NorthCreekForest_SA15.doc

2015-2016 UW-REN Site assessment

North Creek Forest

Eric Carpenter, Peter Clarke, Kai Farmer, Thomas Radon, Batzorig Tuvshinjargal, Nick VradenburgBES 462 A- Restoration Ecology

North Creek Forest 2015-2016 Restoration Site Assessment5 November 2015

ContentsContents.............................................................................................................................. i

Introduction.......................................................................................................................1

RFP Synopsis...................................................................................................................... 1

Site Description..................................................................................................................1

History................................................................................................................................3

Topography........................................................................................................................4

Soils....................................................................................................................................6

Hydrology...........................................................................................................................8

Vegetation......................................................................................................................... 8

Habitat............................................................................................................................. 12

Disturbance......................................................................................................................13

Matrix.............................................................................................................................. 14

Human Context................................................................................................................15

Impaired Ecological Functions..........................................................................................16

Likelihood of Autogenic Repair........................................................................................17

Appendix A.......................................................................................................................17

Sources.............................................................................................................................19

IntroductionThis site assessment is for the 2015-2016 UW-REN site in the North Creek Forest. The

subject is located in a residential area and is enjoyed by residents and students alike. Our

project is one of many at this location initiated by Friends of North Creek Forest. Their intention

is to buy up as much of the forest as they can for the purposes of restoring and protecting for

future generations to enjoy. The value of this forest as a teaching tool cannot be

underestimated, nor can its aesthetic value.

The problem with the site is that is has become overrun by introduced invasive species

and specific to our site there is significant risk of mudslides and general sediment and erosion

off of the steep hillside that makes up the western border of the subject site. These issues will

present a challenge, however, we are all excited at the prospect of initiating and seeing through

the completion of this restoration site to the satisfaction of our clients, Friends of North Creek

Forest (FNCF).

RFP SynopsisOur site is located downhill of a residential neighborhood and bordered by steep slopes

on the western edge. This site is adjacent to the site that was restored by the 2014-2015 UW-

REN team (just north). According to our Community Partner, Friends of North Creek Forest, this

site offers many opportunities to conduct different restoration activities. One of the main

concerns and primary consideration of our efforts is the abundance and domination of invasive

species. Our project goals as stated in the RFP, submitted by FNCF, is invasive removal and

forest enhancement. In order to achieve forest enhancement we need to focus on restoring

native vegetation, controlling soil and sediment erosion as well as building trails and

implementing a maintenance plan.

Site DescriptionNorth Creek Forest is a 64 acre mixed conifer forest located within the City of Bothell,

about a mile North-East of City Hall. The forest is surrounded by the City of Bothell to the

North, West and South. The Eastern edge of the forest is bordered by Interstate 405 (Map 1).


There are schools in the area, with Canyon Park Junior High and Maywood Hills Elementary

within walking distance of the forest. The project site within North Creek Forest we intend to

restore is located on the Western Edge of the forest near where NE 204th Pl. and 108th Ave NE

meet, in close proximity to surrounding housing to the North and West, with the forest

stretching further south bordering more residential housing (Map 1). The project site is a part

of the North Creek watershed. Surface runoff and groundwater from seepage points within the

project site and surrounding forest recharges North Creek. Starting from the Western border

our site slopes down, gradually leveling off until you reach the Eastern edge, where it flattens

out slightly. We have further broken our site down into four polygons due to topographical and

vegetative differences. Accessibility played a major role in the formation of polygons as well.

Most of the site is an impenetrable thicket, so in some cases divisions of the site are based on

trails we created. Polygons 1 and 2 are divided from polygons 3 and 4 due to the topographical

differences we see, where 1 and 2 are considerably sloped, 3 and 4 are much less so, but

polygon 4 has the most variability in vegetation and topography. Polygons 1 and 3 were

separated from polygons 2 and 4 based upon changes in vegetation and accessibility. The line

that divides these two sets of polygons is a trail that we made (Map 1). Overall the hill slope

within the project site is steep and the soils saturated through much of the year, but high

degrees of variability in slope, elevation, moisture, canopy cover, and vegetation are present

throughout.


