Richmond Beach Saltwater Park Work Plan University of Washington-Restoration Ecology Network Capstone Course 2017-2018
Prepared by: Jordan Koellen Whitney Bowman Jack Brady Amani Moyer-Ali Ann Margaret Stompro Emma Williams
Prepared for the City of Shoreline
1 Diane Brewster-Professional Wetland Scientist
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND 3 Site description 3 Location 3 Restoration Needs and Opportunities 3 TASKS AND APPROACHES 3 SPECIFIC WORK PLANS 4 SITE PREPARATION PLAN 4 Current Conditions 4 Site Preparation Activities 5 Logistical Considerations 5 PLANTING PLAN 6 BUDGET PLAN 9 Labor Budget 10 Financial Budget 11 OTHER PLANS 13 WORK TIMELINE 13 DESIGN FOR THE FUTURE 14 LITERATURE CITED 14
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES
2 You will have to input a list of figures and tables once you have downloaded the document as a .doc file or you may choose to use the existing word template for this assignment (which already has a figure list formatted).
Instructions for adding a figure & table list: https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Create-a-table-of-figures-c5ea59c5-487c-4fb2-bd48- e34dd57f0ec1
BACKGROUND
Site description Location Richmond Beach Saltwater Park is a 40-acre public park located in Shoreline, Washington, with a residential neighborhood on the north and east (Figure 2). A railroad track running north and south separates the beach from the main park. According the the RFP the Park is located within the WRIA 8 Cedar-Sammamish watershed which drains directly into the Puget Sound (Brewster 2017). The restoration site (hereafter will be referred to as “site”) for 2017 is located east (uphill) of the main entrance road and west (downhill) of the second parking lot from the main entrance. The approximate area of the site is 617.7 square meters, or according to the RFP the site is approximately 0.23 acres. The site was broken into three zones depicted as polygons (Figure 3) based on the native (Figure 4) and non-native vegetative cover (Figure 4) and topography of our site.
3 Figure 1: Reference map of site location within the Puget Sound lowland area. (Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, ArcGIS, and the GIS user community.)
4 Figure 2: Site matrix depicting land use in and around Saltwater Park (Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, ArcGIS, and the GIS user community.)
5 Restoration Needs and Opportunities The Saltwater Park restoration focus for 2017/2018 is to continue to restore nearshore habitat. To achieve nearshore habitat the site will need to have invasive plants removed and slope stabilization (Brewster 2017). This specific site provides several opportunities to satisfy the surrounding stakeholders desires and fulfil the need for habitat restoration. A functional requirement of the stakeholders, such as nearby residents and park users is to maintain the views of Puget Sound. The restoration project will focus on fulfilling the need to restore habitat while maintaining the stakeholders desires by installing native plants that satisfy nearshore habitat, and are low growing.
TASKS AND APPROACHES Goal 1: Promote a diverse near shore habitat environment on the Phase 10 site. Objective 1-1: Remove and reduce invasive species establishment. Task 1-1a: Removing Rubus bifrons (Himalayan blackberry) from Polygon 1.
Approach: The removal of R. bifrons requires the use of loppers to cut the trailing stems to about knee height. Then using a shovel, workers will dig around the cane to expose the root ball. To reduce regrowth, the roots will be hand pulled and placed on tarps to be disposed.
Approach Justification: Completely removing the root ball and disposing the plant material reduces the chances of regrowth and establishment on the site.
Task 1-1b: Removing Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom) from Polygon 2 and Phase 11 site.
Approach: To minimize the disturbance of the soil, loppers will be used to cut C. scoparius at ground level. The mature shrubs with larger stems will be cut using handsaws. Members will properly dispose the foliage and pods and implement the woody parts for fascines (task 2-1a).
Approach Justification: Cutting mature C. scoparius at the base of the soil decreases the chances of regrowth while minimizing disturbance (KCNWCP 2008.). According from the previous years and our community partner’s information, this is the recommended method with a high success rate.
Task 1-1c: Applying a layer of mulch over areas of recent invasive removal.
