVENHAIN ROAD WETLAND MITIGATION AREA : I . . FLORAL SPECIES LIST September 2001 - Scientific Name Common Name I . * Anagallis arvensis scarlet pimperhel Anemopsis californica yerba mansa Artemisia douglasiana . Douglas mugwort I Artemisia califomica .•. California sagebrush Artemisia pa/men .' Palmer's sagewort Baccharis salicifolla ., mule fat Baccharis pilularis coyote bush I * Brassica nigra . • black mustard * Carpobrotus edulis Hotentot fig * Conium maculatum . Poison hemlock I * Conyza canadensis •- horseweed . Cyperus escu/entus .. . yellow nutsedge Distich/is spicata . ., saltgrass I . Encella califomica . . coastal sunfiowr - Eschscholzia ca/ifornica California poppy Frankenia sauna . alkali heath * Gnaphallum species . cudweed I . Heteromeles arbutifolia .. tOOfl Isocoma menziesii . . coastal goldenbush - Isomeris arborea . . ;. : bladderpod. I .Juncusacutus r . . spiny rush . . Leymus condensatus giant wild rye * Lobularia maritima . sweet alyssum I . Lotus scopanus .. .. deerweed * Melilotus a/ba . sweetclover * Melilotus indica . sourciover Oenothera hookeri -. Hooker's evening primrose I . * Picris echioides . . bristly ox-tongue . . . Pluchea odorata :, salt marsh fleabane Pluchea sericea arrow weed I . * Polypogon monspijensis '- rabbit's foot grass * Rumex crispus curly dock Salicomia virginica . pickleweed I . Salix exigua narrow-leaved willov Salix lasiolepis . arroyo willow Scirpus califomicus .: bulrush I Scirpus robusta . alkali rush * Solanum nigrum black nightshade * Sonchus oleraceus . • annual sow thistle * Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm I * . Xanthium strumarium . cocklebur Denotes non-native and/or invasive species .1 H -. . •: 1. -• I Engineering, Planning, Corporate Office: . . Environmental Sciences and & ASSOCIATES, INC. 605 Third Street 760.942.5147 Peolessiosal Teams for Complos Projects Management Services Encinitas, California 92024 Fax 760.632.0164 18 June 2002 279808 Ms Sherri L Howard, Associate Engineer I City of Carlsbad '• . .. Public Works Engineering Department - 1635 Faraday Avenue — I Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Olivenhain Road Widening Mitigation Project, Carlsbad, California I . Revised Clarification Letter Regarding Original Design Intention for the Transitional Berm/Dike Area, Associated With the Wetland Mitigation Project. I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 95-20096-B H Calif. Dept. Of Fish & Game Agreement No. 5-560-94 I Dear Ms. Howard: . . . In accordance with your. request, Dudek & Associates, Inc. (DUDEK) provides this revised letter. of clarification regarding the Olivenhain Road Widening Mitigation/Revegetation project. 'This letter addresses the offsite mitigation site, which lies adjacent to 'the Olivenhain Municipal Water, District property, Rancho Santa Fe Road and the Colina Roble (Villagio) residential development. This letter. addresses my recollection regarding the original design intentions for the wetland mitigation and associated transitional berm/dike revegetation area. As you know, I ws involved in the original design of this revegetation/mitigation project for the City of Carlsbad, while employed by OGDEN Environmental and Energy Services Company (currently AMEC). While at OGDEN, I worked on both the prèparation.of the final conceptual wetland mitigation plan (report) and the final revegetation construction documents (i.e. plans and specifications) .for the Olivenhain Road Widening project. I alsio provided resource agency permit coordination for .the project, in association with Pat Entezari, formerly with the City of Carlsbad, Engineering Department. During preparation of the wetland mitigation plan and revegetation construction documents, I recall that the dikelaccess,.road and berm area, at the west edge ofthe site, was intended to be.a transitional vegetation zone and was designed with a planting palette of compatible native vegetation, but' not specifically to become a particular habitat type. This was done so that vehicular access for the future development across the dike could be facilitated. ' It was always ennvisioned that there would be disturbances to the vegetation in this area when the future development was 'constructed. I don't .believe there was any intention to actually create wetlands or other specific upland habitats (such as coastal sage scrub) on the7 actual transitional dike/berm area. This was purposefully done so there would be minimal problems