History“North Creek Forest is 64 acres of Upland Coniferous forest. The forest can be

considered mixed with old growth elements that includes nine wetlands and seven

streams.”(FNCF 2011-2015)

This area was once home to many Native American Tribes. Ultimately, settlers made

their way out west and began buying land in the Bothell Area. In 1870, Columbus S. Greenleaf

and George R. Wilson filed land claims, and in 1876 George Brackett bought land for

commercial logging (FNCF 2011-2015). In 1885 Brackett sold about 80 acres of this land to

David Bothell and a town was named in his honor in 1888, officially being incorporated in 1909

as the city of Bothell. This area grew substantially due to logging and fishing in the area.

Suburban development proceeded after WWII making Bothell a bedroom community for those

who worked in Seattle. This continued until about 1990 when businesses started to move out

into suburban areas in greater numbers. During this time, after being logged extensively in the

early 1900’s, North Creek Forest was largely left alone and allowed to recover to the stage we

Map 1:

satellite view

of NCF, with

project

location and

topographical

inset (FNCF)


see today. Much of the forested areas in and around North Creek Forest were logged to make

room for more housing.

To stop development of more houses being built, advocates for the forest began an

organization known as “Friends of North Creek Forest”. A group whose mission statement

reads “To maintain and improve the biological function of North Creek Forest through

education, stewardship and conservation in perpetuity.” In 2011 FNCF began putting many

hundreds of hours into grant applications to raise funds, and in doing so managed to draw over

$500,000. They used this money to purchase their first 35 acres of the remaining forest; with 6

more acres being purchased at the end of 2013. There is still fundraising going on to this day to

try to purchase the remaining available acreage and with over 40 acres of land in hand, FNCF

have begun to utilize this area to educate the public, bringing awareness to the forefront, and

use the forest to teach local students why area like this are such a necessity among our ever

expanding borders of Urban sprawl (FNCF 2011-2015).

TopographyOur site at North Creek Forest Park is bordered by NE 204 Pl to the west and private

property (10654 NE 204th Pl. Bothell, WA 98011) to the north. The Northern Boundary, running

along the 240°-60° transect, is 145’ long with an average eastern facing slope of 0.21o. The

western border, running along the 165°-345° transect, is 53’ long with an average slope of zero.

The southern border, along the 82°-262° transect, is 90’ long and has an average slope of 0.26o.

The western border, along the 9°-189° transect, is 114’ long and has an average slope of 0.06o.


The hillside consists of fairly smooth transitions with no major features across all

polygons with the exception of Polygon 4 which contains a small section with the steep slope of

1.0o. This slope connects to a small stream which runs through the corner of the polygon. The

stream runs from 1.5’-2’ wide and though the average water level is only 2”-3”, the stream

channel ranges from 2’-3.5’ deep. It forms a semicircle, entering the northern boundary 15’

from the northeastern corner and exiting the eastern boundary 11’ from the northeastern

border.

Map 2: Shows topographic features of the project site


The site has a rough trail approximately 4’ wide that runs along the eastern edge of the

site. It is more like a mud pit than a trail because of all the water it receives due to its location

at the downhill edge of the site. This feature will be enhanced and possibly shifted through our

work so ultimately the location has yet to be laid out.

SoilsWe collected 8 different soil samples throughout our project site.

Polygon 1 - Two soil samples were taken from Polygon 1. Even though the samples we

took were fairly separate from each other, both of them showed similar features. In both of the

samples, there was standing water on the surface. The O horizons were saturated, consisting of

dark brown soil with some small twigs intermixed. For the A horizons, they formed ribbons that

were up to 5cm long and they felt smooth with little bit of grain. Thus, we identified the soil

texture in both samples to be silty clay loam.

Polygon 2 – We took one soil sample on the northern border and one in the middle. An

important factor that we should note is that the sample we took on the border was located

beneath an isolated western red cedar patch that is on a slight mound separating it from the

slope. At this sampling location, there was approximately 1 inch of western redcedar leaf litter

and small twigs on the surface. The soil in the O horizon was slightly moist and contained some

old, dead roots. Moreover, the soil was dark brown and really compact. When we dug deeper

into the A horizon, there were several worms present and there was also some gray coloration.

In addition, the soil was half gritty and half smooth, so we identified it as clay loam. Trailing

blackberry (Rubus ursinus) was present here as well, which was absent in most other places of

the site most likely due to the difference in soil composition. The second soil sample located in

the middle of Polygon 2 was layered with a ½ inch of leaf litter with lots of big twigs. It was fully

saturated and was dark brown. The A horizon was moist to saturated with a sticky and gleyed

constituency. There were a number of plant species growing in it, including salmonberry (Rubus

spectabilis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus bifrons), English ivy (Helix hedera), and horsetail

(Equisetum ssp.). We identified the soil as loam since it felt both gritty and smooth.