Approach: An 8-inch layer of mulch will cover sites with a recent removal of invasive species. Buckets and wheel barrels will be used to shovel the mulch in the site when necessary. Polygons 2 and 3 will be mulched and if needed Polygon 1 will be re-mulched. The mulch will be provided by in-kind donations from the City of Shoreline and Cedar Grove.
Approach Justification: By mulching the site with a thick layer, it decreases the chances for invasives to re-grow by blocking out light in the removal areas.
6 Objective 1-2: Ensuring vegetation is aesthetically pleasing. Task 1-2a: Purchase plants that match the surrounding landscape.
Approach: Plants purchased are a combination of previous years plantings and new plants suitable for the environment that are low shrub and herbaceous plants.
Goal 2: Stabilization of the slopes to enhance survival of native species.
Objective 2-1: Prevention of erosion. Task 2-1a: Build and implement fascines over the removal site of C. scoparius.
Approach: The woody parts of C. scoparius will be cut again with loppers and bundled together about 4-8 inches thick. Twine will be used to wrap around the branches and placed into shallow trenches. The trenches will be dug out using a shovel and stretch across of the removal site in Polygon 2. Once the bundles are placed, the soil will be placed over them and later on mulched.
Approach Justification: The previous years have used fascines to stabilize slopes with success. Fascines reduce the velocity of runoff by creating a staircase like effect, collecting particles and allowing water to enter the soil (Sound Native Plants 2017).
Objective 2-2: Ensure soil has adequate nutrients for new plantings. Task 2-2a: Create and install ollas.
Approach: The Friends of Richmond Beach Saltwater Park and community partner will provide our team with the necessary materials to assemble to ollas. With their assistance, our team will build and store the ollas until planting day. Once the site is prepped for planting, the ollas will be installed at the same time.
Approach Justification: Ollas are a type of water reserve used to slowly distribute water into the soil for dry conditions. The park has used this method with great success over the years.
Goal 3: Improve habitat establishment for birds and small mammals. Objective 3-1: Create a plant community to support existing fauna. Task 3-1a: Choose plants based upon environment and existing fauna.
Approach: Select plants that produce one or more requirements for fauna.
Approach Justification: The selection should include flowering plants for attraction of pollinators and seed distributors, shrubs and grasses that act as nesting or coverage.
Task 3-1b: Increase the plants on the site suitable for birds and small mammals.
Approach: Add new plants in Polygon 1.
Approach Justification: Polygon 1 has a few plants from the previous years restoration. Adding more plants to this polygon can connect the patches together, creating future coverage, nesting sites, and food availability.
Goal 4: Ensure continuing stewardship for present and future restoration events at the park.
7 Objective 4-1: Emphasize the goals of restoration to the public. Task 4-1a: Create pages on websites like Facebook and UW-REN blog.
Approach: A Facebook page will be created where articles pertaining to restoration can be shared along with photos from the work parties to be viewed. The UW-REN blog will feature a link about the importance of restoration and personal views from the team members.
Approach Justification: Facebook is a common social media application that allows people to connect. Photos from the work parties will be uploaded for people to view and tag themselves in. On the Facebook page, it will feature a link to the UW-REN blog, this entices volunteers to explore the page and discover the rewarding effects of restoration and see its importance.
Task 4-1b: Vocally present the restoration goals.
Approach: Inform volunteers during orientation and throughout the work party.
Approach Justification: By directly speaking about restoration at our site, people will feel invigorated. Speaking about it at the site allows the volunteers to view the progress in person.
Objective 4-2: Promote present and future restoration events at the park. Task 4-2a: Inform the community about upcoming restoration events and resources for future ones.
Approach: The community partner posts upcoming events at the park through the City of Shoreline’s newsletter. The community partner and team members will also contact the previous years volunteers. Flyers will be posted with links to the Facebook and blog webpage.
Approach Justification: Richmond Beach Saltwater Park has annual volunteers who return to assist with the restoration. The community helps by providing physical labor or materials to fuel volunteers.
