Ecological Restoration Workbook by Tim Lehman

Ecological Restoration Workbook Restoration Design (ESRM 479) Spring 2015 Created by, Derek Buchner, McKayla Dear, Jiannan Huang, Tim Lehman, and Ashley Pierson

Ecological Restoration Workbook

Created for, Restoration Desing (ESRM 479) Spring 2015 Instructors, Kern Ewing and Jim Fridley

Created by, Derek Buchner, McKayla Dear, Jiannan Huang, Tim Lehman, and Ashley Pierson

Contents Chapter 1: Wiley Slough Restoration Proposal p. 1 – 12 Chapter 2: Freshwater Wetland Creation: Union Bay Natural Area p. 13 – 20 Chapter 3: Overgrazing and Vernal Pools p. 20 – 29 Chapter 4: Restoration of SE Padilla Bay, Washington p. 31 – 38 Chapter 5: Thornton Creek p. 39 – 51 Conclusion: p. 53 Appendix I: Team Member Biographies p. 55 – 59 Appendix II: Assignments p. 61 - 73

iii

Preface Many ecological restoration projects begin as an idea, but to complete the project, ideas need to transition into detailed site assessments, requirements, and an estimation of needed resources. A good restoration idea is not complete without a detailed design, and the following exercises allowed us to practice the many aspects of project design. The process required teamwork, brainstorming, planning, time budgeting, scheduling, setbacks, and delivery of a final product. The compilation of which, in many facets, mirrors the needs and realities of performing actual restoration of a natural area. This book required many hours of hard work and we hope you enjoy your read.

Derek Buchner

Introduction This book is a compilation of project design exercises completed by undergraduate and graduate students at the University of Washington. We completed five design exercises, all of which were focused on ecological restoration and located in Washington State. Two of the projects were located within ten miles of the Seattle Campus. The five chosen sites covered many of the commonly restored land types in the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;they include saltmarsh, wetland, sagebrush, vernal pool, estuarine, and river restoration. The five exercises are partitioned into individual chapters and each chapter is a stand-alone assessment of restoration. Each exercise started from an initial assignment sheet (Appendix Two). We acted as a consultant for the given client, often the current land manager at the site. Each chapter begins with site background and initial assessment followed by the functional requirements deduced from the clientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s request. Project constraints and site selection follow, before beginning the design specifics. The designs have detailed calculations and visuals of required processes and include the phasing and scheduling needed to perform these processes. Many of the designs include a budget and some include various restoration options, tailored to the desires of the client. For some of the projects, we used advanced tools: we showed project sequencing through Gantt charts, mapping through GIS, and we selected our top restoration options with detailed decision matrices. Chapter one covers the restoration of Wiley Slough, a diked portion of agricultural land which will be breached and returned back to saltmarsh. Chapter two is wetland creation and is the design for a proposed wetland on the University of Washington property in the Union Bay Natural Area. Chapter three moves the reader to the drier sagebrush community of eastern Washington State, where a design is outlined for sagebrush and rare, vernal pool enhancement. Chapter four returns the reader back to the Salish Sea, just south of Wiley Slough, at Padilla Bay, where an agriculture site is turned into a mix-

use restoration site for bird watchers, researchers, duck hunters, fisherman, and farmers. Chapter five details the specific of a stream restoration project on Hamlin Creek, a tributary in the Thornton Creek Watershed, the largest watershed in Seattle.

Derek Buchner

Wiley Slough Restoration Proposal Site Analysis

The immediate area around Wiley Slough is used primarily for hunting of waterfowl, hiking, and bird watching. The area has been diked heavily since management started in 1944 to form an upland habitat mainly composed of cereal grains for waterfowl feed. After Puget Sound Chinook Salmon were listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1999, continuing efforts have been made to restore the pre-1944 wetland habitat of Wiley Slough. The Skagit River (which Wiley Slough runs into) is home to 6 of the 22 populations of Chinook Salmon that are endangered. The estuarine habitat that is to be restored here will provide vital protection and food for juvenile salmon. The existing tide gate on the West end of Wiley Slough prevents salt water from coming into the slough, but allows freshwater to exit. The dikes and tide gates keep water out, and the land is currently used to grow grains to attract duck species.

Google Image: Wiley Slough pre-restoration, 2007

Constraints 1) One of the largest constraints of the project is balancing out cut and fill amounts for the dikes. New dikes will need a 2:1 ratio of fill from the removed dikes. Constructed in this restoration plan is a stepby-step procedure of the dikes to be removed, retained, and formed. Unnecessary removal of dikes is minimized for a cost-efficient project design. 2) Flooding is a serious constraint as well. The dairy farm immediately North of the restoration area is the most important area that needs to be addressed. Another important area is the Skagit Wildlife Area office building in the Northeast corner of the lot. Because of this, current dikes will have to be not just retained but reinforced. This will affect our total calculations for the cut and fill of the dikes. 3) Drainage of the soil will affect the amount of wetland habitat that will come into existence via passive restoration. This is important in preventing invasives from forming in the area. Because of this, upland areas (especially the elevated dikes) will have to be actively planted and maintained. 4) Elevation needs to be considered so that expected dispersal of the water can be predicted. This also comes back to which plants will be expected to grow where. 5) The community plays an important role in this project as well, meeting an agreement between the Natives to the area and the recreational users of the area will be a challenging one. 6) Project funding is an important constraint as well, if a plan is proposed that is above the managementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s budget, a new plan will have to be formed. 7) Legal constraints may not allow some of the practices to go into our plan, such as extension of the wetland habitat past the estuarine area.

Photo taken from WDFW’s Wiley Design Report Final (2004). 8) Soil Microclimate. Difference in soil microclimate is a potential constraint in this project. In the northern dairy farm and its connected southern boundary, soil type is mainly Tacoma drained silt loam, whereas the soil type of other areas differ. About ⅓ of soil in this project is Tacoma drained silt loam; ⅓ of soil is tidal hydraquents; ⅓ of soil is something else (Briscot fine sandy loam, Sumas silt loam, etc). The difference in soil microclimate will affect effectiveness of restoration by influencing the survival of restored marsh plants. For example, tidal hydraquents is the main soil type that characterizes the potential native plant restoration field. Tidal hydraquents contains high level of SOC or soil organic carbon. Higher level of organic carbon in topsoil, better outplanting survival rate for restored plants. Because topsoil could be disturbed and relocated, it is important to remain the upland soil type untouched and minimize the change to soil type during construction. Tentative measurements of dikes around Wiley Slough WDFW report Wiley Design Report Final Draft (EDITED)

Predicted Level of Repair Possible

With these restoration efforts implemented there is a strong possibility that the Wiley Slough will restore 100% of its ecological and biological processes. Through the removal and reconstruction of existing levees and the construction of new levees, the historical tidal flooding will drive natural estuarine processes that will result in the restoration of habitat for fish, wildlife, vegetation, and other organisms. With the removal of the southern levees of Wiley Slough, the marsh area will allow water to infiltrate the area and restore these processes. Invasive species are currently present at the site. Initial site analysis found reed canary grass, Phalaris arundinacea and purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria. We predict that some species, like the Lythrum salicaria will be eliminated through flooding and the increase of salinity of the groundwater. Other invasive species, like Phalaris arundinacea, which are more flood and salt tolerant, will be removed prior to opening up the levees to tidal conditions. This marsh area tends to range in elevation between -1 to +4 ft where high and high higher tides ranging from +4.4 to +5.3 ft. will be able to wash over the area and restore natural tidal channels that act as low natural levees of sediment deposits. These tides will induce autogenic repair and account for 98% of the restoration of the area while the efforts of this proposal will account for 2% of the restoration efforts of the area. Changing the location of the flood gate will allow control of the amounts of Salt and fresh water within the marsh so that a gradual mixture of salt and fresh water can occur. For the duration of construction and prior to the the flood season, hydroseed of grass vegetation can be used to cover the levees. This will temporarily blanket the levees to control erosion before the project is completed. Further restoration after the project can be completed by introducing plant species along natural levees created by tidal flooding and the new levees created such as Schoenoplectus pungens and Carex lyngbyei where land elevation is between 6 and 8 feet. The introduction of these species will help the spread them to other areas of the marsh. A passive restorative technique will be cost beneficial and allow natural restoration of estuarine processes.

Likelihood of Autogenic Repair

There is a strong evidence that autogenic repair will happen after restorative actions have been implemented in Wiley Slough. The slough has a potential of 65.000 hectares of restored estuarine area and a potential channel or open water area of 2 hectare. This tidal delta restoration project if and when constructed has the potential to increase the delta area exposed to river and tidal hydrology. When tidal waves start infiltrating the area current invasive species unable to survive at that salinity level will slowly die off allowing for the growth of salt water marsh species to survive. The connectivity of tidal delta and the freshwater system of Wiley Slough will create new habitat and help restore the Skagit Chinook salmon populations. This optimizes pathways for fish to access and occupy while the salmon are transitioning in between their freshwater and saltwater growth phases. Increased channel habitat strongly benefits Chinook salmon as well as chum, coho, pink, sockeye, bull trout, steelhead, and cutthroat species. The recolonization of native species support wildlife and fishery food

6 chains and unrestricted flow of nutrients within this waterway. This benefits salmonids rearing in the area but also helps restore the natural sediment by adding nitrogen and nutrients from the fish excrements. The restoration of sedimentation from natural processes will further benefit native plant vegetation trying to grow within the area. Overtime there will be a strong increase in the bird diversity in the area and the abundance will increase linearly with the establishment of vegetation communities that are tidally-influenced. The natural tidal waves might establish sediment deposits that are comparable to low levees. Waterfowl, geese, and other bird species will be able to utilize this space as habitat. This is particular important as bird species help transport seeds of native species plants to the area and will help establish or reinforce the native vegetation within the area. Even though most of the restoration efforts can be completed through autogenic processes, it is important to recognize that persistent and noxious invasive species have a detrimental effect on the environment in this fragile ecosystem. It is suggested that this site be further monitored for the health of the ecosystem and in the event that invasive species take over this area more restorative efforts be put in place by the county or community.

Range of Restoration Options

Functional Requirements

1) The main functional requirement for this project is producing an area that provides protection and food for juvenile Chinook salmon. Specifically, restoration of at least 90% of the area back to wetland habitat. This includes the flow of saltwater from Skagit Bay throughout the site (up to the northern boundary below the dairy farm and down to the East boundary that connects the slough back to the Skagit River). 2) Replacement of all cereal grains with native wetland species including Carex lyngbyei and Schoeno pungens. 3) To create a dike formation that successfully allows water to flow throughout the site. 4) The transition of the area from a mainly freshwater habitat to a mainly saltwater habitat 5) Amenities to community members and future management for easy access to the area (potential boardwalks on top of the levees leading to/away from main office). 6) A system that takes preventative measures for 10 year floods, successfully protecting the immediate upland areas.

Site Design: Maps and Layout

Levee Calculations

As levees are removed from the site, most of the excavated soil will remain on-site and will be used for the construction of new levees and reinforcing existing levees. Since construction of new levees is more intensive, the new Farm Levee that runs East-West along the property will require more fill material. The conversion is 2:1 ratio, meaning for every 20 ft of levee we remove from an old levee at the site, 10 ft of new levee can be constructed. Table 1. Levee requirements. The totals for the lengths of levee to be constructed, reinforced, and removed were calculated using Google Maps and the provided distance calculator. They are estimates, yet accurate enough for the purposes of this report. Since constructed levees are added at a ratio of 2:1, the constructed levees are the length of the new levees multiplied by two. The numbers in this table have already been converted.

The project will have an excess of 225 linear feet of levee, which amounts to 4,170 cu. yds. of soil. The extra soil will garrison the levee around the office, creating more space for future public education or bird watching additions. Deconstructing the levees is a time intensive process that requires synchronized removal of the old levee, transport of material, and construction of the new levee. After the soil is excavated from the levee, the soil will unpack some and expand in volume. We expect a 1.15 multiplier in expansion of soil after excavation. This will be accounted for an accurate estimate of number of dump truck trips. We will use single-axle dump trucks that can carry 12 cubic yards of soil. The 20 ft wide levees should allow for adequate maneuvering of dump trucks. To maximize efficiency, only two trucks will run at a time. Since it takes 10 minutes to load a truck, and only one truck can be loaded at a time, this is the choke-point of the process. Having

8 two trucks simultaneously will greatly increase efficiency. Three trucks would add significantly higher costs, and not much greater efficiency since almost always a truck will be waiting its turn to be filled with two trucks. â&#x20AC;&#x192; Table 2. Dump truck logistics. Average speed used for calculations of trip drive time was 15 mph. Drive time varies on which levee is removed and where the the soil is being moved to.

Since levees shrink as you excavate them, drive times decrease as excavation progresses. However, since some trips are longer than average and other trips are equally shorter than average, using half the length of the levee is a good rule of thumb for calculating drive time. Trips per hour were calculated using half the length of the excavated levee, the drive time over other levees to get to the desired dump spot, and then half of the length of the desired dump levee. Since only one truck can be in position to receive excavated soil at a time and because the trucks canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t pass on the levees, in most instances trips/hr are higher than simply multiplying one truck time by two. Trucks might have to wait for other trucks to get off the levee before they can proceed, slowing down the overall trips/hr. The West Levee removal has the most trips/hr because it is closest to the soil addition site (mostly reinforcing the Upper Wiley Slough Levee). The East River Levee has the least trips/hr because it is the longest levee, which means it takes longer to drive on along it. The South Levee is in-between these two rates, at 6 trips/hr. Table 3. Levee removal projections. Number of trips, time, and total cost are included. Option D is added at the bottom, if the client decides to remove the central levee, it will have the projected extra cost.

Removal and Recolonization of Vegetation

In order for the site to transition from its current state as a duck wildlife area, into a saltwater marsh, the duck habitat needs to be removed and the saltwater marsh need to establish. There are three approaches to achieving this goal: passive, active, and a less-active. We recommend a passive approach, which might be equally as effective and much less time and capital intensive, but we will offer options, as the active approaches have advantages. We recommend the passive approach because the influx of tidal water will flood the existing vegetation killing most of the existing vegetation, either through drowning or because of the higher salinity. Recolonization will occur at the site as seeds are deposited through transport through the river and currents. See the figure below for predicted recolonization locations. Since the area to the west of the current wildlife area is freshwater marsh, this should act as a good seed production area for the recolonization of the new saltmarsh. However, the addition of the tidal influx will not properly eliminate the invasive species currently present at the wildlife area. The largest advantage of the active approach is the removal of the current invasive weeds on the wildlife area, mostly reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea, a class C weed for the state of Washington (Noxious Weed List 2015), and Cordgrass Spartina sp, a class A weed (Wiley Design Report Final 2004). Both of these are tolerant of some amount of flooding and salinity and it is unknown how they will respond when the levees are removed. There is a chance that they will persist and possibly continue to invade the site. By removing them before the levees are breached, it will be easier and cheaper and might prevent future ongoing control of these invasives. The second advantage of the active approach will be from insured colonization of desired native species. Relying on passive transport of propagules and seeds allows for windows where invasive species establish at the site. By actively planting desired species, the desired species will not have to compete for establishment with possible invasive species. Between 6-8â&#x20AC;&#x2122; above MLLW, we would plant Schoenoplectus pungens and between 8-12â&#x20AC;&#x2122;, we would plant Carex lyngbyei. By planting these two native species, we would help

colonization of the site and potentially avoid colonization by costly invaders. The third approach, Active: Invasive Removal, is only doing some of active approach outline above. It will remove the Phalaris arundinacea and Spartina sp but not plant any new species. Table 4. The three options for restoration of the existing wildlife area into saltwater marsh.