Polygon 3 - We only took one soil sample in this polygon because the majority of the

area was surrounded by dead logs and a heavy population of R. bifrons, which made it difficult

for us to go to the desired sampling location. Therefore, the one sample we took was right

along the trail. The soil was saturated and had some standing water on surface. We were able

to spot some invertebrates in the O horizon, but none were observed in the A horizon. The soil

in the A horizon was sticky and compact with little moisture. The soil felt mostly smooth with a

little bit of grain, so we identified it as silty clay loam. A note about this location is that we

pulled out some deserted wood and trash within the A horizon, meaning that it had been there

for an extended period of time.

Polygon 4 - We took two soil samples on the trail. There was not much leaf litter on the

trail in comparison to the rest of the site, but there were still some decaying leaves present. The

first place that we tried to sample was difficult to dig through, and it also had some standing

water on the surface. The O horizon contained some small twigs and dead roots, and the color

of the soil was dark brown. The A horizon was similar in color, but it also had a slightly orange

coloration. In addition, it did not form long ribbon, but the bottom horizon was fully saturated

so we could not perform a legitimate ribbon test. Finally, it was gleyed and sticky, so we

identified it as loam. For the second soil sample in this polygon, there was no standing water

and there was about a ½ inch of leaf litter. The color of the soil was same as most of our other

samples (dark brown) and it was slightly moist. The A horizon was almost dry (slightly moist),

and it was somewhat sticky. The A horizon had some gray in its coloration and it was not very

compact. However, when we moistened the soil and performed the ribbon test, we were able

to form a ribbon that was almost 5 cm long. Finally, the soil felt smooth with some grit, so we

identified it as silty clay loam.


HydrologyThe majority of the project site is on a slope, which runs parallel to city streets in a

residential neighborhood. Excessive rain can result in runoff from the street and from the top of

the slope. The water travels down a steep gradient from west to east, collecting in pockets

where the land periodically flattens out. No surface water was directly seen flowing down the

slope at the time of our first visit; however, waterlogged soils were observed throughout the

site shortly after a rain event and were also seen days after the rain. The flatter places where

surface waters tend to gather, were inundated with standing water. This tells us that the soil

drains poorly.

On the northwestern corner of the site, the slope curves slightly to the east. Instead of

surface water at this location flowing directly east like most of the other runoff, the surface

water on the curving slope flows southeast, creating larger pockets of water on the northern

portion of the site. The levels of standing water were observed to be higher here than in areas

located further south.

The northern most edge of the perimeter is an isolated patch of large western redcedars

(Thuja plicata). These trees are located on a slightly elevated portion of land. This added

elevation prevents excess runoff from collecting there, which has left the soil there much drier

than in other areas of the site. Also, just north of these cedars and beyond the boundary of the

site is a small drainage creek that flows east. The majority of surface water from the site will not

drain that far north, but the previously established foot trail that acts as the eastern boundary

of the site has a slight decline in elevation towards the north. This allows surface runoff on the

northeastern corner of the site to drain into this creek.

VegetationThe vegetation cover across the site is highly variable but R. spectabilis and R. bifrons

are the most common species. Dense impenetrable thickets comprised of these two species

cover approximately 60% of the site (Map 1, Map 2). The areas in which these two species are


dominant are halted in the primary stage of succession with very little trees present. The

dominant tree species is T. plicata, some red alder (Alnus rubra) and big-leaf maple (Acer

macrophyllum) are present as well. The overall community type of the site is a mixture of

THPL/RUSP (western red cedar/salmonberry) and ALRU/LYAM (red alder/skunk cabbage)

(Kunze 1994). Existing trees are 20 -100 years in age, representative of second growth forest in

the secondary stage of succession. Diversity in structure is great across the site, with mature T.

plicata located in polygon 4 (Map 2) and nothing above 10 feet in height located in the R.

spectabilis/R. bifrons thickets (see Map 1, Map 2). The community types vary based on

hydrology and canopy conditions. There appears to be a seepage flowing eastward through the

site; this wet area is consistent with the R. spectabilis/R. bifrons thicket, and has no canopy

cover. Where canopy cover is present or soils are drier, the vegetation changes, most notably to

a PSME-THPL/GASH-MANE/POMU (Douglas-fir-western red cedar/Salal-Oregon grape/sword

fern) community type located in the Northeast corner of Polygon 4 (see Map 2) (WSDNR 2015).