in the future when the development of Colina Roble (Villagio) took place, and so I,. I Olivenhain Road Widening, Clarification of Original Revegetation Design Issues 2 I tlere would still be available options to the developer for an access road across, the dike, from Olivenhain Road to the project site, if necessary. In essence, the revegetation of the transitional dike/berm area was going to supplement the wetland mitigation acreage requirement, but was not I . providing actual mitigation compensatory acreage for the projects wetland impacts. There were never any specific success 'criteria established for the transitional dike/berm 'area and no specific monitoring requirements for these areas. In addition, my recollection regarding the transitional berm/dike area is that this area had to be built for the dike and drainage spillway to function and provide the necessary flood protection,' which was one of the primary goals of the project. The berm area was designed to protect against downstream flooding' at El Camino Real and the road improvements for the Olivenhain Road widening. The disturbed areas and dike surfaces were to be revegetated with compatible nativespecies which would not be invasive to the adjacent wetlands and would provide native plant understory cover, as well as erosion control protection, for the slopes. The prevailing wind in this area is from the west, so there was concern that ' there not be weeds or other exotic species which could go to seed and be dispersed by wind into the wetland mitigation site. The intent was to have non—invasive compatible native' species colonize this area to provide native cover and,a buffer to the wetlands. This transitional area was planted with riparian scrub and upland species as shown on the revegetation plans, including container plants of coastal sage (Artemisia californica), coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), bladderpod (Isomeris arborea) and lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia). The transitional area was also seeded with a riparian scrub/upland ,seed mix. It should be pointed'out, however, that the riparian scrub/upland seed mix did not actually include any wetland dependent (obligate or facultative wetland) species. The southern portion of this transitional berm/dike area,is what was actually impacted by the Colina Roble development. I do not believe that any wetlands in this immediate berm/dike area were actually removed by this grading disturbance. The mainOlivenhain Road wetland mitigation area, which lies in the northeast corner of the site, on the north side of the creek, provides the required wetland mitigation compensation acreage for the original Olivenhain Road Widening project, and has remained intact and has not been impacted. The Colina Roble (Villagio) project had their own separate wetland mitigation program and we assume agency permit's for their work. The wetland permits for the Olivenhain Road project, from California Department of.Fish and, Game (CDFG) (permit no. 5-560-94) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (Permit no. '95-20096-BH), do. I not specifically refer to the transitional dike/berm area as part of the wetland mitigation acreage. We believe that this area was simply lumped into the overall revegetation program. These transitional areas have been maintained to primarily control weeds, provide erosion control protection and provide I sufficient native understory cover to help prevent weed invasion into the wetland areas. The long-term mitigation/revegetation program, specifies 5 years of maintenance and monitoring for the wetland mitigation areas, but does not specify the requirement for the transitional areas. It should also be I pointed Out that the 0.5 acre of actual created southern willow scrub and freshwater marsh wetland habitat, considered the actual wetland mitigation compensation acreage, is physically separated from this transitional dike/berm area and as mentioned previously, has remained intact and undisturbed. Li I: * I Olivenhain Road Widening, Clarification 'of, Original Revegetation Design Issues The disturbances to the transitional berm/dike reegetation area, incurred by the Colina Roble (Villagio) development, both from the removal of the southerly portion of the dike, as well as from construction of I an offsite trail con nection'beyond the property boundaries onto the dike, were partially compensated for in-place with native species as part of