From Wiley Design Report Final (2004)

Levee Bank Stabilization and Planting

Table 5. Cost of levee plantings. There will be a combination of seeding and planting.

Sequencing and Timing

Phase 1: Remove south levee (+2205 ft). We will use this dirt to construct the office levee (-600 ft) and start on the Wiley Farm Levee. The rest of the South Levee (-1605 ft) will go to the Wiley Farm Levee.

Phase 2: Removal of the East River Levee (+4950 ft). Wiley Farm Levee will use 4035 ft. Wiley Farm Levee complete. The remainder 915 ft will start on the reinforcement of Upper Wiley Slough.

Phase 3: Removal of West Levee (+2010 ft) to reinforce Upper Wiley Slough (-1785 ft). Tides will now flow into the northern portion of historic farmland. The left over 225 ft will be removed from the site. Breach Central Levee.

Continuing Activities Monitoring the central levee for cross nutrients. Sample nutrient content along central levee every week. Sampling sites have to be consistent (same location every time) and representative (evenly distributed). Monitoring levees for structural integrity. Structural integrity can determine the overall effectiveness of this project. It is crucial to monitor the structural characteristics/integrity frequently (every month) to make sure they can achieve design expectation. Monitoring plant species richness after planting native species. Regularly measure and record species composition to minimize disruption from invasive species.

Phase 4: Planting of levee bank of native species. Phase 5: Adaptive management; manual removal and spraying of invasives on levee banks.

Monitoring salmon richness. As one of the main objectives, salmon recovery will be monitored. Species richness is expected to be enhanced by providing more habitat. Regular sampling of salmon abundance and health (dimensions, weight) can help evaluate the effectiveness of the project. Frequent removal of pollutants and monitoring of water quality. Salmon are sensitive to water quality, and the timely removal of pollutants is essential to preventing toxic accumulation in salmon, as well as in other wildlife species using the site. Construction of amenities. As one of functional requirements, amenities need to be built that allow easy access for community members and visitors. These amenities include trails on top of the levees connecting to the main office as well as potential recreational buildings/amenities in the future. Boardwalks might also be built in the future to allow for better access to the saltmarsh.

Potential Pitfalls

Undesired interaction between northern dairy farm and boundary area. The noise and disturbance from construction could cause a

negative impact on dairy farm, lowering productivity. To minimize the effect of potential soil exchange during construction and later maintenance, field crews will have to acknowledge the soil difference and minimize the accidental, unplanned soil relocation. Also, present invasive species and accidentally introduced invasive species during construction may disperse to the dairy farm and its connected boundary. It is hard to predict what kinds of invasive species are likely to dominate and where they will dominate. The best way to avoid it is to regularly monitor undesirable plant species before, during and after construction phase. 10-year flooding may cause lower survival rate of restored plants. Schoenoplectus pungens and Carex lyngbyei are the two species we will be planting on the site. Schoenoplectus pungens is a long-lived perennial herb up to 1.5 m tall. It is usually found in open, sun-lit marshes in water up to 1 m deep. Flooding may hide seed from light and separate them from soil, which will lower reproductive success. Also, dramatic flooding will cause unpredictable disturbance to native plants due to changed soil microclimate. Species may drown depending on their elevation. To avoid or minimize the negative impact by10 year flooding, frequent dike monitoring is required.

timely alert project managers to act accordingly.

Competition with other species. In the long term it is possible that other species take over the field and outcompete the restored native species. Carex lyngbyei is a pioneer species that colonizes the mud of tidal flats in its range. Although it has robust root and it produces stems up to one meter tall from a network of long rhizomes, species that are better adapters may impose intense competition on Carex lyngbyei and hence decrease its fitness. Long term plant monitoring can help timely alert project managers to act accordingly.

Beamer, Eric. “DELTA AND NEARSHORE RESTORATION FOR THE RECOVERY OF WILD SKAGIT RIVER CHINOOK SALMON: LINKING ESTUARY RESTORATION TO WILD CHINOOK SALMON POPULATIONS.” Skagit River System Cooperative. 24 Oct. 2005. Web. 11 Apr. 2015. <http://www.skagitcoop.org/documents/Appendix D Estuary.pdf>.

Change in climate. Change in climate will also affect soil fertility by changing microclimate. For example, higher precipitation will increase the exposure of plants to freshwater. Because salt marsh plants are well adapted to salt water by periodical tidal exposure to salt water, fresh water by increased precipitation will affect soil microclimate as well as plant productivity. Regular soil sampling and monitoring can timely

Human pollution. Humans always play an important role in the success of restoration project. One of the main objectives of this project is to provide protection and food for juvenile Chinook salmon. Salmon are very sensitive to water quality and river sediments. Pollution by humans include waste and toxic chemicals that become distributed throughout the site through the tidal connectivity. Another source of pollutants, categorized under human pollution, could be from visitors’ pets when they conduct bodily functions at the site. These pollutants may damage water quality and the sediment microclimate. The result could be the reduced productivity of the site for juvenile salmon, but might become as serious as causing a toxic salmon product. Putting warning sign along trails can prevent people from throwing trash and picking-up after their pets. Also, good cooperation and timely communication with law enforcement agencies and WSDOT can help prevent major pollution events.

Works Cited

Noxious Weed List.2015. Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. Accessed online Apr. 8 2015:: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/nwcb_nox.htm. Wiley Design Report Final. 2004. Washington Department of Fish and WIldlife. Proposal for the Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board.

Freshwater Wetland Creation: Union Bay Natural Area

Background of the Union Bay Natural Area

The Union Bay Natural Area is located on the north shore of Lake Washington, a 22-mile long lake. In its historic state, the lake levels would fluctuate with the season, being higher in the winter and lower in the summer. However, the lake hydrology was drastically altered in 1911, when construction began on the Ship Canal, and the lake was eventually connected to Lake Union and also Puget Sound. As a result, Lake Washington was lowered nine feet. The lowering resulted in the formation of a marshland that is now the Union Bay Natural Area (UNBA). At the time, the marshy area was viewed as having little to no value, and in 1926 it started being used as a dump site for the city. This practice continued for 40 years. This was not a long-term solution, and the dump-site closed in 1966. After the dump-site closed, it was covered with a cap and soil. Now this area is the Union Bay Natural Area and it is managed by the University of Washington (See Figure 1). One section on the western side of UNBA has a gravel parking lot. This parking lot is one of the proposed sites for wetland mitigation from the SR 520 floating bridge construction. It will be the focus of this report.

Satelite image of Seattle area with Union Bay Natural Area in red. Image from Google Earth

Site Design

Functional Requirements The site has several functional requirements that must be met. Increase wetland habitat for wetland plant species Provide habitat for wetland animals Increase the amount of green space in the Union Bay Natural Area Constraints: controlling overflow into nearby areas Construction canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t hit the landfill cap (has to be 2.5 ft above the cap) the wetland will be as deep as possible

the required use of excavated soil for levees legal permitting of wetland areas No landfill material can be removed from the site There must be 2.5 ft of the “fill sandwich” above the landfill cap. The maximized water level in the full wetland is capped to an elevation of 21’ Native plant species have to be established on site Wetland has to be fire adapted or fire resistant due to nearby human activity The site must adhere to the functions and characteristics of a designated wetland in Washington State, as governed by the Department of Ecology, The prescriptions must agree with the Union Bay Natural Area and Shoreline Management Guidelines (2010).

Stakeholders

WashDOT UW Botanic Gardens EPA Department of Ecology Neighborhood (general public) Department of Fish and Wildlife

Satelite image of E-5 parking area, the proposed wetland creating site.

Site Analysis: Current Conditions The proposed wetland site is a gravel parking lot (named E-5) located within the Union Bay Natural Area. The parking lot is no longer being used for parking, but was previously zoned parking. It also has at least one methane well which may or may not still be active. On the western border of the site, there is a 10m strip of vegetation and then a canal. On the southern boundary there is a small strip of upland vegetation before reaching Lake Washington. The east side currently has a wetland (right bottom figure) which dries up during the summer months. The northern boundary is upland vegetation.

Image of site (left) image of vernal pool next to proposed site (right)

The parking lot is located above a landfill, and landfills compress overtime. Portions of the site have subsided. In response to subsiding, the managers of the parking lot have laid down more substrate in certain places. Therefore, the soil depth varies throughout the parking lot. In addition, the surface elevation decreases by around 2 ft as you move north on the site. The southern area of the parking lot is around 23 ft and the northern area is around 21 ft.. These differences in surface elevation and soil depth are shown in Figures A3. WashDOT completed the borings of the site.

Site Analysis: Calculations

Topographical map of of the surface elevation (Top) and soil depth (bottom)

Cross-sections of site overlayed on top of soil depth and surface layer topographical maps.

To analyze the various soil depths of the site, we split the site into eight cross-sections. These cross sections are shown in the figure below.

16 After creating the cross-sections, we computed the average surface elevation and soil depth of each one. The values for the cross sections are in Table B1 and graphed in Figure B2. By subtracting the soil depth from the surface elevation, and then adding 2.5 ft, we calculated the lowest elevation possible for the proposed wetland at each cross section. We added 2.5 ft because the bottom of the wetland has to be 2.5 ft above the cap of the landfill. We determined that the southernmost part of the parking lot cannot be part of the wetland because the landfill is too close to the surface. We suggest that this part should be used as the wetland buffer. Table B1: Elevation of landfill components and analysis to see if excavating down to lake level is feasible. The depth of Lake Washington is 18 ft in summer, therefore in order for the wetland to connect to the lake, the fill sandwich would have to be under 18 feet. In no crosssections is this true.

After the analysis, we concluded that the area of the site between cross-section 1 and 3 is not suitable for wetland creation because the soil is not deep enough and the water will naturally flow to the lower elevation area of the plot. As shown in Figure B2, the sandwich fill is above the proposed water level, so this area will never be underwater. However, the parking area will still be removed and that area will be planted wetland-transitional and upland species. Since the soil depth changes across the site, differing amounts of soil will need to be excavated across the site. By partitioning the site into polygons according to the soil depth, we were able to estimate the amount of soil that will need to be removed from the site. The total volume of soil leftover 6,101 cubic yards. We suggest that this soil should be used for creation of a kite hill on the western portion of UBNA. Figure B3 shows the partitions in more detail, and have the associated square footage.

Elevation of substrates along the 8 cross-sections

Polygon partitions based on soil depth

One design alternative was to have the wetland connected to Lake Washington. However, after the site assessment, we deemed this unfeasible. Lake Washington changes depth between the summer and winter seasons. In the summer it is 18’ and during the winter it is 16’. In order for the wetland to be connected to the lake, the “sandwich fill” would have to be under 18’. (And in order to minimize costs and permitting, we cannot excavate the dump material beneath the cap.) After examining the current elevation of the site and the depth of the movable substrate beneath the site, we determined that connecting the wetland to Lake Washington to be unfeasible. Our site analysis showed that after removing the topsoil, then adding the “sandwich fill,” the lowest possible elevation for the site is 18.15 ft. Therefore, at no locations will the bottom of the wetland be below 18’. Instead of connecting the wetland to Lake Washington, we suggest creating a selfcontained wetland that relies on direct precipitation and local runoff. The Addition of Levees Because of the elevation of the site skewing towards one end, the addition of levees from the excavated soil will be needed to maximize water storage. The average rainfall in Seattle is 39 inches per year, with the majority happening October through April. In the months May through August there is only 5 inches average of rainfall. With this being said, we can expect the max height of the rainfall to be 34 inches (2.83 feet) for the wet season. This is sufficient rainfall to fill to the max height of the lake (which will reach 21 feet). The addition of the levees will be an approximate length of 277 yards. We have 6,101 cubic yards of soil that will be excavated. When compacted using a ratio of 1 to .9 ground to levee soil volume, the total available soil for levee use is 5491 cubic yards. With the use of a 2x2 yard levee with 3:1 ratio to the sides, most of the soil will be used. The extra 1060 yards can be either added to the already built levees, or be used to extend the ends of the levees further south. The addition of these levees are visually represented in figure B4.

Site Design

Phase 3 Wetland-transitional and upland species Wetland species

Wetland-transitional species

Image of the levee to be added on the North corridor of the lot. Additional levees will be added to the East and West side to reinforce protection of the bike path and to prevent the lake water from flowing to the lower elevation area to the East.

Planting Soil Considerations In order to restore the area into a functioning wetland we can selectively incorporate plants in a transitional manner within the wetland to increase survival rates and the likelihood of autogenic repair. Since planting will be the last step within the initial restorative plans efforts to decrease the amount of erosion within the area will be addressed by covering the levees with grass such as barley (Hordeum vulgare) or Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) through a hydroseed methods that will temporarily hold the soil in place for the first year, but does not compete with the native vegetation over a longer period of time, while other parts of the plan can be administered. This will prevent the soil from washing away into the wetland and securing the levee until planting. To ensure that the plants survive and the ecological functions of the wetland are restored amending the soil within the area will provide a nutrient rich layer that will improve succession of native plants. There are many different ways to do this but is important for this project as the moisture gradient of this landscape requires soil that will retain moisture and infiltrate at different rates. To amend the soil initially processed peat, straw, or hay can be mixed in with more mineral soil to provide a preliminary organic matter into the soil. This will also improve the soils ability to retain moisture while the site is regaining wetland functions. A layer of hydric soil can brought in or salvaged from another restoration sight that has a similar moisture content and climate this will bring in seeds, rhizomes, or entire plants into the site. As long as this soil does not destroy other wetland areas and large numbers of invasive species are at the collection site. Soils types and amendments will be addressed in phase one where a large amount of soil will be spread out through the restoration site. Within phase 2 of planting upland prairie species will be planted as this area. This area has the highest elevation of the sight and is not surrounded by levees that will hold water closer to the vegetation. Within this site mock orange (Philadelphus lewisii), ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) and redflowering currant (Ribes sanguineum) will be established at the very

left hand side of the prairie area. These plants have been identified in other parts of the UBNA and are native to Washington. They prefer drier soil and will provide diversity within the wetland. These plants along with fescue (Festuca idahoensis) will also be established on top of the levees as the final planting within the site. These species prefer drier soil to survive and will provide a dense barrier around the wetland that will create a live fence; beneficial to native animal species that are not capable of going through 3 feet of water.