A total of 19 plant species have been identified within the project site, 3 of which are invasive

(See Appendix A).

Invasive species are prevalent through most of the site, although none are present in

the Northeast corner of polygon 4. H. helix is covering the ground and wrapped around trees

and snags in polygon 1 and 2, it is only present where at least some canopy cover is present and

soil is not inundated. H. helix is also present in abundance outside of the project site adjacent to

the Western border (Map 3). R. bifrons is present in all polygons in varied abundance, it seems

to only occur where canopy gaps allow ample light infiltration. Where canopy cover is at 100%

invasive species are not present, such as the northeast corner of polygon 4 (Map 3). The

vegetation across the project site does not fit cleanly into one community type, because of

environmental heterogeneity, but it is likely that the presence of invasive species has halted

succession and altered the composition of vegetation communities.

Polygon 1 contains A. macrophyllum and vine maple (Acer circinatum) but the area is

dominated by a carpet of H. helix and a thicket comprised of mainly R. bifrons. H. helix accounts

for approximately 60% cover in polygon 1. The large A. macrophyllum is almost entirely covered

with H. helix with few branches exposed near the canopy. Some native understory species are


present in small amounts in sporadic locations. These understory species are lady fern

(Athyrium felix-femina), sword fern (Polystichum munitum) and Equisetum ssp.

Polygon 2 is dominated by dense, impenetrable thickets of R. spectabilis and R. bifrons.

These two species alone account for approximately 80% cover of polygon 2. Some skunk

cabbage (Lysichiton americanum) and Equisetum ssp. are present at sporadic locations

throughout this this thicket. 3 young (under 40 years old) T. plicata are located along the

Eastern border of polygon 2 (Map 4). H. helix is present in this polygon where it completely

covers a snag at the southwestern corner (Map 3).

Polygon 3 is dominated by A. rubra and T. plicata but it also contains thickets comprised

of R. spectabilis and R. bifrons. A ground cover of H. helix and piggy-back plant/youth-on-age

(Tolmiea menziesii) is present in the Southeast corner. P. munitum and Equisetum ssp. are

sporadically located throughout polygon 3 in small quantities.

Polygon 4 is by far the most diverse with regard to vegetation, although, R. spectabilis

and R. bifrons combined account for approximately 70% cover in the shrub layer. Much of the

polygon is dominated by a dense thicket of R. spectabilis and R. bifrons but A. rubra, T. plicata,

cascara (Rhamnus purshiana), L. americanum, English holly (Ilex aquifolium), Equisetum ssp, red

huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), and western-beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta var.

californica) become intermixed with the thicket in spots. In the Northeast corner of polygon 4

the vegetation begins to transition into a T. plicata and low Oregon-grape (Mahonia nervosa)

dominated landscape where the soil is drier and the canopy begins to close. The community

type of the Northeast corner can be described as PSME-THPL/GASH-MANE/POMU (Douglas-fir-

western red cedar/Salal-Oregon grape/sword fern) community type, but the vegetation is

highly variable towards the R. spectabilis and R. bifrons thicket (Map 4) (WSDNR 2015).


Map 3: shows invasive vegetation


HabitatThe site allows for a variety of wildlife to find suitable habitat, and there are several

different resources available for animals to utilize. No wildlife was spotted within the

boundaries of the site while we were there but, the potential exists. This prime habitat has

likely caught the attention of numerous species.

Woody debris is the most commonly found habitat resource on the site. Wind events

have downed a significant number of trees in the area, and this has created an ample source of

logs. Bacteria and fungi arrive when there is a presence of logs and begin the process of

decomposition. The decaying wood is attractive to insects and other small organisms, and these

in turn become food for larger animals such as birds. One example of a bird that has been

spotted nearby in other areas of North Creek Forest is the pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus

Map 4: Shows native vegetation


pileatus), which uses its long beak to remove and eat insects out of logs (DNR). Logs and woody

debris are also useful to add nutrients and organic material into the soil. Certain species such as

western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) are adapted to use decaying wood as a substrate for

their own establishment.