the revegetation work shown on the landscape plans prepared by ADL Land Planning for-Colina Roble. As a result, the loss of revegetated transitional berm/dike acreage I may be less than was previously estimated and should equal the area of the original berm/dike revegetation area, which has actually been removed, excluding the portionof the trail area which was revegetated. The area currently developed as Lots 18 & 19 of the Colina Roble (Villagio), which now I occupies the portion of the dike which was removed, should be considered the area of revegetation area acreage loss. This equates to approximately 0.40 acre of area, based upon hand measurements taken off the original revegetation landscape plans, compared against the grading plans for Colina ROble I (Villagio). ,. I If you -have any questions regarding this letter, plàse feel free to contact me at (760) 942-5147, extension 279, or by e-mail at jminchin©dudek.com. Sincerely, , DUDEK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. : I ,. .. Jo L. Minchin .•• - - ... S ftP ject Manager, Landscape Architect #2225 cc: Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad - I . Julie Simonsen-Marchant, AMEC . Jessica Walker, AMEC . Doug Gettinger, DUDEK - I amecP AMEC Earth & Environmental - 5510 Morehouse Drive 01-071-3151 San Diego, CA92121 A 1 10 - iipr1z , Tel 858-458-9044 Fax 858-458-0943 - . - w.amec.corn Ms. Sherri Howard •- City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Olivenhain Road Wetland Mitigation Area - Dear Ms. Howard: This letter is to update you as to the progress of the Olivenhain Road mitigation area. Native Landscape has fixed the irrigation system and performed weeding on the site including the removal and spraying of pampas grass that was invading the site. Container plants will be installed beginning on April 19th, 2001. All container plants were inspected and deemed in good condition and ready for installation. AMEC will continue to monitor the site to ensure the irrigation system is functioning properly, weeding is performed on a timely basis, andthat the container plants are surviving in concordance with mitigation plan. guidelines. If you have any questions regarding this update, please feel free to contact myself or Steve Lacy of our office at (858) 458-9044. - Sincerely, - • - .- - . .1 - David W. Bise • - Acting Project Manage AMEC Earth and Environmental - • - DB/css - •• - cc: Steve Lacy. Native Landscape File Contracts 3-1505-1000-1004-3151 -• - I , T Olivenhain Wetland Mitigation Area Transect Botanical Monitoring Data I . 2001 Transect Species Begin End Cover '% Cover I 1 Isocoma menziezii . 0 2 2 6.67 1 Bare ground . 2 2.17 0.17 0.57 I . 1 Isocoma menziezii 2.17 2.4 0.23 0.77 1 Bare ground . 2.4 2.6 0.2 0.67 1 Isocoma menziezii 0 2.6 3 . 0.4 1.33 I 1 1 Leymus condensatus Me/lotus a/ba 2.85 . . 2.93 . 2.95 3 0.1 0.07 0.33 0.23 1 Bare ground . . , . 3 3.32 0.32 1.07 1 Isocoma menziezii . . 3.32 3.34 0.02 . 0.07 I . 1 . Bare ground 3.34 . 4.35 , 1.0.1 3.37 1 Ambrosia psilostachya . '.. 4.35 . . 44 0.05 0.17 1 . Leymus condensatus . 4.4 6.55 2.15 7.17 1 Isocoma menziezii . . 4.5 4.57 0.07 0.23 I . 1 Isocoma menziezii . 6.4 8.01 1.67 5.57 1 Leymus condensatus 7.65 . 7.71 0.06 0.20 I . 1 Bare 1 ground Isocoma menziezii 8.07 , . '8.38 ''8.38 13.58 0.31 5.2 17.33 1 Bare ground 13.58 14.4 0.82 . ' 2.73 . S 1 Isocoma menziezii ... 14.4 14.85 0.45, 1.50 Bare ground 14.85 15.14 0.29 0.97 I i 1 Isocoma menziezii , 15.14 15.16 . 0.02 0.07 1 Bare ground . 15.16 15.2 , 0.04 0.13 I i 1 , Isocoma menziezii Bare ground 0 15.2. 17.55 17.55 17.7 2.35 0.15 7.83 0.50 1 0 Ambrosia psiostachya 17.7 17.78 0.08 ' 0.27 1 Bare ground . 17:78 19.15 1.37 4.57 I . 1.. Isocoma menziezii 19.15 22.65 3.5 11.67 1 Bare ground 22.65 22:85 0.2 0.67 1 Isocoma menziezii . 22.85 25.5 2.65 . 8.83 Leymus condensatus . 23.85 23.95 0.1 0.33 I ' 1 Melilotus a/ba 24.65 24.66 . 0.01 0.03 1 Meliotus a/ba ' . 25.15 25.157 0.007 0.02 1 Bare ground 25.5 '. 25.85 0.35 1.17 I i . Isocoma menziezii . ., 25.85 26.25 0.4 1.33 1 Leymus condensatus . . . 26.7 29.4. 2.7 9.00 1 Bare ground . 26.25 26.7 0.45 1.50 Salixiaseolepis 28.3 30 1.7 5.67 I i 1 Isocoma menziezii . 29.2 29:7 0.5 1.67 2 Encella califomica . 0 .0 1 0.00 I 2 Leymus condensatus . 0. 0.83 0.83 3.07 2 Leymus condensatus . 1.65 2.51 . 0.86 3.19 2 Isocoma menziezii 0 .01 2.5 . 2.5 9.26 Bare ground 2.51 2.7 0.19 0.70 • I. 2 2 Isocoma menziezii • 2.7 2.76 0.06 0.22 2 Bare ground , 2.76 2.92 0.16 . "0.59 1 .. 