Now addressing the Wetland transitional area the most beneficial plants to the area are fescue (Festuca idahoensis)- about 25 plants, camas (Camassia quamash) - about 15 plants, hawkweed (Hieracium cynoglossoides) - about 15 plants, death camas (Zygadenus venenosus)about 10 plants , showy fleabane (Erigeron speciosus), Nine-leaf lomatium (Lomatium triternatum)- about 10 plants and

potentilla (Potentilla gracilis)- 10 plants. These plants will be established within the green area below in the picture of phase three and the area between the wetland and the upland prairie to have a smooth transition within moisture levels around the vegetation. The vegetation is equipped to sustain high moisture contents however some species may have a harder time sustaining fully submerged for long periods of time. The plants will be planted in pairs grouped around 4 or 5 other plants and then randomly clustered around the restoration site. This allows the plants to establish a flow of nutrients between each other while protecting themselves from heavy rain flow and soil erosion while they establish themselves within the area. The wetland area will hopefully gain full ecological function through autogenic repair as new seedlings are hard to establish within an area that is immersed in water and newly disturbed soil. Within this area 5 willow (Salix) and 5 Cottonwoods (Populus balsamerifera) will be established. The seedlings or juvenile plants will sustain fully or almost fully submerged within the deepest depth of 3 feet within the wetland. These trees will be randomly placed around the wettest area. These trees have shallower root system that will not penetrate the landfill lining below but will disperse in every direction and hold soil together to prevent erosion. Bulrush (Scirpus acutus) will also be added in to the area and planted in clusters of three evenly spaced between them. This plant can be planted fully submerged in water and will have no difficulty

adapting to the three feet of water within the area. These plants have successfully been established within the area and should benefit the restored wetland area and provide native habitat to many wetland bird species. The establishment of common cattail (Typha latifola) and Douglasâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; spiraea (Spiraea douglasii) will benefit the area and been successful within this area however these aggressive native species should be phased in after less aggressive species have been established to inhibit a monoculture within the wetland. These species also adapt to period of drought that this site will foresee within the summer months that are typically drier and warmer. Predicted Elevation After Digging for Site:

Continuing Activities Monitoring levees for structural integrity. Structural integrity can determine the overall effectiveness of this project. It is crucial to monitor the structural characteristics/integrity frequently (every month) to make sure they can achieve design expectation. Monitoring plant species richness after planting selected species.

Regularly measure and record species composition to minimize disruption from invasive species. We will be able to know how the species have adapted in the area by the production of seed and dispersal of new plants within the area. We will also notice if the plants are being utilized by native birds and animals. External Conditions The site has a few external conditions that need to be considered. Fire. The site is an urban area and near a University Campus. It receives much activity from the community and is not protected. Certain areas of the site could be susceptible to arson. Weeds. Although the site is well managed by the University of Washington, there are still invasive species present near the proposed site. Species such as Rubus armeniacus, Phalaris arundinacea, and Lythrum salicaria grow at UNBA. Watershed changes. The site is on top of a landfill. As the landfill subsides, the hydrology of the site will change. Also, the site is adjacent to Lake Washington, in which the water level is controlled by a dam. Although unlikely, the water level could change, which would affect the hydrology of the site. Potential Pitfalls 1) Landfill contamination Due to the massive landfill that is directly beneath almost entire restoration site, the importance of maintaining landfill contamination control should not be underestimated. According to one of the restoration constraints, excavation should be within six inches of the landfill material, along with placing a bentonite membrane over the surface and adding two feet of topsoil. To avoid any disturbance by landfill contamination, interference with landfill soil should be minimal especially during excavation. In addition, because the actual bottom of the wetland will be 2.5 feet above the top of the landfill material, any overweight construction vehicle or equipment that could cause more than 2.5 feet soil subsidence should not be placed on the site.

2) Risks of wetland malfunction One of the functional requirements of the restoration is to provide habitat for a variety of wetland plants. Invasive species is a common threat to wetland plant diversity, and planting native vegetation sometimes is not enough to combat it. Also, due to nearby human activity and urban ecology, human caused fire is likely to disturb wetland community. So long term monitoring and management program is needed to ensure species diversity and wetland community fitness. This consists of constant removal of invasive species, planting native species and fire control. 3) Climate Change We will not be able to hinder the effect of climate change within the area but we can monitor and change some of the plant species if the wetland does not seem to be performing ecologically. Climate change will primarily create warmer drier summers that could potentially wipe out some of the wetland species that need constant water. The winters on the other hand might be direr some years and wetter other years which will make it hard for some sensitive non-aggressive plants to distribute in the area of ever changing weather. To combat this close monitoring of the area is necessary and the removal of invasive species to further help the survival of the established natives.

Overgrazing and Vernal Pools Background The Marcellus Shrub-Steppe Preserve encompasses 122 acres in eastern Washington State. The preserve is located seven miles north of Ritzville, WA and is surrounded by wheat fields. The preserve has a high-quality sagebrush community and 45 vernal pools. Vernal pools are an unusual ecosystem feature for the state and the pools support rare species. The Washington Natural Heritage Program has designated the vernal pools as a Priority 2 protection status.

Map of Washington state with the site region inside the red. Map courtesy of Google Maps. Site Analysis The land is owned by two constituents, the Department of Natural Resources and The Nature Conservancy. The TNC land has been closed to grazing since 1986 and it is in better ecological condition than the DNR land. The DNR fenced their portion recently, and was historically grazed in the spring and summer. The north end of the DNR parcel has invasive European grasses Bromus mollis and B. tectorum and fewer sagebrush species.

Fig. 1. Map of the Marcellus Shrub Steppe Natural Area in eastern Washington state with inset map showing generalized topography, natural area boundary, and principal vernal pools. Triangles are locations of the sagebrush (SBl), wildrye (WRl), and vernal pool (VPl) soil profile sampling sites; North Pool and South Pool are labeled. (Source from Crowe, E., Great Basin Naturalist 54(3), ÂŠ 1994, pp. 234247)

22 Satilite image of Marcelus preserve. The Marcelus preserve is in the center of the image In January average low temperatures are 24 degrees while in June and August average highs are 86 degrees. The Marcellus Preserve has an annual rainfall of 12.35 inches with annual snowfall of 20.00 inches.

Constraints Restoration plants, especially the Artemisia tridentata and A. tripartita should be sourced as locally as possible. No east coast or foreign Artemisia spp. will be substituted. Plantings will likely have higher success on wetter years. Some years could be too dry to plant. Live plantings should be planted on 1.5 ft centers. Potential Pitfalls Drought often occurs within the Columbia Plateau. The amount of rainfall within the area and the volume of water gathered will vary from year to year. This has the potential to make it hard for new plants to succeed. During particularly dry periods of time in the plateau is susceptible to fires burning over the landscape. The fires are known to happen at intervals of 10 to 50 years but may increase with current climate change predictions. Some plant species seed are not readily available due to rare occurrences in nature Incorrect plants used for vernal pool communities to survive

Picture provided by Joe Rocchio

Likelihood of Autogenic Repair of sagebrush

Management Guidelines

Although the overall success of restoration requires post-restoration monitoring and management, it is our primary goal to achieve a sustainable state in sagebrush ecosystem. By removing invasive species and planting native ones, the likelihood of autogenic repair will be higher. However, to attain a sustainable state, native plant species must cover a larger area than invasive species to prevent invasion from the aggressive alien species. This is especially pertinent in the northern area of DNR which was occupied by substantial invasive european grass and few sagebrush.

We separated the management guidelines for the preserve into two parts: sagebrush and vernal pools. Sagebrush Management Functional Requirements Improve the quality of the sagebrush community Reduce the amount of Bromus tectorum and other weedy species Develop a management plan for Bromus tectorum Increase the abundance and diversity of native sagebrush species

Predicted Level of Repair Possible If the management and mitigation of sagebrush and bunchgrass plants that we aim to plant. Invasive species like Bromus mollis and B.

tectorum need to be manually removed before planting native plants. community are implemented successfully, the level of repair will be considerably high. The first step of restoration is the removal of grazing in DNR. Grazing in the past has diminished the fertility of soil and thus imposed negative impact on overall plant species fitness. TNC, on the other hand, has been free of grazing since 1986 and provides better topsoil for restoration in the future than DNR. Although TNC has better restoration potential than DNR, the level of repair on both sites, the success of restoration depends on the fitness of native plant species. Sagebrush species like A.tridentata and A.tripartita are two key natives Vernal Pool Management Functional Requirements

Increase the amount of vernal pool plant species Reduce the amount of unwanted weeds inside the vernal pools

Constraints Some pools can only be planted after a heavier rain year Plants should be sourced as locally as possible With limited resources, the pools will need to be prioritized, and some pools will not be repaired until 10 years after commencing the restoration efforts. Pitfalls Some uncommon plant species will be hard to acquire in live or seed form. Since the vernal pools appear and disappear at variable rates some of the autogenic repair will be hard to monitor because the pools provide habitat for plants and animals spend the dry season as seeds, eggs, or cysts, and then grow and reproduce when the ponds are again filled with water. In some dry years, some pools might not fill up with water, making it harder to monitor the success of the site. As the planet warms in the next century, changes in the amount of water seen within each of the pools could change. If the site

becomes drier, the pools might collect less water throughout the year, making them less suitable habitat for species that prefer wetter pools. some plant species seed are not readily available due to rare occurrences in nature incorrect plants used for vernal pool communities to survive

Likelihood of Autogenic Repair The few vernal pools in the ecosystem and the rare native plant species make autogenic repair unlikely. Some pools might be damaged or degraded because of the historical grazing at the site, leading to less species richness or less abundance of native species. For a pool to gain new species, the pool would have to rely on seeds being blown in or dispersed by animals from the neighboring pools. While a possibility, the odds reduce as the distance between source plants and potential colonizing pools increases. In some cases, the odds of seed dispersal might be low for an isolated pool. In addition, degraded land in sagebrush community is often colonized by invasive grasses, which can be difficult to remove for a system once they establish. Predicted Level of Repair Due to the seasonal variation of water in vernal pool, the fitness of plant community in vernal ecosystem majorly depends on water availability and the success rate of vernal pools vary. During summer, vernal pools shrink even though plants need more water to combat water loss by transpiration. Pools of various dimension and volume will show different pattern of shrinking. The predictable level of restoration will resemble our ranking of vernal pools. Higher water retention capacity means higher level of repair, vice versa. A good way to do with plants living in poor water capacity vernal pool ecosystem is to reduce their leaf area. Reduction of â&#x2026;&#x201D; of leaf will help vernal pool rare species decrease water consumption during summer and hence survive better.

24 Rain and Evaporation Numbers

Vernal Pools Numbers and Rankings

Decision Matrix (Vernal Pools with the highest ranking number will be given the most priority. Since the growing season can vary widely year to year in this dry) 0= Retains very little water to be dependable 1= Retains water, but will be at risk for drought 2= Retains water for at least a month, but may be at risk of drought 3= Retains water for two to three months of growing season 4= Retains water for more than three months of growing season Based off of the rain and evaporation numbers a monthly net accumulation in the vernal pools able to be calculated. Based off of the water calculations, we were able to arrange the pools by how much water will be available. There is a direct correlation with the amount of water in the vernal pools with the size of the pool. The larger the pool the larger amount of water that will be available for vegetation during the growing season. Range of Restoration Options With the decision matrix in place, we ranked our pools. One restoration option is that we could focus on all of the pools at the same time, focusing on the pools that rank the highest and then manage each pool accordingly to their rank over time. Another option could be to just start with the pools that rank highest (with a four). We then could see the effects of what we have done after a given amount of time and then do what was the most successful on the pools that ranked with a 3 and repeat the process. This may be successful because we would work with all the pools that are similar to each other in succession rather than doing the same thing to all the pools. What worked with the pools that ranked with a four may not be what will work with the pools that rank a one or a zero. This would require more effort.

26 Planting for Vernal Pools Based on Rankings of Pools Based on a cylindrical shape for the vernal pools, the diagram to the left separates planting zones for multiple sized pools. The lowest point of the pool should represent the light yellow 1st zone on the diagram. After each vernal pool has been ranked on the scale of 0 to 4 for water retention, the individual pools will be separated into 5 feet radius circular areas. As seen in many vernal pools, perennials will be present in the deeper water, and annuals along the more shallow outer borders. There are four so-called â&#x20AC;&#x153;phasesâ&#x20AC;? that we see vernal pools go through; the wetting phase, the aquatic phase, the drying phase, and the drought phase. Certain rankings will experiencing different length of phases for each, thus a different planting scheme will be needed for most all of them.

Erodium cicutarium, annual grass festuca rubra, and annual grass Juncus bufonius will be planted on the pool margins Zones 15 feet to 5 feet.

*All planting schemes based off a 25 foot radius pool, these zones can be modified to the same proportions for the larger and smaller sized pools. Seedling species may be modified as long as they remain in the same genus and are still native to Washington based on availability of seedlings. Planting plan for vernal pools ranked 4 Mid-May through April: For the first planting, in April, a seed mix of mid-germinating and late-germinating flower species will be planted. These will include Eryngium planum, Calochortus elegans, Eremocarpus setigerus, Grindelia integrifoliam, Lasthenia glaberrima, Psilocarphus oregonus, and Navarretia squarrosa. A combination of both these mid germinating (top four species) and late-germinating (bottom three species) seedlings may be used based on availability. These will be included in zones of a 15 foot radius and above to make sure all above area regions of the pool contain flower seedlings. Late-July through early August: Aquatic species Isoetes maritima, Callitriche palustris, Eleocharis palustris, and Crassula connata will be planted on and around the depressions (10 feet to 0) Late August: After the first rains, or directly before time permitting,

Planting plan for vernal pools ranked 2-3 Mid-May through April: For the first planting in April, the same seed mix of late-germinating flower species will be used as for the ranking 4 pools. Although they will now be planted starting from the 10 feet radius zone and above. Late-July through early August: Aquatic species Isoetes maritima, Callitriche palustris, Eleocharis palustris, and Crassula connata will be planted on and around the depressions (10 feet to 0)

Planting plan for vernal pools ranked 1 Mid-May through April: For the first planting in April, the same seed mix of late-germinating flower species will be used as for the ranking 4 pools. Although they will now be planted starting from the 5 feet radius zone and above. Late-July through early August: Aquatic species Isoetes maritima, Callitriche palustris, Eleocharis palustris, and Crassula connata will be planted on and around the depressions (5 feet to 0) Planting Plan for vernal pools ranked 0: Mid-May through April: For the first planting in April, the same seed mix of late-germinating flower species will be used as for the ranking 4 pools. Although they will now be the dominating species of the pool since there is very little rainfall. Flowers of the genus Downingia, Pagiobothrys, and Veronica may be planted if there is a slight depression in the center of the pool as these flowers can thrive half-way in water. *The planting of this large variety of species is necessary. If any seeds are not readily available, a similar species is required to take its place. Aach group has a different germination period, thus it will allow for the pools to have a diverse range of plants growing throughout most of the seasons. Planting Plan for Sagebrush Communities The grazed DNR land will need more direct planting action than the non-grazed TNC land. Current composition of both plots include the important species Artemesia tridentata and Artemesia tripartita. Among the DNR plots there are also patches of Bromus mollis and Bromus tectorum. To mitigate these non-native Bromus plants, the removal of them is necessary before planting starts of varying sagebrush species. After the start of the rainy season, the extra time available after restoration of the vernal pools can be used to plant starts of Artemesia douglasian, Artemesia tridentata and Artemesia tripartita if available. Plants should be planted on a 1.5 foot center after removal of the Bromus patches to avoid re-growing by the Bromus weeds.