Snags are another important element in the site that will prove useful to wildlife. Many

different birds and mammals are able to use snags as shelter. An example of a species that has

been seen in North Creek Forest before is the great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), which uses

the tops of snags for nesting (DNR). Snags also decompose in the same way that logs do, and

this decomposition attracts insects which can be used as food by birds and small mammals.

There are two large snags that have been located in our site, but one is currently engulfed the

invasive by H. helix.

There are several tall, western redcedars along the boundaries of the site, primarily in

the northern portion. These trees have evergreen foliage that provide small mammals and birds

with shelter over the winter months. The foliage is a good heat insulator, and some mammals

are able to use the foliage for browse. There are also several species present within the shrub

and groundcover layers that are berry-producing, such as R. spectabilis, M. nervosa, and

although invasive and subject to removal, R. bifrons. Birds and small mammals are able to

consume these berries, which act as an important source of food.

DisturbanceThe project site is vulnerable to various disturbances due to the high degree of

environmental heterogeneity across polygons. All 4 polygons are at risk for vegetation

trampling and introduction of invasive plant seeds from visitor’s boots, due to the use of North

Creek Forest for education, research, art and recreation. All 4 polygons have poorly drained

soils, increasing the likelihood of downed trees in severe wind or rain events. The sparse

existence of mature conifers in all polygons causes concern for further invasion of R. bifrons and

other invasive species. Polygon 1 is at risk of erosion due to the steep slope and high moisture

content in soils. Polygons 1 and 2 contain the invasive species H. helix and R. bifrons, they also

show the highest risk for reinvasion because these species cover the private property at


western edge of the project site. Polygon 2 is also susceptible to erosion due to the wet soil,

steep slope and lack of trees or soil binding species. Considerable amounts of debris and trash

were observed in polygon 2 during the site assessment. Polygon 3 has some of the wettest soils,

this could cause existing trees to fall during wind events. Two newly fallen A. rubra were

observed on the eastern edge of polygon 3 adjacent to the trail. Polygon 4 is at risk for erosion

and windfall, the stream that cuts through the Northeast corner of this polygon has also shown

signs of erosion.

Matrix

NCF is located right in between a residential area and highway 405. This area is the only

forest that acts as a buffer in the City of Bothell. This project site is in close proximity to the

walking trail and residential area.

The area to the west is surrounded by houses but there is a massive amount of invasive

species right in the middle of the residential area and our site. In addition to the invasive

species, R. Spectabilis covers a large portion of our project site.

Aerial view of the features adjacent to the site ---- Source: Google Maps White box:

North Creek Forest ---- Red Star: REN Capstone Site 2015-2016


The CP has requested that we leave some of the Salmonberry in order to maintain the

privacy of the residents. So, most of the species we will be removing are Himalayan blackberry,

English ivy, and some salmonberry in places where is it not needed for concealment. The

walking trail is on the eastern border of our project site. Next to the trail, there are many dead

trees and two big stumps; there is also an old pipe that is right on the walking trail. These may

have to be removed.

UWREN 2014-15 project site is located on the south side. There is drainage that is

located at the northeastern side of our site, as well as a small creek that runs directly through

the northeastern border of the project site.

Human ContextSurrounding North Creek Forest are suburban development areas and highways. This

area used to be forest similar to North Creek, but, has since been logged and converted for

anthropogenic purposes. Besides logging done over the past century, pollution from humans

including trash and car exhaust have had some effect on the area, especially on its perimeters.

Additionally, many of the invasive species have made their way into the forest due to the

surrounding areas. When people buy a house and have a garden, they tend to plant species

that aren’t native to the area. This can contribute heavily to the invasive plant species problem

we currently see in the area.

At this time, the community does not use our site and there seems to be little to no

pedestrian traffic going through the area. We are however, adjacent to previous UW-REN sites

and trails through the forest where people frequently walk. Our site is located very close to a

few houses. This could complicate our restoration progress, depending on the people who live

here and their compliance in not further polluting the area with trash and not planting invasive

species near the site, which is essentially their back yard.


Impaired Ecological FunctionsWidespread establishment of English ivy has proved to be troublesome throughout the

site where it has ample access to sunlight. It has been observed climbing up the trunks of trees,

one of which has been completely choked out and died. Also, there are areas where it is

interspersed with several native groundcover species such as youth-on-age, which runs the risk

of being completely outcompeted. Native tree and shrub saplings cannot grow nearby these

large patches of English ivy or they will be choked out.