2 Encelia 2 californica Isocoma menziezii . . 2.92' 3.72 3.81 3.75 0.89 . 0.03 3.30 0.11 2 Isocoma menziezii • . 3.81 5.7 1.89 7.00 I •• 0 H•. 5' Olivenhain Wetland Mitigation Area Transect Botanical Monitoring Data 2001 2 - Leymus condensatus . 5.13 - 5.14 0.01 0.04 2 Leymus condensatus 5.21 5.22 0.01 0.94 2 Bare ground 5.7 6.03 2 Isocoma menziezii - 6.03 ,. 12 . 5.97 22.11 2 Leymus cor,densatus 8.01 -8.02 0.01 0.04 2 Bare ground 12 12.11 . 0.11 0.41 2 Isocoma menziezii 12.11 12.97 0.86 3.19 2 Bare ground 12.97 13.45 0.48 1.78 2 Isocoma menziezii 13.45 14.66 1.21 4.48 2 Litter , 14.66 15.54 0.88 3.26 2 Isocoma menziezii 15.54 .1685 1.31 4.85 2 Bare ground 16.85 17.13 0.28 1.04 2 Isocoma menziezii 17.13 ,' 17.61 0.48 . 1.78 2 Lotus scoparius 17.5 18.25 0.75 2.78 2 Isocoma menziezii 17.93 18.21 0.28 . 1.04 2 . Litter 18.25 18.6 0.35 1.30 2 Isocoma menziezii 18.6 19.86 1.26 - * 4.67 2 Litter .. 19.86 ., 19.95 0.09 0.33 2 Isocoma menziezii 19.95 19.99 0.04 0.15 2 Litter 19.99 20.15 0.16 0.59 2 Isocoma menziezii 20.15 20.41 0.26 0.96 2 Bare ground 20.41 20.57 0.16 0.59 2 Isocoma menziezii . 20.57 22.14 1.57 5.81 2 Lotus scoparius 21.66 21.86 - 0.2 0.74 2 Encelia californica 21.54 21.57 0.03 0.11 2 Encelia californica 21.71. 21.73 0.02 0.07 2 Litter . 22.14 22.23 0.09 0.33 2 Isocoma menziezii 22.23 22.27 0.04 0.15 2 Bare ground :22.27 - 22.4 0.13 0.48 2 Isocoma menziezii - . . 22.4 .. 23.41 1.01 3.74 2 Enceliaca/ifomica 23.05 23.1 0.05 0.19 2 Encelia califomica - ... 23.17 23.44 0.27 1.00 2 Bare ground 23.44 23.61 0.17 0.63 2 Encelia californica 23.61 23.93 0.32 1.19 2 Isocoma menziezii 23.74 23.78 0.04 0.15 2 Lotus scoparius 23.78 24.59 0.81 3.00 2 Isocoma menziezii . 23.78 25.19 1.41 5.22 2 Encelia californica 2459 24.94 0.35 1.30 2 Encelia californica 24.94 25.27, 0.33 1.22 2 - Lotus scoparius . '25.2 25.78 0.58 2.15 2 Isocoma menziezii . . 25.2 25.59., 0.39 1.44 2 Encelia californica . 25.78 ' 25.96 0.18 0.67 - 2 Isocoma menziezii . . . 25.96 26.05 0.09 0.33 2 Bare ground . 26.05 26.1 0.05 0.19 2 Encelia californica 26.1 26.44 0.34 1.26 2 Isocoma menziezii . 26.44 26.8 0.36 1.33 2 Encelia californica . - 26.8 27 - 0.2 i 0.74 I Olivenhain Wetland Mitigation Area Tree and Shrub Botanical Monitoring Data 2001 Code Scientific Name Common Name Tree Height ContainerNolunteer oapi Efacchans piiuiarss coyote DUSfl 2.4 container 1 C CO bapi Baccharis pilularis coyote bush . . 1.8 container 1 C cb bapi Baccharis'pilularis coyote bush - 1.4 container 1 c cb basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.2 container 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.8 container 1 m ml. basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat - . 2.7 container 1 m ml basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . . 2.2 container 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . 2.7 container 1 m ml basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . 2.6 container 1 m mf base 'Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . - 2.8 container 1 m ml basa. Baccharis salicifolia mule fat ,. 2.5 container 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.6 - container 1' m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat - 2.2 container 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat. - 2.2 container 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . . 2.4 container 1 m ml basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . . . 3.1 container 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . -. 3 - container 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . 2.4 container 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.8 , container 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat .., 2.3 container 1 m ml basa Bacchañs salicifolia mule fat 2.5 container 1 m ml basa Bacchatis salicifolia . mule fat 2.1 container 1 m ml basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 1.9 container. . 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.1 container .1 rn ml basa Bacchatis salicifolia mule fat 3 container 1 m ml basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.8 container 1 m ml basa - Baccharis salicifolia mule fat - 3.1 . container 1 m ml basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . 2.3 container 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia . mule fat 2.5 container 1 m ml basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 3.1 container 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat - 2.5 container 1 m ml basa Baccharis salicifolia . . mule fat - 2.6 container 1 m mf, basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.1, container 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat - 1.8. container 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia - mule fat 2.1 container 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.6 container I. m mf basa - Baccharis salicifolia. mule fat - 2.4 container . 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 1.8 container - 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . 2.7 container 1 m mf base Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.3 . - container' 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat ' 1.9 - container 1 m mf basa Baccha,-is salicifolia mule fat - . 3.3 . container - 1 m mf base Baccharis salicifolia mule fat - 2.1 - container 1 m mf basa Bacchans salicifolia mule fat - 2.3 container - 1 m mf basa Baccharis sailcifolia mule fat . 2.8 • container • 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat ' 3 container 1 m ml basa Baccharis salicifolia 'mule fat • - - • 2.7 . container , 1 m ml basa Baccharis salicifolia -. mule fat . 2.7 container ' 1 m ml basa Bacchatis salicifolia mule fat • - - 2.7 container 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat • 2.3 - container - 1 m ml I .. Olivenhain Wetland Mitigation Area Tree and Shrub Botanical Monitoring Data I 2001 basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 1.1 container-recent 1 m mf I basa basa Baccharis salicifolia Baccharis salicifolia mule fat mule fat 1.7 0.8 container-recent container-recent 1 m 1 m mf mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 1 container-recent 1 m mf saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 2.4 container 1 w wnl I saex Sallx exigua narrow-leaved willow 0.8 container-recent 1 w wnl saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 1.6 - container-recent 1 w wnl saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 1.3 container-recent 1 w wnl . saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 1.75 container-recent 1 w wnl I saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow. 2 container-recent 1 w wnl saex Salix exigua . narrow-leaved willow 2.1 container-recent 1 w wnl I . saex saex Salix exigua Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow narrow-leaved willow 1.6 2.1 container-recent container-recent 1 w 1 w wnl wnl saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 1.4 container-recent 1 w wnl saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 2.1 container-recent 1 w wnl saex Salix exigua- narrow-leaved willow 1.8 container-recent 1 w wnl I saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 1.7 container-recent 1 w wnl saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 2.4 container-recent 1 w wnl saex Sallx exigua narrow-leaved willow 2.7 container-recent 1 w wnl I saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow . 1.9 container-recent 1 w wnl sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 5.1 . container -1 w wa sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 4.9 container 1 w wa I - sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 5.1 container 1 w wa sala Salix laseolepis. Arroyo willow 5.3 container 1 w wa sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 4.9 container 1 w wa sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 5.3 . container 1 w wa I sala Sa!ix laseolepis Arroyo willow 3.3 container 1 w wa sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 3.1 container 1 w Wa sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 4.2 container I w wa I sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 2.8 container 1 w wa sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow . 6.2 container 1 w wa sala Sa!ix laseolepis Arroyo willow .. 6.3 container 1 w wa sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 4.6 container 1 w wa I sala Sahx laseolepis Arroyo willow 3.2 container 1 w wa sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 4.5 container 1 w wa I . sa1a sala Salix laseolepis Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow . Arroyo willow - 4.3 container container 1 w 1 w wa wa sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 3.9 container 1 w wa sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 2 container 1 w wa I sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 3.8 container 1 w wa sala Salix laseolepis Arróyo willow 3.3 container 1 w wa sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 3.1 container 1 w wa sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 2.9 container 1 W wa I sasp Salix sp. Willow species 1 . . . container 1 w ws I hear Hetemmeles arbutifolia toyon . 