Below are included details on each plant species to be planted. Artemesia douglasiana Blooming period: May to October Native to Washington Requires minimal soil depth of 16 cm, can grow in rocky and coarse soils Can reproduce via seeds and underground rhizomes Rhizomes help prevent erosion, thus seed should be stated before transplanted Readily available seeds and starts *Image source: Wikipedia

Artemesia tridentata Grows in arid and semi-arid conditions Native to Washington Provides food for multiple species, so starts are recommended to prevent large-scale grazing of small plants Prefers deep, basic soils Long-lived, can reach 100 years Seedlings need more moisture for early survival, can also reproduce via rhizomes *Image source: United States Department of Agriculture

Artemesia tripartita Native to Washington Reaches up to 2 meters tall Plant produces many seeds, so will spread easily Grows on steep slopes, and rocky shallow soils Tolerates dry soil well

In the scenario where the rainfall amount qualifies more than one pool ranking, the lowest ranking should be prioritized. If resources permit, more than one pool ranking can be planted in a year. Table C1. Outline of restoration sequencing.

*Image Source: Wikipedia

Sequencing and Timing 6. Create a schedule of the 45 pools Since rainfall is variable year-to-year, the amount of water in the pools annually. Following low-rain winters, some pools will have water while other pools will be dry. Planting on a dry year is not recommended for smaller pools, since many plants will not survive. Using the ranks from our decision matrix outline above, we suggest the following timeline for restoring pools below (Table C1). After restoring the pools ranked “4” first on year 1, we then suggest repairing the remaining pools only after a good year. We suggest a 15-year period in which we wait for low, average, high, and really high winter rain seasons for ranks of 3, 2,1,and 0 respectively. The decision on whether to follow through on the restoration plantings will occur on February 15th of a given year. By this date, the pools will have received the majority of their winter precipitation, and the land manager will be able to compare the rain amounts to previous years. It would be ideal to wait until the planting occurs in mid-march, but enough time needs to be budgeted to acquire plants and hire the crews. If the winter before “year 1 “of the restoration is an abnormally dry (below 5% of average). Then planting should be delayed until the following year to insure good success.

7. Estimated Time, Personnel, and Resources The amount of time and personnel needed to restore and plant the vernal pools is outlined below in Table C2. The timeline for the personnel depends on whether the ponds can be planted in a given year so it will be variable. It will at least be 3 seasons of crews (different years) needed to plant the 45 pools. Table C2. Personnel and cost.

After the initial restoration plan has been administered a plan to monitor the area needs to be set so there is a greater chance of autogenic repair within the area. Since the vernal pools will change depending on the climate and weather of the year each year for at least the first 5 to 10 years after the initial restoration each pool needs to be assessed and given a new ranking. This new ranking will project future restoration efforts for this site. With changing weather and climate we will see some of the pools become successful in their autogenic repair while in other areas or previously assessed pools will fail in reestablishing the natural habitat. Community based restoration of the area is a practical inexpensive option for future restoration of this area. Especially when it comes to controlling Bromus tectorum or cheat grass. Since this species is spread by wind dispersal it can be incredibly hard to control it. Controlling the species with herbicides is not recommended and manually removing might be the best option but can be hard to organize. It is important to establish other species before the distribution of this plant becomes too overbearing as an area with more established native plants will be more resilient to this species. Works Cited “Artemisia Douglasiana.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 08 May 2015. “Artemisia Tridentata.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 08 May 2015. “Artemisia Tripartita.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 08 May 2015. Brown, Wendy L. “Evaluation of Cattle Grazing Effects on Floristic Composition in Eastern Washington Vernal Pools.” Thesis. University of Washington, 1999. Print. Pages 1-14 in: C.W. Witham, E.T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (Editors). Ecology, Conservation,and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems – Proceedings from a 1996 Conference.

29 US Climate Data, . “Ritzville, Washington.” U.S. Climate Data. 2015. 7 May. 2015. <http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/ritzville/ washington/united-states/uswa0375>. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 1998. Rocchio, Joe . “Marcellus Shrub Steppe Natural Area Preserve (DNR/TNC).” Joe Rocchio Photography. 21 May. 2013. 7 May. 2015. <http://www.josephrocchiophotography.com/p909381381/ h60345a2f#h60345a2f>.

Restoration of South East Padilla Bay, Washington

Site Analysis and Background Land on the southwest side of Padilla Bay, WA is proposed for conversion as a settlement for multiple stakeholders affected by the conversion of Wiley Slough from wildfowl habitat to salt marsh. The site is 340 acres, 100 of which was previously owned by the Natural Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR), who used the land for demonstration farms and did tests on salinity and pesticide residuals. There are three sloughs that run through the area; Big Indian slough, Little Indian slough, and no name slough. Big and Little Indian Slough run from the North end of the plot to Padilla Bay where it empties (approx. 2000 feet West of Bayview-Edison Road). The two sloughs have also been shortened in the upper region. No Name Slough runs from the uplands to the East of the Padilla Bay. No Name Slough drains a substantial watershed and also has fluctuating freshwater flow. The current diking system prevents low-lying lands from flooding. Indian

Image from South Padilla Bay Aquisition and Restoration Preliminary Design Report slough and no name are within levees for a large part of their Northern areas. These dikes are shown on the image above. Freshwater flows from all three of these sloughs are limited to winter months (December to February). Growing season salinity in the sloughs is 20 to 28 ppt. Current land use is largely for agriculture. The West and South ends of the area hold dikes, and the North and East ends sit upon BayviewEdison Road. The restoration of this site will provide important habitat for waterfowl, crab, salmon, seals, and a variety of many migratory birds. Studies show that 80% of the intertidal wetlands has been lost over the past 150 years. This is because intertidal estuarine marsh habitat can easily be drained and converted to farmland. The actions proposed in this design will maintain a long-term reset back to intertidal and marsh habitat.

Objective

Our objective is to convert the the 340 acres at Padilla Bay into a site that matches stakeholder interest and use. Although there is bound to be some disagreement among stakeholders, our hope is to propose a plan that will provide the best compromise that maximizes multiple use and ecosystem productivity.

Client and Stakeholders The clients for this project are the managers of the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). An overview of client size and focus is given below in Table 1.

Table 2. Stakeholder desires and political power. We ranked the stakeholders on their political power with 6 being highest. Desires were shortened to highest and second-highest.

*image from South Padilla Bay Acquisition and Restoration Preliminary Design Report

Range of Restoration Options The three restoration option proposed by the stakeholder committee are: 1. 2. 3.

Conversion to tidal marsh Farming and freshwater wetlands A hybrid of the two options above

Being a complicated site with many stakeholders, we created a decision matrix to aid us in our recommendation. Decision Matrix: We scored each of the three restoration options within four factors: research quality, aquatic habitat, upland habitat, and stakeholder contentment (Table 3). The scores were then multiplied by a â&#x20AC;&#x153;weightingâ&#x20AC;? factor to create a value for each site and factor. The sum of the weighting factors equals ten. The values for each factor and restoration option were summed and the restoration option with the highest value was our recommendation. Table 3. The decision matrix for site selection. The three numbers below each restoration option represent their score, the weight of that category, and the total, respectively.

Criteria for Weighting Factors

The criteria for the weighting factors are given below. Research Quality: Weight: 1 The ability to perform research and the number of ecosystems of which to research were considered for this factor. We scored this factor higher for more ecosystem types because having more than one ecosystem allows for more complex studies (i.e. ecosystem interactions) and diversity of research specialties. Being an important aspect of the site, but non-driving feature for the site with only one stakeholder and one client, we weighted it as a 1. 0: No research possible 1: 1 ecosystem type, but a common one 2: 1 ecosystem, but an uncommon or rare system 3: 2 ecosystems 4: 3 ecosystems 5: 4 or more ecosystems Aquatic Habitat: Weight: 3 The aquatic habitat factor included the amount and diversity of aquatic habitat. Saltwater is ranked above freshwater because the saltwater marsh provides habitat for salmon, which have endangered and threatened populations in the Salish Sea. We weighted the aquatic habitat above the upland habitat because aquatic habitat is more unusual in Western Washington, more threatened to human development, and provides more migratory water-fowl habitat. 0: No aquatic habitat 1: < 50 acres freshwater only 2: < 50 acres salt water only 3: >50 acres freshwater only 4: > 50 acres salt water only 5: > 50 acres of saltwater, > 50 acres freshwater.

34 Upland Habitat: Weight: 2 Amount and diversity of upland habitat. Upland habitat was defined as any area at the site not designated a wetland or saltmarsh. We weighted the upland habitat below the aquatic habitat because aquatic habitat is more unusual in this area. Farmland is considered its own ecosystem, as it provides some habitat structure and resources for wildlife. We weighted upland habitat a â&#x20AC;&#x153;2â&#x20AC;? for reasons described above in Aquatic Habitat. 0: No habitat 1: One ecosystem type and < 50 acres 2: Either one ecosystem type or < 50 acres 3: Two ecosystem types > 50 acres 4: Three ecosystem types > 50 acres 5: Four ecosystem types > 50 acres Stakeholder Contentment: Weight: 4 We identified six stakeholders which are interested in the sites development. We ranked the stakeholders in terms of their political power one through six, with six being the strongest political faction (Table 2). Stakeholder contentment was weighted a four, the highest weight, because the stakeholders are the restoration proposers and have considerable political power to facilitate or derail restoration planning. Although any option will likely leave at least one stakeholder unsatisfied, reducing the amount of unsatisfied stakeholders and the amount of powerful unsatisfied stakeholders is important.

Site Design Site composition With many stakeholders and site design options, we used a decision matrix to illuminate which ecological units we should provide at the site. We used the decision matrix to decide between these ecological units: cultivated fields, freshwater wetlands, emergent estuarine marsh, emergent saltmarsh, tide flats, and subtidal eelgrass beds. We analyzed priorities for our top four stakeholders (Birders, Farmland Preservationists, Duck Hunters, and Salmon Users). We started with a list of possible environmental functions the site could provide and then ranked the environmental functions to the stakeholder interests. The top four functions were then scored with the possible ecological units. Finally, we summed the scores for each stakeholder for each ecological unit, weighted these scores for stakeholder power, and then summed the totals for each ecological unit. We used the final score for each ecological unit to help us decide which and how much which features to include in our proposed design.

0: All stakeholders disappointed 1: > 1 stakeholders ranked 4-7 disappointed 2: 1 stakeholder ranked 4-7 disappointed 3: >1 stakeholder ranked 1-3 disappointed 4: 1 stakeholder ranked 1-3 disappointed 5: All stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; content Table 4. Analysis of Functions and Stakeholders. We used 1-10 ranks: 1 being of zero interest and 10f top interest

Table 5. The top four functions for Birders and the ranking of ecological units. One through 10 ranks with 10 being highest for that function.

Table 6. The top four functions for the stakeholder Farmland Preservationists and the ranking of ecological units. One through 10 ranks with 10 being highest for that function.

Table 7. The top four functions for the stakeholder Duck Hunters and the ranking of ecological units. One through 10 ranks with10 being highest for that function.

Table 8. The top four functions for the stakeholder Salmon Users and the ranking of ecological units. One through 10 ranks with 10 being highest for that function.

36 Table 9. Stakeholders sum of ecological units from Tables 5-8. Highest weights were given to stakeholders with higher political power ranks given in Table 2.

perception of farming. We will also allow 50 acres of restored marshland to be used for exclusive research, allowing for testing, research plots, and long-term monitoring plots. The NERR will be allotted a 50-acre parcel of rotating area for research in addition to the remaining 50-acres of agricultural land left to them. The parcel will rotate on an annual basis to different plots in the area. Some coastal wetland areas will remain fully preserved and protected. A map of the area that will be maintained by the NERR is shown in the figure below.

Table 10. Ecological units and scores. Tallied in Table 9.

From our decision matrix, we decided it is ideal to half the amount of demonstration farm to 50 acres, and provide more marsh and wetlands. If the Skagitonians Farmland Preservationists come back with too much of a fuss, we will attempt to pay them out with our emergency fund and emphasize the research component on our agricultural fields which aims to make fields pollute less, which improves public

Figure D1. The bright green area is to be maintained as agricultural land. In addition this map shows the flood gates that will have to be removed in orange, and the additional levees that will have to be added in purple. The very South end of the plot will remain excluded from NERR research.

All area besides that of the NERR agricultural plot will be turned into coastal wetland. Additional old levees in red may be removed along Padilla Bay where more soil is needed for new levees. Input of biker friendly Trail Systems around waterfowl habitat will be formed around the new levees in exchange for removing the old ones. Additional trails will be added throughout the new wetland habitat in accordance with Ducks Unlimited. The Breazeale Interpretive Center will be available for interns and students to come and learn about the estuarine area and contribute to ongoing management of the sight. The center, owned by the NERR, is conveniently located just North of the site. Ongoing research by the NERR will also continue to be conducted out of this building. The use of this land will maximize profit from recreational hunters while maintaining a large enough habitat for bird population stability. Adjacent farmers should also approve of this plan because it will improve drainage to their crops.

4. Bird-watching, recreational walking, and educational opportunities Bird watching requires bird habitat and trails so birders can access the site. Recreational walking also needs trails. Researchers will need access to the site as well. 5. Diking district must protect adjacent low-lying lands from flooding Dikes should be built well enough that they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t breach.

Functional Requirements

Dike failure. If the dikes were breached, some of the current agricultural land would be too low to support emergent saltmarsh vegetation. Salt marshes plants are both salt tolerant and adapted to freshwater current because salt marsh is the transition from ocean to land, where fresh and salt water mix. Although tides carry in nutrients that stimulate plant growth, flooding would tremendously cease growth of salt marsh plant by cutting off transpiration and gas exchange on leaf surface. Susceptibility to invasion. There is invasive Spartina (saltmarsh cordgrass) in Padilla Bay near the mouth of Indian Slough, but it has been subjected to a vigorous eradication program.

1. Upland Habitat Creation The banks of Indian Slough and No Name Slough have very limited tree cover. Most of them are shrubby species growing along the drainage ditches outside levees. By planting native plants such as Salicornia (pickleweed), Distichlis (saltgrass) and Atriplex (shadscale), we aim to restore native vegetation along those banks and help return the native fauna to these sites. 2. Agriculture Agriculture is an important component of the restoration project. With a strong stakeholder interest in agriculture, we will maintain some agriculture at the site. 3. Migratory waterfowl habitat In addition to native plant species, wildlife such as duck, goose and swan in this region will benefit from migratory waterfowl habitat because they depend on wetland habitat throughout their life cycle. Birds that follow The Pacific Flyway migration route need stop-over sites. This site will function as a stop-over site for migrating wildfowl and shorebirds.

Constraints Native plants. Native plants will be planted, and sourced as locally as possible. The project will aim for a diversity of plants that contains some evergreen and deciduous plants as well as shrubs and shrubby trees. . Potential Pitfalls

Plant Selection Saltmarsh and eelgrass beds: We recommend planting Salicornia (pickleweed), Distichlis (saltgrass), Atriplex (shadscale) and other species tolerant of saline environments. Zostera (eelgrass) wrack washes into the Slough from Padilla Bay. Slough Banks: Banks of Indian Slough and No Name Slough have very limited tree cover. Most of them are shrubby species growing along

the drainage ditches outside levees. By planting native plants such as Salicornia (pickleweed), Distichlis (saltgrass) and Atriplex (shadscale), we aim to restore native vegetation along those banks to a point that the ecosystem is considered to be sustainable.