There is a large, mixed thicket of salmonberry and Himalayan blackberry in the center of

the site. This thicket is quite dense and has prevented the growth of other shrubs and

groundcover that could compete. There are some species located within the thicket itself that

have either been damaged or stunted. Examples include skunk cabbage and lady fern. No tree

saplings are able to grow within the thicket, and this has prevented successional development

within the site. Shade is unable to be created due to the lack of canopy development, and this

has created an ideal habitat for invasive species that have already been established. Trees will

not be able to establish or develop if this thicket is not mitigated.

Areas along the slope where there is a lack of shrubs or trees has softer upper layers of

soil than soil that is hosting shrubs or trees. There is nothing holding this soil together, which

has left it vulnerable to erosion. The soil is already drainage-poor and does not dry or solidify

very well, so without the assistance of roots to help compress the soil, surface runoff heading

down the slope will transport the upper layers of the soil away from the site and will degrade

Salmonberry/Himalayan

Blackberry thicket ----

Source: Kai Farmer


the landscape over time. Also, the saturation and poor drainage of soil will create difficult

conditions for native lowland forest species to establish. The site appears to be far wetter than

the adjacent sections of North Creek Forest, so the installation of similar species that are

located in other areas of the forest may not achieve the same success at this location.

Likelihood of Autogenic RepairThe likelihood for autogenic repair of this project site is low due to the concentrations of

invasive species present. North Creek forest was logged a century ago and the native species

present within the project site do represent autogenic recovery but, little canopy has

established and invasive species cover is likely to increase over time. Multiple trees on and

directly adjacent to the Western border of the project site are covered with H. helix, one of

which has fallen and become a snag. It is likely that without intervention through restoration

other trees within the project site will become killed by H. helix.

Much of the project site is densely covered with a mixture of R. bifrons and R.

spectabilis, resulting in little biodiversity within these areas. Conifers have not regenerated in

most of the project site, if this area is not restored it is likely to become dominated even further

by R. bifrons, H. helix, I. aquifolium and R. spectabilis with little canopy cover. The existing

canopy also provides favorable light conditions for further invasion and establishment of

dominance by invasive species. The loss of existing trees may cause further erosion in the

stream (polygon 4) and erosion of the soil throughout the project site.

Appendix A.

Scientific Name Common Name

Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry

Thuja plicata Western Redcedar


Lysichiton americanum Skunk Cabbage

Tolmeia menziessi Piggyback plant/ youth upon age

Oemlaria cerasiformis Indian Plum

Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple

Acer circinatum Vine Maple

Equisetum ssp. Common Horsetail

Polystichum munitum Sword Fern

Athyrium felix-femina Lady fern

Alnus Rubra Red Alder

Vaccinium Parvifolium Red Huckleberry

Mahonia nervosa Low Oregon Grape/ Cascade Oregon

Grape

Corylus cornuta var. californica Beaked Hazelnut

Rhamnus purshiana Cascara

Pseudotsuga menziessi subsp.

menziessi

Douglas Fir

Rubus bifrons INVASIVE Himalayan Blackberry

Hedera helix INVASIVE English Ivy

Ilix aquifolium INVASIVE English Holly

Sources


FNCF: Friends of North Creek Forest [Internet]. C2011-2015 [cited 2015 Nov 2].

Available from; http://www.friendsofnorthcreekforest.org/

DNR: Department of Natural Resources. Creating a wild Backyard – Snags & Logs

[Internet]. Maryland.gov; [cited 2015 Oct. 30]

http://dnr2.maryland.gov/wildlife/Documents/Snags_Logs.pdf

Kunze L. 1994. Preliminary Classification of Native, Low Elevation, Freshwater Wetland

Vegetation in Western Washington. Olympia (WA): Washington Natural Heritage Program,

Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Available from:

http://wadnr.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/amp_nh_wetland_class.pdf

WSDNR: Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Reference Desk of the

Washington Natural Heritage Program [Internet]. C2015 [cited 2015 Nov 5]. Available from:

http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/communities/pdf/psme-thpl-gash-mane-pomu.pdf

Kai Farmer - Photos

http://dnr2.maryland.gov/wildlife/Documents/Snags_Logs.pdf

http://www.friendsofnorthcreekforest.org/

NorthCreekForest_SA15.doc

Documents

Transcript of NorthCreekForest_SA15.doc