1 unknown 1 t t basa Baccharis salicifolia coyote bush 3 unknown 1 c cb basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.1 unknown 1 m mf basa Baccharjs salicifolia mule fat 3.05 unknown - 1 m mf I basa Baccharis salicifolia Pule fat 3.3 unknown 1 m mf basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.8 unknown 1 m mf I I I, I . I. I I . 1 I . I, I . I 1 U 'I I I Olivenhain Wetland Mitigation Area Tree and Shrub Botanical Monitoring Data 2001. basa BaccharissaIicffoJia mule fat 2.5 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia. mule fat 2.6 unknown basa Baccharis sailcifolia . mule fat '' 2.4 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat .. 3 ' unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 1 unknown basa Bacchans salicifolia mule fat 1.2 unknown basa Bacchárissalicifolia mule fat ' 2 unknown basa Bacchans salicifolia mule fat 2.7 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.5 unknown basa Bacchans salicifolia mule fat 2.9 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat , .1.5 . unknown basa Bacchans salicifolia mule fat 1.6 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . 2.2 , unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia - mule fat . - 2.8 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat - 1.3 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia, mule fat - 2.1 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . 2.4 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . - 2.7 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.5 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 3.2 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.9 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat - .' 2.2 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.5 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia . mule fat '. - 1.9 ' unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia-- mule fat . 1.3 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . 2.3, . unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat -' 3.2 unknown basa Bacchans salicifolia mule fat 3.4 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.4 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat ., , ,. . 3 unknown basa Bacchans salicifolia mule fat 28 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . 1.4 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . 2.8 unknown basa Baccharis sailcifolla mule fat 2.5 unknown basa Baccha,is salicifolla - . mule fat • 2 , unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia . mule fat 2.4 . ' unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . . 1 'unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat .' 2.6 . unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat .,' . 1.7 unknown basa Baccharissa!icffolia mule fat . , 2 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat 2.7 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat ' 3 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . 33 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . 2.6 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat . 2.5 unknown basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat ' 2.5 unknown saex Salix exigua - narrow-leaved willow . 2.9 unknown saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow ' .. . 2.8 unknown saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow . 3.6 . unknown saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow , 3.7 unknown saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow ' A . unknown saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 3.2 unknown immf lmmf lmmf lmmf 1.m-mf lmmf immf' immf 1mmf immf immf 1 r mf, lmmf lmmf lmmf lmmf lmmf immf lmmf 1mmf immf lmmf immf irnmf 1mmf lmmf immf lrnmf lmmf immi lmmf lmmf 1 mmf lmmf i'm mf. lmmf lmmf lmmf lmmf lmmf lmrnf 1 rn-mt. 1 m mf, lmmf lmmf immf 1 w wnl iwwnl lwwnl 1 w wnl lwwnl lwwnl Olivenhain Wetland Mitigation Area Tree and Shrub Botanical Monitoring Data 2001 unknown 1 w wnl unknown 1 w wnl unknown 1 w wnl unknown 1 w wnl unknown 1 w wnl unknown 1 w wgb unknown , 1 w wgb unknown , 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown , I w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1 w wa unknown ' 1 w wa unknown , lwwa unknown 1 w wa unknown 1w wa volunteer 1 m mf volunteer .1 mmf volunteer .1 m mf volunteer 1 m ml volunteer 1 m mf volunteer 1 m mf volunteer 1 m mf volunteer 1 m mf volunteer 1 w wnl volunteer 1 w wnl volunteer 1 w wnl volunteer 1 w wnl volunteer ' 1 w wnl volunteer' 1 w wnl volunteer 1 w wnl saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 3.1 saex Salix exigua ' narrow-leaved willow 3 saex Sallx exigua narrow-leaved willow 2.9 saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 2.4 saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 3.3' sago Salix gooddingii Gooddinggs black willow 3.8 sago Salix gooddingji Gooddingg's black willow 3 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 1.7 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow .1.6 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 1.4 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 2.1 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 2.1 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 2.9 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 2.3 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow ., 2.4 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 2 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 2.8 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 2.3 sàla Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 1.8 sala Salix laseolepis . Arroyo willow 3.1 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow , ' 2.1 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 2.4 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow . 1.8 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow , 3 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 1.8. sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 1.8 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 2.1 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 2.3 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow . 1.4 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 1.9 sata Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 2.5 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow' 1.8 sala Salix laseolepis . Arroyo willow 1.4 sala Salix laseolepis Arroyo willow 2.8 sala S.alix laseolepis Arroyo willow 1.8 basa Baccharis salicifolia mule fat ' ' 1.9 basa Bacchans salicifo!ia mule fat 1.9 basa Bacchans salicifolia mule fat ' 1.9 basa Bacchañs sailcifolia mule fat . ' 2.6 basa Baccharis'salicifo/ja mule fat ' 1.2 basa Baccharis salidifolia mule fat ' ' 1.8 basa Bacchans salicifolia mule fat 0.8 basa Bacchans salicifolia mule fat ' 0.5 saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 1.3 saex Salix exigua ' narrow-leaved willow , 1.5 saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 1 saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow , 1.1 saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 0.5 saex Salix exigua . narrow-leaved willow, 1.1 saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 1.9 Olivenhain Wetland Mitigation Area Tree and Shrub Botanical Monitoring Data 2001 saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 1.8 volunteer 1 w wnl saéx Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 2.1 volunteer 1 w wnl saex Sa!bc exigua narrow-leaved willow 2.2 volunteer 1 w wnl saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 2.7 volunteer 1 w wnl saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 2.8 volunteer 1 w wnl saex Salix exigua - narrow-leaved willow 2 volunteer 1 w wnl saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow 2.3 volunteer 1 w wnl sata Salixiaseolepis Arroyo willow 1,2 volunteer 1 w wa ---, - -.--..---------.--:.;--'.t.. - - ----, '-rj- - - i"— '" - MMI L. basa Bacchans salicifolla mule fat dead 1 m mf saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow dead 1 w wnl saex Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow dead 1 w wnl :I:TIT JE.LTJ individual count % of Class Container Willows 40 42.55 Willows (>2.7m) 23 24.47 Mulefats 51 54.26 Mulefats (>.1.5m) 48 51.06 Unknown Willows 41 44.57 Willows (>2.7m) 17 18.48 Mulefats 50 54.35 Mulefats (>1.5m) 44 47.83 Volunteer" Willows 15 65.22 Willows (>2.7m) 2 8.70 Mulefats 8 34.78 Mulefats (>1.5m) 5 21.74 Dead ' Willows 2 Mulefats I Container Unknown - Volunteer Willow (>2.7m) 57.50 ' 41.46' 13.33 Mule fat (>1,.5m) 94.12 88.00 62.50 Trees ' 43.96 '45.05 65.22 Shrubs - 56.04 54.95 34.78 I I I