Timing and Sequencing

Phase 4: Monitoring and Maintenance. Phase 4 is continuous from the start of project. Monitoring levees for structural integrity. It is crucial to monitor the structural characteristics/integrity frequently (every month) to make sure they can achieve design expectation. Monitoring plant species richness after planting selected species. We will regularly measure and record species composition to minimize disruption from invasive species. We will be able to know how the species have adapted in the area by the production of seed and dispersal of new plants within the area. We will also notice if the plants are being utilized by native birds and animals. Monitoring Trails and Human Activities. If trails degrade because of use and weathering, they will need to be maintained. In order to learn what the most popular attractions are to the public at the site, human activities will be monitored and recorded.

Works Cited Riggs, Sharon, Dan Golner, John Axford, and Lora Leschner. South Padilla Bay Acquisition and Restoration Preliminary Design Report. National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant, Mar.-Apr. 2009. The Gantt chart shows the timeline of the phasing. Dike 1, Area 1 and Tide Gate 1 all correlate with each other. The above plan is versatile. We can look at the northernmost area to see how things react under a new condition and act accordingly for Area 2 and Area 3. As a group we could have chosen to plant all at once and open the tide gates at the same. If something occurs all at once like dike failure it would be much harder to fix the problem because everything was opened at once as opposed to opening the area up to the tide in phases.

Thornton Creek

Site Background: Thornton Creek is an urban creek that drains the largest watershed in Seattle. The Thornton Creek Watershed includes 18 miles of tributaries, where there are 15 named channels and tributaries. Thornton Creek drains into Lake Washington at Matthews Beach. During the development of residential and commercial areas of the watershed, the creek was often channelized and culverted. The human development in the watershed also creates more flashing since surface water enters the waterways faster. Thornton Creek has had many gradual daylighting projects, the processes of which has influenced other restoration projects within Seattle. High sedimentation is an issue within the creek system along with high levels of fecal coliforms. The creek was historically a breeding site for five species of salmonids prior to the development of Seattle and most restoration projects attempt to improve the habitat for salmon breeding and rearing. Washington

39 Fish and Wildlife surveyed Thornton Creek and its tributaries in 2005 and collected only Coho Salmon, with less than 30 total collected (Tabor et al. 2010). The survey collected other natives species including rainbow trout, three spine stickleback, lamprey, prickly sculpin, and coastrange sculpin. They also capture three introduced species: rock bass, largemouth bass, and pumpkinseed fish. Thornton Creek Watershed Information

40 Thornton Creek Watershed Information

Figure 2. Locations of previous restoration sites.

Figure 1. Visual of Thornton Creek watershed and sub watersheds ignoring the recent human development in the area.

Table 1. Previous Thornton Creek restoration sites.

Jackson Park Golf course Although the area protects a stream from the urban area, the area still uses pesticides to maintain the lawn area, which are running off into the stream. It is a public course open to domestic animals, so there is a potential for pollution from these factors as well. The water flows South through Jackson Park Golf Course into Thornton Creek Park, then into a channel directly through a group of condominiums called Bridgehaven condominiums. Licton Springs/ Sunny WalterPillings Pond Both the Licton Springs neighborhood and Pillings pond are part of the Densmore Drainage Basin. â&#x20AC;&#x153;The springs at the North Police Precinct and North Seattle Community College are headwaters of the south fork of Thornton Creek; this fork flows through culverts under I-5 and the south lot of Northgate Mall development. These neighborhoods are natural extensions of Maple Leaf downstream. Neighborhood activists and North Seattle Community College (NSCC) have been promoting habitat restoration in support. NSCC grounds have a nationally-recognized native habitat.â&#x20AC;? (Licton Springs, Seattle, Wikipedia). Willow creek has also

41 been heavily restored by the Willow Creek Restoration Project. It vastly improved the water quality for salmon by digging a new channel near the mouth of the creek. The area includes two colleges, Licton Springs and Mineral Springs Park. North Northgate Contains the South fork of the Thornton Creek Watershed, this area of the stream used to run through culverts underground but has been day lighted since. At Northgate Way there is Victory Creek Park (behind QFC). A natural space incorporated into the otherwise commercial mall setting. Meadowbrook neighborhood Both the South and North fork of Thornton Creek run through this neighborhood. The two conjoin together right before Meadowbrook pond. Meadowbrook playfield, Meadowbrook community garden, and Nathan Hale High School all lay on the border of the South Fork end. A branch of the Thornton Creek system has been channeled past Nathan Hale with footbridges across it. Thornton creek has been largely restored and day lighted throughout Meadowbrook, restoration work is used in the science curriculum for Nathan Hale.

Pinehurst neighborhood

Mathew’s Beach neighborhood Includes Meadowbrook Pond, which Thornton creek runs by, and includes Matthews’s beach, a seasonally popular swimming park that has the largest freshwater swimming area. The low-elevation areas of the neighborhoods and park used to be a former wetland which surrounded the mouth of Thornton creek.

Matthew’s Beach Park Thornton Creek empties at the South end of the park into Lake Washington. The park area has many forested areas, and also many open areas as well with flat grasses. It is a popular destination in summer months for swimming, and receives a large number of visitors.

Olympic Hills neighborhood Composed of some heavily wooded residential areas and newer commercial areas. Thornton creek runs near the Olympic hills elementary, but is separated by it by a busy road and residential housing.

Victory Heights neighborhood Another residential/commercial area, intersects Thornton Creek with Lake City Way. The creek is run through a culvert under the road Lake City Way NE.

Maple Leaf neighborhood The Northern boundary of this neighborhood runs along the South fork of Thornton Creek. The Northwest part of the creek in the area is surrounded by highly commercial areas, including Northgate mall. The creek then runs through Beaver Creek Natural Area, an ongoing restoration site.

Meadowbrook pond Visited by migratory birds and mammals. Thornton creek near Meadowbrook pond, image source: Wikipedia Thornton creek

Seattle Parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s King Fisher Natural Area The Thornton Creek glacial erratic located southwest of 17th Ave NE and NE

Twin Ponds Park The most Northern part of the Creek. Holds a community garden with an Organic P-patch, is surrounded by mostly residential. The creek then travels under I5 via underground culverts.

Zoning of the previous (green) and ongoing restoration (red) sites for Thornton Creek, Willow Creek Project (Different project from Willow Creek in Ravenna) is located farther up north of the map in Edmonds.

Decision Matrix Site Options 1.Jackson Golf Course Northwest Property Line Stream Enhancement This project proposes to improve the North Fork of Thornton Creek on the Northwest property line of Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Jackson Golf Course along 5th Ave. Currently, the site lacks a riparian canopy and there is a robust population of invasive blackberries lining the stream. This project will plant native herbaceous and canopy trees as well as improve stream quality by adding pooling complexity and woody debris.

44 2. Little Creek Daylighting through Jackson Par-3 Course Currently, Little Creek is day lighted through the northeastern section of the main golf course, but it has culvert along the eastern part of the property. This project would re-channelize the stream to flow through the Par-3 course. The stream would be day lighted and returned to a more natural state. The course is owned by the City of Seattle and the North Fork Thornton Creek has already been improved through the 18-hole section of the course. 3. S. Northgate Mall Parking lot Removal and Connection Corridor Moving upstream from Thornton Creek Park #6, the South Fork Thornton Creek flows past Thornton Place, which is a mix of apartments and commercial stores. This complex has good interpretive signs and a concrete walking trail along the creek. However, the creek then disappears under a massive parking lot. The creek begins at the NSCC wetland area. This project would daylight the section that is currently under the parking lot. The project would demolish the parking lot and create a natural stream channel. The parking would be relocated into a new parking garage on the Northgate Mall property. 4. Olympic Hills Elementary Stream Rechannelization Olympic Hills Elementary is on a section of a northern tributary of Thornton Creek, Hamlin Creek. Hamlin Creek is currently 90% culverted. This project would daylight a section of Hamlin Creek that is close to Thornton Creek. The stream would be redirected to the eastern edge of the Elementary Schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s playfield where it would be day lighted and rechanneled in a natural channel. 5. Willow Creek 85th and Ravenna, Property Acquisition and Natural Area Creation Willow Creek is a southern tributary to Thornton Creek. Approximately half of Willow Creek is day lighted and half is culverted. Where Willow Creek begins, near 85th and Ravenna, it goes alongside Ravenna Ave. This project would acquire one of the properties here, demolish the house, and improve the stream function and riparian habitat at this location.

Figure A2. Detailed map of Thornton Creek with proposed restoration sites in squares (Original map from Homewaters Project 2007).

1: Site has will be visible to less than 10 people per month 2: site will be visible to 10-100 people per month 3: site will be visible to 100-1000 people per month 4: site will be visible 1,000-10,000 people per month 5: site will be visible >10,000 people per month Public Ownership Scored by the highest possible 0: Public owns no parts of the proposed site 1: Public owns < 10% of site 2: Public owns < 25% of site 3: Public owns < 50% of site 4: Public owns < 75% of site 5: Public owns 100 % of site Lack of Previous Development Table 2. The decision matrix for the site selection.

Decision Matrix Criteria Closeness to previous sites Scored by the highest possible 0: no previous restoration sites within 1 mile 1: 1 previous restoration site within 1 mile 2: At least 1 previous restoration site within 0.75 miles 3: At least 1 previous restoration site within 0.5 miles 4: At least 1 previous restoration site within 0.25 miles 5: At least 1 previous restoration site within 0.1 miles Public Visibility Scored by the highest possible 0: Site cannot be seen by the public

Choose highest possible 0: 100% previous development, residential or commercial 1: < 75% previous development, residential or commercial 2: < 50% previous development 3: < 25% previous development or all is parking lot 4: < 25 % previous development and rest is abandoned lot 5: <25 previous development and rest is natural area or park Closeness to Educational Place Choose highest appropriate 0: >2 mile to recognized educational place 1: >1 mile to recognized educational place 2: > 0.5 mile to recognized educational place 3: > 0.25 mile to recognized educational place 4: > 0.25 mile to recognized early educational place (Middle School and younger) 5: Borders recognized early educational place

46 Improvement to Water Quality 0: No improvement 1: Will significantly improve 1 of following five: sediment, E. coli, nutrient load, temperature, oxygen 2: Will significantly improve 2 of following five: sediment, E. coli, nutrient load, temperature, oxygen 3: Will significantly improve 3 of following five: sediment, E. coli, nutrient load, temperature, oxygen 4: Will significantly improve 4 of following five: sediment, E. coli, nutrient load, temperature, oxygen 5: Will significantly improve 5 of following five: sediment, E. coli, nutrient load, temperature, oxygen Improvement to storm water runoff 0: Worsens storm water 1: No improvement 2: Slows storm water runoff 3: Cleans storm water runoff 4: Cleans and slows storm water runoff 5: Cleans and slows storm water runoff and can compensate for neighboring property Improvement to salmon habitat quality 0: Worsens salmon habitat 1: No improvement to salmon habitat 2: Slight improvement to salmon habitat 3: Improves spawning ground, mixed pool depths, adds woody debris, and plants trees along edge from previously OK section. 4: Improves spawning ground, mixed pool depths, adds woody debris, and plants trees along edge from previously good section. 5: Creates spawning ground, mixed pool depths, adds woody debris, plants trees along edge from previously unusable section Improvement to riparian avian and mammal community 0: No improvement 1: Improves native herbaceous riparian vegetation 2: Plants native canopy trees along river corridor.

3: Improves both native herbaceous and canopy trees 4: Improves both native herbaceous and canopy trees and creates ponding habitat. 5: Has two or more riparian habitat types with at least one being in outstanding design. Creates source population for avian and mammal community. Structural complexity in habitat. Has snags for cavity nesting birds and mammals. Woody debris for water foraging. Improvement to Residential Area well-being 0: Not within a residential area, or no access allowed. 1: within 5 min walk of residential area 2: within 2 min walk of residential area 3: Within residential area 4: Within residential area and connects two areas that were previously unconnected 5: Within residential area and along a popular route

Site Constraints: Jackson Golf Course West Property Line Stream Enhancement The proximity to the interstate means a high level of sound disruption in the habitat of the stream. Therefore, the site is constrained to a lower quality of riparian habitat for species that negatively influenced by noise. The site is narrow because the current stream is confined between 5th Avenue and Jackson Golf Course and it would be difficult to stage construction for this reason. Little Creek Daylighting through Jackson Par-3 course Restoring a more native community could be difficult with the amount of chemicals being applied to the golf course. The chemicals used in the treatment of the courseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grasses could leach into the stream. The project would have to be designed to accommodate for this factor. Chemicals might persist in the soil, we would suggest to test the soil to make sure it is suitable for native plant planting. The restored area must compromise with the director of the golf course. These could limit species selection and density in certain areas of the restoration

site to insure adequate play of golf. The location of the site is near a neighborhood, therefore construction sequencing would likely need to comply with normal work hour timing. Northgate Mall Parking Lot Removal and Connection Corridor Relocation of parking lot is a must and it requires two steps: the demolition of the existing parking lot and the building of a new one. Some business owners might oppose the project, and if they resist hard enough, could considerably slow the time to completion. Olympic Hills Elementary Stream Re-channelization Noise would need to be diminished during school hours and working near a school might increase the amount of construction constraints like stricter air quality and safety regulations. Willow Creek 85th and Ravenna, Property Acquisition and Natural Area Creation The project is constrained by the limited amount of room to maneuver and stage construction at this smaller site. The acquisition of a property in which to expand the natural area is constrained to there being an appropriate site for sale, which could significantly increase the timeline of the project.

Site Selection: Using the decision matrix, we selected Olympic View Elementary as our site.

Olympic Hills Elementary ranked as the highest as the best site for restoration. This site had the highest score within the decision matrix and we feel will benefit the public the most as well as highly contribute to the restoration and improvement of the Seattle watershed. This site was rated exceptional for closeness to previous restoration projects and for public ownership. There is a lack of previous development within this area allowing more of the natural vegetation and soil structure to catalyze autogenic repair after restoration efforts have been implemented. The largest contribution of this site will be its effects on the watershed, where it will improve five of following water quality five: sediment, E. coli, nutrient load, temperature, and oxygen. There will be improvement to storm water runoff that will clean and slow storm water runoff. The ponding can compensate for runoff from neighboring property. Natural habitat will be improved for salmon by creating spawning ground, mixed pool depths, woody debris, and trees that will create a canopy to keep the water cool. In addition to improving salmon abundance, this project should create source populations for an avian and mammal community. We will plant species to encourage structural complexity at the site, with ground cover, shrubs, and trees. We will install snags for cavity nesting birdsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; woody debris in the stream and riparian buffer to encourage robust invertebrate populations. The project would re-channelize the stream one city block to the eastern edge of the property of Olympic Hills Elementary School. The stream would be day lighted and then turned into a natural channel. Within the riparian area, a new channel will wind through the space. There will be some areas that allow water to pool, giving slower flow rates and cool water for salmonids to rest. A mixture of cobbles and small boulders will be added to the stream bed to simulate a natural occurring stream. Gravel of appropriate width for salmon redds will be added to the site. The site will add aesthetic value to the landscape as well as having beneficial ecological contributions to the watershed. One restoration idea behind this project is to create an educational urban wetland area where students can get up-close and personal with some of the native vegetation and avian habitat. A pathway will be created on the left side of the stream running almost the entire side and

then forks towards the school and then across the stream to the other side. A wooden bridge will be created for the community to cross the stream and rounded cobbles will be used as pathway cover. These cobbles allow people of all ages to successfully cross the path as well as easy infiltration so seasonal puddling will never be an issue for the area. We suggest planting a variety of native species, which should be sourced as locally as possible. The site should be mulched after the initial planting, as this improves success as well as reduces weeds. For trees, we suggest red alder Alnus rubra, western redcedar Thuja occidentalis, and big-leaf maple Acer macrophyllum. Limited pacific willow Salix lucida live-stakes should also be transplanted at the site. Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis, red twig dogwood Cornus sericea, twinberry Lonicera involucrata, deer fern Blechnum spicant, sword fern Polystichum munitum, hardstem bulrush Schoenoplectus acutus, and slough sedge Carex obnupta will be planted. Snags will be added to the site to add instant habitat for cavity nesting birds and perching spots for birds. The combination of these actions will help rebuild a riparian community and help ensure a successful riparian restoration. This site will contribute to the watershed improvement as well as serve as a new natural area for the community. To further gain community involvement and cooperation, there will be informational emails and flyers about the plans and reasoning behind the restoration efforts. There will be public meetings to engage the neighborhood as well as events that more closely engage Olympic Hills Elementary. We will also include interpretive signs to educate people about their urban wetland. Benches will be included within the site design for the community to experience the site more personally and grow a relationship with their surroundings.