SPECIFIC WORK PLANS Before the initial work party, the site preparation of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus bifrons) canes will be cut to knee height. By prepping the R. bifrons, volunteers can utilize the remaining time digging and hand pulling the root ball and roots (Task 1-1a). Removing the root ball and thicker parts of the roots reduces re-establishment of R. bifrons. To discourage re- establishment of Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), removing vegetation around the base of the stem and hand sawing at ground level is the recommended approach for mature C. scoparius (Task 1-1b)(KCNWCP, 2008). Loppers will be used to remove stems with a smaller circumference, and for newly established C. scoparius, they will be hand pulled. For disposal, all parts of R. bifrons and branches with seedpods of C. scoparius will be placed on a tarp and carried down to the dumpster bin. Next, volunteers will help assemble the fascines from the previous removal of C. scoparius (Task 2-1a). Using loppers, the branches will be broken down into single stems and
8 placed on a tarp for a group of volunteers to assemble. Those branches will be bundled together to form a 4-8 inch circumference and tied together with twine. Team members will strategically place the bundles with assistance from the community partner over the disturbed areas in Polygon 1 and 2. Another group of volunteers will begin digging shallow trenches and inserting wooden stakes into the ground. The trench will stretch across the entire area of Polygon 2 and the area where the R. bifrons were removed in Polygon 1. Once the fascines are placed, the left over soil will cover them and later on an 8-inch layer of mulch (Task 1-1c). The 8-inches of mulch will smother any remaining invasive species and improve the organic soil layer over time. Historically, our site was used as a gravel and sand mine, which has negatively impacted our soil health (Brewster 2017). To retain water during the dry months, ollas (clay pots) will act as a water reserve to slowly leach an important component for plant survival (Task 2-2a). Once all of the ollas are constructed with assistance from our community partner and the Friends of Richmond Beach Saltwater Park, they will be placed in the storage shed for the following week. The last work event incorporates installing the previously assembled ollas and plants. Before volunteers show up, team members along with the community partner will place plants in designated areas. Plants will be arranged by 2-feet centers and for every two plants an olla will be situated. To create a near-shore habitat, properly identified Leymus mollis (American dune grass) will be transplanted onto our site. Each plant was chosen based upon environmental conditions, height restrictions (shrub or herbaceous), utility to existing fauna, and previous years plantings (Task 1-2a, Task 3-1a, Task 3-1b). During and between our work party events, community outreach will be vital to ensure awareness for new and returning volunteers as well as future stewardship. A Facebook page will be set up with created events and photos of the activities for each work party event (Task 4-1a, Task 4-2a). In addition, the team blog will be published with the same information along with details about the site and importance of restoration (Task 4-1a, Task 4-2a). The work events create an opportune moment to vocally represent the institutions involved and spark interest in stewardship (Task 4-1b).
SITE PREPARATION PLAN Current Conditions
Polygon 1
Environmental Conditions The dominant soil texture is loamy sand, with low organic material and high infiltration. The carbon to nitrogen ratio is 14:1 which means that nitrogen is not limiting. The
9 carbon to nitrogen ratio is a ratio of the mass of carbon to the mass of nitrogen in a substance, such as soil (USDANRCS 2011). When nitrogen is limiting, plants can experience chlorosis, and ultimately have a harder time establishing. The average soil pH is 5.67, which is an ideal range to support plant growth (USDANRCS 2011). The bulk density of the soil on our site is 1.55 g/cm^3 and that is just below the bulk density of 1.6 g/cm^3, which would mean that the soil has no serious compaction issues that would result in minimal pore space and limited root growth (USDANRCS 2011). The entirety of polygon one has a west-facing slope of 36% and there is 0% canopy cover.