Section A: Stream Bed Creation

Section C: Wide Culvert

Large boulders, snags/cut logs, and gravel will be used to help create a dynamic stream bed.

A wide culvert will be put in under to road so that the water flow will stay consistent and will not erode the stream opening when there are high flows of water.

Section B: K Weir and Pool

K Weirs will be used with large drops of elevation to help slow down water flow and to create pools.

Budget for Top Priority Site: Olympic Hills Project Duration: 1 year

WORKS CITED Frodge, Jonathan. Investigation of Bacteria Sources in the Thornton Creek Watershed Seattle, Washington. Seattle Public Utilities. Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Program, Apr. 2013. Homewaters Project (2007). A Guide to the Thornton Creek Watershed [Brochure]. Seattle, WA: n.p. found in Lisa Beem (2014) Connecting Urban Residents to Their Watershed with Green Stormwater Infrastructure: A case study of Thornton Creek in Seattle, Washington. Scripps College Thesis. Tabor, R., Lantz, D, and Sanders, S. 2005. Distribution and Habitat Use of Fish in Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Streams: Final Report, 2005 and 2006. Accessed online: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/fisheries/Publications/ DistributionandHabitatUseofFishinSeattlesStreams.pdf "Thornton Creek." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 04 June 2015.

In Conclusion

This booklet's aim was to provide an innovative skill set for restoration design. We have tackled multiple sections of these design elements including grazing, urban creeks, wetlands, shareholders, decision matrices, and planting profiles. The goal is to provide a plan that is not only a realistic one, but one that is resilient to setbacks. Preparing for speed bumps along the way is one of many parts that makes a plan possible. Another important fact of the matter is the plans significance in the larger picture. It is at everyone's benefit to design a project in which the most benefits can be taken from. There is always more than one viewpoint to a story. Forming a matrix of these viewpoints and their importance can assure for content shareholders (and some that are even happy). Beyond the organization of the planning, a significant number of ecological factors have been seen to play a role in the big picture as well. Variation, availability, and origin of seeds are a substantial part of planting projects. Soil types, positioning of levees if needed, drainage systems, and water quality all play into hydrology. Many other questions need to be answered: Will we need mulch? Are there any legalities? Do we have enough funding and employees? What is the predicted level of repair? Can we be doing something else to better improve the conditions for the same amount of time and money? All fairly difficult questions to address, and all questions that need to be addressed. So what can you take from this pamphlet? If you only had the option to carry away one thing from this, we hope it would be that a project on this large scale requires a team of thinkers. Thinkers that can look at a problem they've never seen before (and will most likely never see again) and form a desirable approach to a solution. There are always multiple solutions to a problem, some may be of equal effect. Even within our team of designers, we all had different specialties to bring to the table. A group of minds that think from different angles and share their ideas can solve a problem much faster than a group of a like thinkers ever could.

Ashley Pierson

Epilogue "Restoration design is complicated. Each site location is unique and every project has a new array of stakeholders. Good design requires analyzing previous projects, but also predicting possible repair and new potential pitfallsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a task that requires historical analysis, yet also forward thinking. While some decisions of restoration design can be guided by decision matrices and Gantt charts, other decisions rely on personal experiences, rare exceptions to a rule, and detailed, often unwritten, knowledge of stakeholder motivation. Although the biology and chemistry of restoration repair will not change, the techniques for accelerating repair will improve over time, and these techniques will be incorporated into future assignments by students in this class. Therefore, restoration design is complicated, always with one eye examining the past, and another gazing into the future."

Derek Buchner

Appendix I: Team Member Biographies

and land elevation measurements to calculate the proposed wetland depths of various restoration options. He calculated the amount of soil that would need to be removed from which areas at the site and created the associated tables and graphs. He wrote the site analysis and site calculation sections as well as wrote the external conditions. For the restoration of the Marcellus Preserve, Derek wrote the background and site analysis. He did the visuals for these sections. Derek wrote the Functional Requirements and the Constraints sections. He created the Rain and Evaporation tables with help from Jiannan, and used Excel to find the water volume capacity of the 45 pools on the preserve. He developed the restoration sequencing and did the personnel and resource costs section. In the restoration of Padilla Bay, Derek completed the Client and Stakeholder Interest section. He made the decision matrix for deciding restoration options and also the decision matrix for choosing the appropriate functions within that site. He also researched and developed the associated criteria these categories. Derek wrote the objective and helped develop the site design.

Derek Buchner Derek Buchner is a Masters of Urban Horticulture student at the University of Washington. His thesis will focus on assessing the health of natural areas in Seattle. He is a Seattle native and enjoys riding his bike around Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s neighborhoods. Derek researched, wrote, created visuals, and performed calculations in the reports. He also edited and helped format the sections. For Wiley Slough, he contributed to the project design and did the Levee Creation Calculations, scheduling, and cost estimates. He developed the work flow and phasing for the project. He researched and wrote many of the potential pitfalls. For the Freshwater Wetland Creation at UBNA, Derek wrote the background, found satellite images, and visited the site for researching and photographic purposes. He used previously acquired soil depths

Derek continued his work on decision matrices, and completed the decision matrix for the Thornton Creek project. He researched and developed the criteria for the decision matrix. He helped in site selection and helped with the site constraints.

Her contributions to this project focused primarily on the ecological planning and background of the restoration projects. For project one, Wiley Slough Design, she assessed the level of repair that the restoration project was capable of producing as well as the level of autogenic repair that would be obtained over time. For project two, the Urban Bay parking lot wetland design she created a planting design for the new wetland based on the ecological constraints of the vegetation and the site. For project three, vernal pools and grazing she wrote a piece on the ecological benefits of the area and our restoration plan and how the area could be monitored within the future to get the most out the restoration implemented in the area. Project four, agricultural project on Padilla bay, she contributed to the site design and restoration efforts. The final project of the quarter was Thornton Creek Urban Watershed restoration, where she created the site design for the new riparian restoration area next to Olympic Hills Elementary.

McKayla Dear McKayla Dear is currently an undergraduate at the University of Washington pursuing a degree in Environmental Science and Terrestrial Resource Management as well as a minor in Quantitative Science. She has a wide range of interest that have led her to do restoration work within the Seattle, volunteer as a wildlife research assistant in Argentina, and become a Master Composter and Soil building outreach educator for the Seattle community. Traveling has become a passion in her life as well as picking up dragon boat racing and kayaking in her spare time. Her overarching goals is to go into Urban Ecological Planning and Landscape Architecture and focus on urban stream ecology and restoration as well as green infrastructure.

For project 2, Freshwater Wetland design, Jiannan wrote and finalize constraints, pitfalls and plans for post-construction activity. He also assisted Derek to finalize the restoration options. For project 3, Vernal pools and grazing, Jiannan helped construct the management guidelines for the project by writing likelihood of autogenic repair of sagebrush, predicted level of repair possible. For project 4, Agricultural project on Padilla bay, Jiannan constructed project functional requirements, including upland habitat creation; agricultural production; migratory waterfowl habitat; bird-watching, recreational walking, and educational opportunities. He also constructed plans for post-construction monitoring and maintenance. For project 5, Thornton Creek Restoration, Jiannan researched and developed a list of restoration projects along the creek. This list, including finished and unfinished projects, was used in the development of 5 new projects. With decision matrix by Derek, Jiannan also helped analyze all 5 new projects and helped in site selection. With assistance from Derek, he wrote the site constraints of 5 new project. Jiannan Huang Jiannan Huang is a pursuing his bachelor degree in Environmental Science and Terrestrial Resource Management at University of Washington, Seattle. He is from China where awareness of environment protection and restoration have been rising rapidly. He loves to go outside not only to play soccer but also to experience biophilia and appreciate environment. Volunteered for EarthCorps and UW Farm, he is now making I2SL UW Chapter possible along with other UW students who aim to make the laboratories around the campus to be more sustainable and eco-friendly. For project 1, Wiley Slough Design, Jiannan wrote constraints of the project with the help from Ashley. He worked on pitfalls that could potentially or explicitly limit the effectiveness of the restoration engineering as well as overall ecological goal. He also wrote suggestion for future activities in the restored sites.

Tim Lehman Tim Lehman is pursuing a double masters in Urban Design and Planning and Landscape Architecture. His background is in GIS and Design. He was a project manager for the School of Social Work before he decided to go to graduate school. He is interested in helping low income communities become healthier through planning and design. He likes to be active whether it is hiking or playing any sport under the sun. He has traveled all over the world working as a planner and a designer. For the first assignment Tim help create the constraints and functional requirements. He created all the GIS maps to show the designs, came up with the costs and sequencing with some help For the second assignment Tim created visuals, took photos, came up with the stakeholders and created the site design, he also helped with the planting section and created the phasing. For the third assignment Tim worked on site analysis and created many of the visuals. He formatted all of the tables and the decision matrix. Tim created the sequencing and timing and resources. For the fourth assignment Tim helped with tables and created the timing and sequencing. For the fifth assignment Tim helped format the tables and created maps. He completed the site selection section, site design and created the sections. Tim also did the entire collection of the final project and put the entire project in book format unassisted, along with edits with a proof read from Derek.

vernal pools and grazed areas, measured the approximate area of each vernal pool, and assisted in a ranking plan for the size of the pools versus variety of plants within each. For the agricultural project on Padilla bay, project 4, she assisted in mapping the designated design actions for removing the floodgates and imposing levees. She proposed areas to be left for agricultural research, and areas to be converted to bird/salmon habitat. For Thornton Creek, project 5, she formed a background on different neighborhoods that ran along the creek, formed a map of the restoration sites along the creek, and formed a reasonable budget for the top priority site.

Askley Pierson Ashley Pierson is an undergraduate student in the college of environmental science and resource management at the University of Washington. Her focus is on aquatic environmental issues, focusing on a marine biology minor as well. She has worked in the Sebens Lab doing research on urban marine intertidal environments. She is wellspoken in Japanese, and hopes to travel abroad to Japan in order to further pursue marine and environmental issues. For the Wiley Slough Design, project 1, she contributed to the mapping and labeling of levees, listing constraints, and listing functional requirements for the site. For the parking lot wetland design, project 2, she assisted in forming elevation maps for the finished project. She also assisted in the site design, which consisted of taking the extra soil and forming levees on the side of the plots. For the vernal pools and grazing, project 3, she made a detailed planting guide for both the

Appendix II: Assignments Restoration Design Lab/Studio Design Assignment 1 Assigned 3 April 2015 Overview The Skagit Wildlife Area (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) includes areas that are diked and areas that are open to tidal action and river flows. Diking of Skagit Bay began with the construction of levees on individual farm plots in the 1870’s. Dikes eventually became almost continuous, and today there are diking districts which are responsible for the maintenance of the levees. Wiley Slough is located in the Headquarters Unit of the Wildlife Area. The Headquarters unit was purchased in 1948 for pheasant hunting. Apparently, as part of the management of the unit, 150-200 additional acres were diked in the 1960’s and were converted from tidal marsh to drained land suitable for growing cereal grains for wildlife. Tribes on the Skagit had been in an adversarial relationship with both the Diking Districts and with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for some time because of obstruction of salmon runs and diminution of potential salmon habitat. WDFW has recently agreed to increase their emphasis on salmon habitat restoration, and funding has been made available by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and by Seattle City Light. A design team made up of representatives of the tribes (Skagit River System Cooperative) and WDFW prepared the “Wiley Slough Estuarine Restoration Design Report”. The Wiley Slough project proposes to convert the land diked in the 1960’s back to open tidal influence. To accomplish this, the existing levee will be breached and a new levee will be created at the upland edge of the area. Tidal gates that keep salt water out of Wiley Slough

will be removed from their current location and new gates will be built upstream. There has been a philosophical difference within the WDFW about converting waterfowl habitat to salmon habitat. The feeling is that ducks and geese are well-served by the existing configuration of the wildlife area, which serves waterfowl, hunters and recreational users. The manager feels that the Skagit Wildlife Area is operated as a classic wildlife management operation as proposed and articulated by Aldo Leopold. Leopold wrote the book “Game Management” (1933), and is also considered to be one of the founding fathers of ecological restoration. Converting from management for ducks to management for fish is causing a great deal of angst among the on-the-ground managers in WDFW. Your Assignment There is a plan for the conversion of the diked grain fields to estuarine marsh, open to tidal action. The outline of the plan is available online in the “Wiley Slough Estuarine Restoration Design Report”, WDFW. A good summary of the proposed project is available in the “Wiley Slough Restoration Project, Report to the 2008 Legislature”, which is available on your class Catalyst website in the section for Design Assignments. Look at the resources made available to you in class, on the class website, and at the links mentioned in this assignment sheet. Find other sources of information if you can. To help you evaluate the project, and perhaps to prioritize tasks, use the Design Element Checklist that has been handed out in class. Part of this design should be a completed Design Element Checklist for the site. A major part of this project is the removal and reinforcement of dikes. Material from removed dikes can be used to replace or reinforce other dikes at a 1:1 ratio. An exception is the east-west dike which runs from the new tide gate location to the western tip of the property. Because the current land is not diked, spoil material from removed dikes will need to be added to the new dike at this location in a 2:1

ratio (twenty linear feet of dike removed somewhere else can be used to build ten feet of dike here). Part of your design will be an accounting of how you intend to balance out cut and fill of dike material. Be aware that WDFW has contracted with some farmers outside of the Skagit Wildlife Area to allow land to lie fallow during the winter to create forage for waterfowl. WDFW has also participated in the purchase of land near Padilla Bay to help mitigate for the loss of recreational opportunities that will no longer exist at the Headquarters Unit. Your completed assignment must include a map of the site, showing the area to be restored, amenities to be preserved or created, and dikes to be removed or added. You should also include a list of potential pitfalls and a discussion of how they should be avoided. Here is what your design should include: Make a list of major tasks (including levees, floodgates, etc.) Divide the existing and proposed levees into sub-projects. Propose sequencing of the tasks. Calculate the length of each levee section that is to be added, reinforced or removed. Calculate the volume of embankment that is to be removed, transported (different), and placed. Determine how many truckloads are going to be needed to complete each sub-project. Determine how much material is left over or will need to be purchased. Complete a Design Element Checklist Assume the existing dike cross section is defined by these dimensions: 20â&#x20AC;&#x2122; wide at top 10â&#x20AC;&#x2122; tall 3:1 side slopes

For loamy soil, embankment, when excavated, expands to 1.15 times its bank volume. When re-compacted, it is reduced by the same ratio. Online Resources Earthjustice press release: http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/2008/tribe-and-farmers-settledispute-over-tidegates-in-wahington-state.html Skagit Wildlife Area, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/skagit/ Skagit River System Cooperative: http://www.skagitcoop.org/ Skagit Wildlife Area 2007 to 2012 Management Plan Updates: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/management_plans Thinking Outside of the Dike (Greg Hood): http://nisquallydeltarestoration.org/pdf/Hood_estuaries%20 changes%20w%20diking%20thinking%20outside%20dike.pdf

Restoration Design Freshwater wetland design assignment Assigned 16 April 2015 Overview The proposed reconstruction of the SR 520 Evergreen Point Floating Bridge will involve the destruction and disturbance of a number of acres of wetland including parts of Marsh Island and Foster Island in Union Bay. WashDOT is looking for sites near the route where compensatory mitigation can be performed, and where similar kinds of wetlands (freshwater, fringe lacustrine) can be created, restored or enhanced. A multiplier has been applied to the acreage that is to be lost, and WashDOT is proposing to use about 28 acres of the Union Bay Natural Area to obtain mitigation credits. In total they need to find 56 acres along the shore of Lake Washington for mitigation.

to be taken to a hazardous waste disposal site, and the cost would be significant. A possible way around excavating into actual landfill material is available because the landfill cap is exceptionally thick in several places. Parking lot E-5 is a gravel parking lot that has been maintained since 1970 by bringing in gravel to level it when it subsided. It is estimated that 2 to 6’ of gravel are under the surface of E-5. Excavation into this gravel fill could be accomplished without encountering garbage or other wastes that would have to be taken to a special landfill. The most common wetlands in UBNA are vernal pools. That is, they have water in them in the spring, but dry out in the summer. This is because the landfill cap holds water, and in Seattle we have lots of rain in the winter but a dry summer.

WashDOT requested that UW Botanic Gardens identify areas within the boundaries of UBNA where mitigation might be performed. Looking at areas either adjacent to the Lake or along University Slough where the creation of lakeside wetlands might be accomplished without damaging existing wetland or upland restoration projects, UWBG staff and WashDOT agreed on a general scheme for the restoration.

A typical wetland would have areas of shallow standing water, and transitional zones where the land would be flooded part of the year and emergent part of the year. Vernal pools dry out in the summer, but support emergent vegetation that can tolerate this dry period. Adjacent to the emergent vegetation, slightly higher ground would support shrubs and small trees that are commonly found around the edge of and within a few feet of wetlands (Lonicera involucrata, Rhamnus purshiana, Crataegus douglasii, Pyrus fusca, etc.).

WashDOT has created a team to assess the potential for using UBNA for mitigation. To create wetlands on UBNA, there are two potential strategies: 1. with a large enough watershed, a depression or low dam would hold water seasonally, as occurs in Shovelers Pond, or, 2. excavation would have to occur to take the surface of the site down to lake level. The second alternative would be an expensive kind of restoration because UBNA is located atop the former Montlake Landfill, and to lower existing grades to an elevation where they would function as wetlands, both the landfill cap and some fill material potentially would have to be removed. Then a new cap would need to be installed, and contouring and vegetation installation would have to take place in that material. The excavated fill material would have

You might wonder if you can successfully employ the second restoration option of excavating down to the lake level. At this site that option is confounded by two constraints. First, you do not want to excavate down into the landfill material. Please determine if you can excavate down to lake level without hitting landfill. Second, using lake water is complicated by the fact that the level of Lake Washington and Union Bay is artificially controlled by the dam at the Hiram Chittendon Locks in Ballard. In winter, the lake level is lowered to an elevation of about 20’. In summer it is raised to 22’ ( ∆ = 2’) http:// www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/nws/hh/www/index.html# .(Click on “Lake Washington Ship Canals”, then “Lake Washington Summary Hydrograph”. Locally this is described as “reverse hydrology”, because

64 wetlands and lakes in this region normally have more water in winter and less in summer. The daily lake elevation may be found by clicking on “Lake Wash. Elev.” In addition, the University uses a different elevation datum, so the University digital maps will show the water fluctuating between an elevation of 16.5’ and 18.5’ (∆ = 2’). (harmy = huw + 3.5’) Union Bay Natural Area and Shoreline Management Guidelines, 2010 The management guidelines for the Union Bay Natural Area have been revised, and are available on the University of Washington Botanical Garden website http://depts.washington.edu/uwbg/research/ubna. shtml . The guidelines are intended to update a previous document, the “Management Plan for the Union Bay Shoreline and Natural Areas” published in 1994, and a second edition published without appendices in 1995 (known as the pink report). A copy of the 1995 document may be found on the Design Assignments page of the class workspace under “Pink Report”. Your Assignment Develop a preliminary restoration design for creating a new wetland in UBNA at the current location of parking lot E-5. Be sure you understand the general problem or opportunity and can express the design problem using the idea/terminology of “Functional Requirements” and “Constraints”. Identify at least five stakeholders or stakeholder groups. The tasks below are intended to help you arrive at a recommended preliminary design that will meet the overall functional requirements and constraints that you have identified. 1. WashDOT has made borings at the proposed wetland creation site. The borings show the depth to landfill material. They have created a contour map of depths. The ground surface, however, is not flat, so you need to combine the depth map with a standard contour map to determine the shape of the underlying landfill.

2. Why? Because removing landfill is expensive, and is a permitting nightmare. The plan is to excavate within six inches of the landfill material, place a bentonite membrane over the surface, then add two feet of topsoil. So the actual bottom of the wetland will be 2.5 feet above the top of the landfill material. 3. You want to store as much water as possible in the wetland so that the growing season for wetland plants is as long as you can make it. It has been decided that, with the addition of three small levees, the water level in the full wetland can be raised to an elevation of 21’ to maximize storage. With this much storage, it is projected that the wetland will dry out by the end of May in most years 4. With all of the information that you have, draw at least five east-west cross sections that show the location of the existing ground surface, the 2.5’ fill sandwich, and the top of the landfill material. Show the elevation 21’ maximum storage elevation on these cross sections. 5. Use the cross sections to estimate how much water can be stored in the wetland, in cubic feet. Also estimate the surface area of the new wetland in square feet. For your planting design: 6. On a plan view (this is a view from above) show general areas of wetlands and of vegetation (called polygons). 7. For each polygon list 4 to 5 plants you would like to establish there. Use the flooding preferences shown in the tables from Stevens and Vanbianchi’s book on wetland restoration. You might have one polygon for a shrub buffer, another for emergent wetland plants, another for summer dry wetlands, etc. Stevens and Vanbianchi: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/93017.html

Lab Design Assignment: Grazing and vernal pools 30 April 2015 The Nature Conservancy and the DNR both own land that is part of the Marcellus Shrub-Steppe Preserve (47⁰14’N, 118⁰24’W; T20N, R35E), about seven miles north of Ritzville, Washington (http:// www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/ washington/explore/vernal-pools-in-washington.xml ). The DNR land is to the west of TNC land, separated by a gravel road. TNC land has been fenced since 1986 and degradation by grazing prior to fencing is not noticeable. The DNR land was grazed in spring and summer months until recently. The dominant plant communities are Artemisia tridentata/Festuca idahoensis sagebrush and Artemisia tripartita/ Festuca idahoensis sagebrush. At the north end of the DNR parcel are large areas without sagebrush but with Bromus mollis and B. tectorum. Vernal pools are scattered among both sites. The Washington Natural Heritage Program has designated them for Priority 2 Protection status, due to their having rare or highly threatened species or having intermediate rarity and threat but little representation in the DNR Natural Area Preserve system. Vernal pools have water in them only part of the year and so are characterized by perennials in the deeper parts and annuals in the shallow areas. There are aquatics and plants that flourish as the pools dry. Vernal pools have their share of rare species of vascular plants, but also have cyanobacteria, bryophytes, and lichens forming crusts. Vegetation zonation is common and often striking. The lower zones may have conditions that are more saline and alkaline. The Nature Conservancy has developed guidelines for the management of vernal ponds. Studies have found that grazed ponds at the Marcellus preserve have more weeds, and may have fewer rare species than ungrazed ponds. Removal of grazing was an obvious first step in the management of such sites.

DNR Natural Area Preserves: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/AboutDNR/ManagedLands/Pages/Home.aspx http://www.dnr.wa.gov/AboutDNR/ManagedLands/Pages/amp_na_ marcellus.aspx EPA website on vernal pools: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/types/vernal.html The Othello Outlook http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1051&dat=20080123&id=vqE8AAAAIBAJ&sjid=phAGAAAAIBAJ&pg=3598,3553486 Washington Natural Heritage Program priority list http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/plan/ProtectedAreaElements.pdf Washington Natural Heritage Program 2007 Plan http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/plan/plan07_entire.pdf Adams County history http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_ id=7835 Your Assignment: The DNR and TNC have reached an agreement on the management of the Marcellus site; DNR will manage it. The DNR portion now has more weedy species and fewer native species in both the sagebrush and vernal pool communities. Develop and propose a goal for the entire combined site.

Delineate the sagebrush communities and separate them from the vernal pool communities. Develop plans to manage the invasive species in both. The Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush)/fescue and Artemisia tripartita (three-tip sagebrush) /fescue communities are both considered to be high quality examples of their type, even though the preserve is surrounded by wheat fields. Develop a vegetation management and restoration plan for the sagebrush communities. These plans should include your tasks for augmenting or increasing the presence of native plants. How would you obtain plant material, increase it, plant it, and manage its growth? The vernal pool communities, though they contain some weedy species, still have an excellent representation of vernal pool species. A problem with restoring vernal pools is that many species are unusual and for some of them seeds and living plants or vegetative parts are not readily available. For this reason, the restoration is almost certainly going to have to be approached in a piecemeal manner, limited by the availability of propagules and also by the brevity of the growing season. Because of this, a set of rules should be developed to govern the priorities for restoration; sites most likely to respond positively should be restored first. In the dry environment of Marcellus, this equates to the likelihood that water will be present in a wetland and will stay around long enough for plant populations to develop. Remember, vernal pools have both annual species and perennial species, and this should be considered in the development of a prioritization scheme. You should find out what requirements vernal plant communities have for survival. (Generally, time for an annual to germinate, grow and set seed, and for a perennial, time to mobilize reserves, generate photosynthesizing surfaces, accumulate storage material, then set seed.) The Keeley and Zedler paper (see figure below) gives periods of inundation for common California vernal pool species. Adapt it for developing a priority system. A ranking method might be something like this:

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Method for prioritizing the restoration of vernal pools based on frequency and duration of flooding.â&#x20AC;? 0 Does not retain water 1 Retains water, but for less than one month during growing season. 2 Retains water for at least a month, but less than two months during growing season. 3 Retains water for at least two months, but less than three months 4 Retains water for more than three months A ranking of four would indicate that plants would be most likely to have adequate moisture during the growing season (which starts in April in Ritzville). Restoration at such sites would be most likely to be successful because there is high variability in precipitation from year to year. Lower rankings would mean that sites are less likely to be successfully restored. Devise a system like this for determining which sites should be restored first, which should be restored next, and which you should not bother with. A hydrologic analysis would be necessary to determine which category an individual pond would fall into. There are 45 vernal pools on this site, combining the DNR and TNC land. Create a schedule on a calendar for the restoration of the pools. Which pools would you start with? When would you start? What would you have to accomplish first? What would be your first on-theground restoration steps? What would be your restoration activities in the first year in which you actually do site modification, conditioning or installation? How much could you get done in a year? What resources would you require? How many people would you require, for how many days, and when? (This is asking for a pretty thorough discussion of what you will do the first year.)

Deliverables Sagebrush 1. On a map of the area, show the area that is of primary concern for the management of the sagebrush/bunchgrass communities. 2. Propose a management and restoration plan. 3. Outline a Bromus tectorum control strategy. 4. Make a list of tasks and include: where you would get plant material, how you would increase it, how you would install it, and how you would monitor and maintain it. Vernal pools 1. On a map of the area, show the area that is of primary concern for the management of the vernal pools 2. From available literature, make a list of important annual and perennial vernal pool species at this site. 3. Describe the climate and precipitation patterns in the area, and explain how this would impact the surface water hydrology of the pools. 4. Estimate the minimum hydrologic conditions that will allow the establishment of a) the vernal pool annuals and b) the vernal pool perennials. 5. Create a decision matrix for determining which pools should be restored first, which are of lower priority, and which should not be attempted because of a high priority of failure to establish (mortality or conversion to non-wetland species.) 6. Create a schedule for the restoration of the 45 identified vernal pools at the site. (For some, restoration might be attempted only in wet years.) 7. Estimate the project needs in terms of time, personnel and resources as outlined in the final paragraph of the design assignment above.

Lab Design Assignment 4 14 May 2015 When the Wiley Slough project in the Skagit Wildlife Area was about to be built, a farmland interest group approached the legislature and got the funding delayed. Their argument was that because of the project there would be lost recreation opportunities, and the kind of habitat that was being lost could only be replaced by converting working agricultural land back to waterfowl habitat. The purchase of land to the north on Padilla Bay was thought to be a partial solution to mitigate this loss, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) were able to negotiate purchases from private land owners sufficient to put together a 340 acre parcel. The agricultural community, however, again took exception to the idea of taking agricultural land and placing it in State ownership and restoring it. A summary report, outlining alternatives, was prepared with input from farming, hunting, diking and environmental interests. The land in question is within dikes and lies along Padilla Bay. A popular recreational trail atop the dike attracts hikers, bikers and birders. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) owns most of the land, and the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) owns about 90 acres. All of Padilla Bay falls within the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS), and is managed jointly by NOAA and by WDOE; the Reserve has a visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s center located just north of the newly purchased land. In the early 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, the NERR purchased one hundred acres of farmland within the 340 acres currently being considered for restoration. They have operated part of it as a Demonstration farm and have done research on salinity and pesticide residuals on the farm. Apparently ownership of the land upon which the Padilla Demonstration Farm sits has passed to WDFW and WDOE, and it is now operated as the Washington

Department of Ecology Demonstration Farm. Parts of Big Indian Slough, Little Indian Slough and No Name Slough are within the 340 acres that were proposed for restoration. Indian Slough runs north from State Highway 20 to where it empties into Padilla Bay. Much of its course roughly parallels and is about 2000â&#x20AC;&#x2122; west of Bayview-Edison Road. The upper reaches of both Big and Little Indian Sloughs have been truncated, so most winter runoff is from farm fields. No Name Slough, on the other hand, drains a substantial watershed in the uplands to the east of the Padilla Bay flats, and also has seasonal freshwater flows. Freshwater flows from all three of these sloughs are limited to winter months (December to February). Growing season salinity in the sloughs is 20 to 28 ppt.

No Name Slough feasibility study:

Indian Slough and No Name Slough are contained within levees for most of their lower reaches. There is very little native vegetation along their banks, and tree cover is limited to some shrubby species growing along the drainage ditches outside the levees. Land along the sloughs is agricultural, and was formed by diking out Padilla Bay. There are areas where the agricultural land protected by the dikes is obviously lower than the adjacent slough and its floodplain outside of the dikes. If the dikes were breached, some of the current agricultural land would be too low to support emergent saltmarsh vegetation.

Department of Ecology Shoreline Aerial Photos

Current vegetation in the Slough is characterized by Salicornia (pickleweed), Distichlis (saltgrass), Atriplex (shadscale) and other species tolerant of saline environments. Quite a bit of Zostera (eelgrass) wrack washes into the Slough from Padilla Bay. There is invasive Spartina (saltmarsh cordgrass) in Padilla Bay near the mouth of Indian Slough, but it has been subjected to a vigorous eradication program.

http://agr.wa.gov/FP/Pubs/docs/277-QAPP2006Addendum-SkagitSamishWatersheds.pdf

Information Links Padilla Bay Shore Trail: http://www.wowweather.com/hikeoftheweek/2006/01/hike-of-weekpadilla-bay.html

(Find this on the class Catalyst homepage under Design Assignments https://catalysttools.washington.edu/workspace/kern/4531/22206 ) Padilla Demonstration Farm: http://www.padillabay.gov/involvefarm.asp Drainage District agreement: (scroll to SEPA #06025) http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/sepa/sepa_final_docs_2006.html

http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/shorephotos/index.html Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland http://www.skagitonians.org/ Indian Slough pesticide monitoring

No-name Slough documents and maps http://www.skagitcd.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/ No%20Name%20Slough%20Figures.pdf Big and Little Indian Slough water quality http://www.padillabay.gov/pdfs/Tech10.pdf

Your assignment:

accomplish in one year.)

A consortium of Federal and State agencies wants you to help them decide how to manage or restore 340 acres of diked farm land. You must make a decision about what mix of uses you will propose to WDOE, WDFW, and the Padilla Bay NERR, the Problem Owners for this project. Stakeholders have proposed that restoration, production agriculture, migratory waterfowl habitat, bird-watching, recreational walking, and education are uses that should be considered. In addition, the diking district must protect adjacent low-lying lands from flooding. Use the Design Element Checklist to evaluate ecosystem services when developing your proposal.

Take one project (that would be installed in a single growing season), and apply the design framework we have discussed. What kind of site modification and conditioning might be required? What plants would be specified and how would the installation be scripted? What management program should be put into effect?

Three action alternatives have been proposed by the stakeholder committee. One alternative proposes that almost the entire site be converted to tidal marsh. A second alternative proposes that farming and flooding for freshwater wetland habitat be practiced in cells of 50+ acres each. A third alternative looks like a hybrid of the first two. In the end, any decision that allocates any uses to the 340 acres will result in some unhappy and vocal stakeholders. You should back up whatever you propose by showing why your chosen action alternative is superior to the other two and to the no-action alternative. You must give your clients compelling reasons for accepting your proposal. Your solutions may be the best, or most economical, or provide the biggest bang for their buck. Areas proposed for restoration may be the most damaged and needing repair, or the key to the success of the greater project, or the first step, or whatever you think is a good argument to support your choice as to what they should spend their money on. Three hundred forty acres is a large piece of land. How would you propose to phase the restoration or other management uses of your parcel or parcels? What would be the first step, what would be the second step, etc.? What is your timeline; how long would the total project take? How many individual restoration steps would it require? (A step might be all of the restoration that you think you could

What would be a reasonable goal (of the clients) for the project? How would you translate the goal as functional requirements? What constraints would you need to consider? What are some design parameters that might be developed in order to meet the functional requirements of the project? Some options (examples): 1. Connect headwaters of Little Indian Slough, Big Indian Slough or No Name Slough with the forested watershed to the east. 2. Breach a dike at lower end of Indian or No Name Slough and create a salt marsh. 3. Continue to operate the farmland, but as “green” farms. 4. Focus on riparian corridors. 5. Create saltwater excluders (weirs) in the upper reaches of the sloughs. 6. Expand on the proposals from the No Name Slough improvement study. Specifically, you need to… 1. Consider all of the elements on your Design Element Checklist. 2. Clearly describe at least three alternatives (not including the “do nothing” alternative) for the entire 340 acre site. 3. Develop a decision making framework (we suggest using a decision matrix like we will discuss in class) and use it to recommend a preferred choice from among the alternatives you have described. You might have to anticipate results from research that is needed to fully implement your decision making scheme. Be very clear where you are

anticipating research results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; justify your estimations or predictions. 4. Very clearly (in detail) describe your recommended alternative. a. What the area will be like once it is restored. b. How you intend to restore / manage it. 5. Use Project Planning tools: a. Make a list of restoration tasks. b. Sequence them (which need to occur before subsequent tasks can be started). c. Estimate task durations. d. Draw a network diagram. e. Prepare a project schedule for the first yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s activities.

Restoration Design for Urban Streams Lab/Studio Design Assignment Assigned 28 May 2015 Overview Thornton Creek is an urban creek in Seattle. It drains the largest watershed of any Seattle Creek (12 sq mi). It includes 18 miles of creeks and tributaries (15 numbered and named channels and tributaries). Historical information from Wikipedia: _____________________________________________________ Stream Loss and Restoration in Seattle Seattle was settled by Europeans in the 1850s, and developed in an uneven boom through the turn of the century to c. 1910.[3] Surface runoff increased with the nearly complete removal of forest cover during this time, Lake Washington, Lake Union, and typical small post-glacial Green Lake were lowered in the 1910s. Streams were increasingly buried with post-World War II growth (1948-1964).[4] Dramatic declines in water quality of Lake Washington and other lakes in the later 1950s was partially corrected by the implementation of sewage treatment in the 1960s.[5] Popular awareness of natural environments became significant in the 1960s and 1970s, and with that came nascent ideas about daylighting. Thornton Creek, the largest watershed within metropolitan Seattle was the first of many gradual daylighting projects. A model of an urban stream came from nearby Greenwood, south Broadview, and northeast Blue Ridge-North Beach neighborhoods, whose Pipers Creek was spared Carkeek Park by steeper geography and the early establishment of the park boundaries (1926-1929), despite initial opposition by city government.[6] Since 1990 and earlier,[7] years of hard work by neighbors and volunteers have brought salmon back to Pipers Creek after there were none for 50 years. Along with abruptly high volume during storm runoff and resulting turbidity, water quality is the remaining big issue in restoring salmon.[8] Partly following the successes with daylighting Thornton Creek, Ravenna and surrounding neighborhoods have daylighted part of Ravenna Creek.

The results of daylighting efforts on Thornton Creek have been mixed. Heavy rains, at times, has led to flooding due to inadequate detention basins. Soap suds, oil slicks, and species kills have occurred occasionally as the visibility of streams leads to heightened awareness of stream water quality. Increased levels of fecal coliforms in Thornton Creek counts has been a recurring problem and has been variably attributed to pets and wildlife such as grazing birds. The number of spawning coho salmon has remained modest dropping from a high of 30 to 10 in 2000.[9] __________________________________________________ The Thornton Creek Alliance began creek restoration efforts in the 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. Over time, small projects have had an incremental effect. Salmon have moved back into the system as far north as Twin Ponds, at 155th St. NE, next to I-5. Seattle Public Utilities and the City of Shoreline continue to support the restoration of sections of the creek system. The re-development of the creek segment that was buried under the south parking lot of the Northgate Mall has recently been completed. Your Assignment: On a map, identify all of the restoration projects that have been completed or are in the planning stage, any place along Thornton Creek. Based upon a decision-matrix analysis, propose five new sites, or sites that would be modifications or re-working of existing restoration projects, and rank them according to your criteria. State the criteria (they could include potential size of restored parcels, environmental value, cost, closeness to completed restoration projects, etc.). The sites may be in-stream, lake or pond, riparian vegetation, connection corridor, adjacent forested watershed, or whatever else you perceive as providing an important improvement in the environmental functions provided for and by Thornton Creek. Some examples of important criteria might be: Public ownership (schools, governments, SPU, SDOT, etc.) Potential for supporting salmon (they have reached upstream to

Twin Ponds park) High quality riparian corridor that can be protected Low quality riparian corridor that can be enhanced Water quality Relative lack of residential, commercial or industrial development List the constraints that would need to be considered at any of the five sites. Create a Plan view with representative Cross-sections for your number one site to show what you would propose to do to restore it. Develop a budget for your design for your number one site. Develop a planting plan if that is appropriate for your design. Thornton Creek Alliance http://www.scn.org/tca/ Thornton Creek Tour http://www.scn.org/earth/tca/tcatour.htm Wikipedia: Thornton Creek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_Creek#_note-Walter Problems facing urban streams http://www.msdlouky.org/insidemsd/wqurban.htm Restoring urban streams in Burnaby, B.C. http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/14/restoring_our_ urban_streams_by/ Here are some Thornton Creek Restoration Sites: Thornton Creek Restoration Sites Watershed Tour The following sites were chosen to demonstrate how we have started with little or no features in sites and transformed them to become not only an amenity for the community but also habitat for wildlife.

1.) Paramount Park Natural Area – NE 147th and 8th Ave NE This site was owned originally by Mr Littles. It was vacant, undeveloped land that was always wet, and overgrown with blackberry as well as other invasives. The Paramount Park Neighborhood Association, with Janet Way in leadership and with landscape assistance from Brian Bodenbach, obtained grants and support from the King Conservation District as well as the City of Shoreline to create a series of wetland ponds connected by a creek channel. They introduced Pacific chorus frogs which jumped in population initially, but has now plateaued. 2.) Jackson Golf Course – NE 145th and 5th Ave NE Thornton Creek Alliance proposed this project and remained active in the master plan update process to encourage Seattle Public Utilities to create two new ponds and restore a third pond that had been used as a water storage area. It had been used for drawing water off the creek for irrigation. The creek channel was originally lined with large concrete blocks from the old corridor and trolley lines where I-5 now resides. Grass was planted right down to the edges of the creek. Today, the creek channel has been naturalized, native vegetation grows on its banks and woody debris adds to structure and habitat. Trout and beaver have moved in. 3.) North Seattle Community College Wetlands – 1st Ave NE and College Way As a tradeoff for parking lot expansion, mitigation funds were designated to restore a wetland north of the college. Originally the site was grass covered fill, but ponds and native conifers were added as a first phase. As the trees matured to provide more cover, native shrubs and smaller native plants were added. Hawks love to hunt for rodents in this site and Pacific Chorus frogs have populated the new ponds in large numbers. A wide variety of duck species can be found in the ponds in spring and fall. Beaver have now found their way into this site also.

4.) Northgate South Parking Lot - 5th Ave NE between NE 103rd & NE 100th (Now Thornton Creek Water Quality Channel) After a long, hard battle, citizens from Licton Springs, Haller Lake, Northgate, Victory Heights, Pinehurst, and Maple Leaf, and various environmental groups finally convinced Seattle City Council and Seattle Public Utilities that daylighting Thornton Creek was the better way to proceed than covering the creek with asphalt and parking garages. Three alternatives were considered, but a hybrid of all three was chosen by the Northgate Stakeholders Group to submit to Seattle City Council. It combines the existing underground pipe for peak storm overflow, a weir system that holds back peak storm levels and releases runoff slowly while dropping out sediments, and a water settling and filtering system near 5th Avenue NE. This system will clean water from the Northgate Mall, the south parking lot developments, and the Group Health and commercial area south of NE 100th, thus providing much more than just a daylighted creek could accomplish 5.) Thornton Creek Park 6 – NE 105th & 9th Ave NE to NE 103rd and 5th Ave NE Before Thornton Creek Alliance started working on this site as early as 1992, the entire site was covered in blackberry that had been growing since the late 70’s when the site was purchased with Forward Thrust funds. Seattle Parks and Recreation sold some of the park to Pacific Medical Clinic in the 80’s but a year ago they acquired a new parcel on NE 105th to the east of the existing park. Earthcorps, at the direction of Alan Johnson from Aquatic Resources Consulting, has been laying back the banks, adding woody debris, and replacing non-native plants with native species to allow the stream once again to replenish the wetland areas. Native trees and shrubs planted back in 1992 are now mature and filling in the park to make a more natural habitat for birds. This site boasts the largest crayfish in the watershed and has wood ducks that return every other year or so. Two frog ponds were constructed but nature took over by felling a couple trees over the ponds making them too shady for frogs, but ideal for ducks.

6.) “Rossi” Wetlands – NE 100th and 20th Ave NE Houses built back in the 50’s were over the creek and on the steep slope, filling in the wetland area the creek ran through and confining it against the base of the hill. As the owners reached retirement age, not wanting to deal any longer with the creek trying to move back into its benched wetland resulting in flooding, they sold their properties to Seattle Parks and Recreation and to Seattle Public Utilities. The houses were removed and native planting workparties are scheduled for this month. Seattle Public Utilities is working up a plan to remove the stone channel and restore the benched wetland, thus providing additional “off channel” fish habitat as well as addressing downstream flooding and erosion. 7.) Meadowbrook Wetlands – Between NE 105th and NE 110th, on 35th Ave NE Before the community center was constructed, there was an empty field out behind Seattle Parks and Recreation softball and hardball fields. In 1992, Janine Van Sanden, a local landscapist and Landscape Architect Peg Gaynor had the vision and took the initiative to create a creeklet along the edge of the hill. They obtained one of Seattle’s first neighborhood matching grants to plan and construct the creeklet only to find there was so much spring water that a series of small ponds formed to make a wetland instead. The creeklet was continued with a second matching grant to make the final connection to Thornton after the community center was completed. Since the wetlands are spring water fed, they stay cooler and provide rearing habitat for small salmon fingerlings and Pacific Chorus frogs who took up residence in the areas covered by Sitka Willow. Five years later, an old sewage transfer station across 35th Ave NE was converted to a wildlife habitat/flood control pond by Seattle Public Utilities after many public meetings. It extends the habitat connection which now provides homes to salmon, kingfishers, river otter, herons, shoreline birds, various types of ducks, killdeer and beaver.

8.) Sandpoint Natural Area – NE 95th and Sandpoint Way A vacant lot on the north side of NE 95th was slated for development. All the trees were removed and grading had begun. Thanks to the tenacity of Joanne Ishisaka and her neighbors with support from TCA, she was able to get Seattle Parks and Recreation to acquire the parcels. They replanted the site with conifer trees and native shrubs. On the south side of NE 95th, Joanne and her supporters got Seattle Parks and Recreation and Seattle Public Utilities to remove a large concrete pad from an old gas station, then Earthcorps came in as did volunteers to replant with native vegetation. Today you would never guess the sites were cleared. Three types of salmon come through Thornton Creek at this site: Coho, Chinook and Sockeye, as well as Cutthroat and Steelhead Trout. 9.) Matthew’s Beach – NE 92nd on Lake Washington The final reach of Maple Creek tributary was channelized and directed straight into Lake Washington as if it was a drainage ditch. Neighbors, Thornton Creek Alliance, Seattle Parks and Recreation, and the Army Corps of Engineers worked together to find a way to change the course of the creek, put meanders and woody debris into it, and provide safe passage for salmonids to and from Lake Washington. At the same time play space and views for homeowners had to be protected. A small pond was added to help salmonids escape Bass, and to protect the shoreline. Since then, the Beaver have built a dam which redirects high flows into the grassy meadow during winter when not in use….a perfect arrangement. Various techniques have been tested here to remove Japanese Knotweed from stream banks without causing undue erosion. Kingfisher and Heron use the site regularly.