Vegetation Herbaceous Vegetation The herbaceous cover in Polygon 1 is nonnative Rumex acetosella (sheep sorrel). A ~5% cover of R. acetosella is evenly distributed throughout this area. Shrub The shrub layer in Polygon 1 is dominated by invasive Rubus bifrons, formerly known as Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan blackberry)1. R. bifrons covers roughly 20% of the total area concentrated near the southwest border and is roughly three feet tall (20% cover). There are small Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom) sprouting on the north border of Polygon 1 that are about six inches tall (<2% cover). Graminoids
Polygon 1 has three graminoid species, Agrostis spp. (unknown bentgrass), Bromus spp (unknown brome grass), and Anthoxanthum spp. (unknown sweet vernal). All three species are likely invasive and collectively cover roughly 15% of the total area.
Polygon 2
Environmental Conditions
The dominant soil type for Polygon 2 was a loamy sand that has a high infiltration rate. The slope of this polygon ranges from about 15%-53% and facing W/NW with the only shade coming from the C. scoparius. The average soil pH for Polygon 2 is 5.67, the same as Polygon 1, so it is also considered to be within an ideal range to support plant growth (USDANRC 2011).
Vegetation
Herbaceous Vegetation
1 ITIS Report, Rubus bifrons: https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=24891#null Flora of North America, Rubus bifrons distribution map: http://www.efloras.org/object_page.aspx?object_id=126696&flora_id=1
10 The herbaceous cover that exists in Polygon 2 is primarily Polypodium glycyrrhiza (licorice fern) with 25% cover on the western side of larger vegetation. There is also less than 2% cover of Bryum pseudotriquetrum (tall clustered thread moss).
Shrubs
The shrub layer for this polygon is 75% made up of the non-native and invasive species C. scoparius. There is also a single Holodiscus discolor (ocean spray) on the northeast side of this polygon among the C. scoparius.
Polygon 3
Environmental Conditions Polygon 3 is the southernmost polygon that faces the west with a slope ranging about 0- 8%. The soil was classified as a loamy sand with a soil pH of 5.76; same as Polygon 1 and 2. Due to historical usage, the soil has a high infiltration rate, poor nitrogen, and low compaction. Polygon 3 is situated near the city owned property where mowing occurs. Vegetation
Herbaceous
The herbaceous cover consists roughly of 25% nonnative species of Eschscholtzia californica (California poppy), Hypochaeris radicata (hairy catsear), and R. acetosella.
Graminoids
Polygon 3 has two graminoid species, Bromus spp. (40%) and Anthoxantum spp. (15%), which are likely invasive. Collectively they cover about 55% of the polygon.
11 Figure 3. Zones of restoration site broken up into Polygons 1, 2 and 3 (Source: Pictometry International, King County iMaps, ArcGIS)
Table 1. Environmental conditions in Polygons 1 through 3. Environmental Factors Polygon 1 Polygon 2 Polygon 3 3046.16 sq ft Area (sq ft) 2672.68 sq ft 822.36 sq ft
Loamy sand Soil texture Loamy sand Loamy sand
Mesic to dry year- Soil moisture Mesic to dry year-round Mesic to dry year-round round ~36% W Slope 15%-53% W/NW ~0-8% W
Light availability (including Full sun Full to partial sun Full sun seasonal variation) Light foot traffic from park Light foot traffic from park Light foot traffic Human impacts visitors visitors from park visitors Other considerations Preserving the view of the Preserving the view of the Preserving the view
12 Puget Sound, and Puget Sound, and of the Puget Sound, enhancing the native enhancing the native and enhancing the ecosystem. Plant to prevent ecosystem. Plant to prevent native ecosystem. recolonization of invasive recolonization of invasive Plant to prevent species. species. recolonization of invasive species.
Figure 4: Native Vegetative Cover (Source: Pictometry International, King County iMaps, ArcGIS)
13 Figure 5: Non-native Vegetative Cover for each Polygon (Source: Pictometry International, King County iMaps, ArcGIS)
Site Preparation Activities
Polygon 1 In order to prepare Polygon 1 for planting we will prep R. bifrons by cutting any canes longer than two feet (about knee height) to help volunteers safely access the base of the plant to start the below ground removal of the roots. We will also be mulching over Agrostis spp., Bromus spp., Anthoxantum spp., and R. acetosella as a control method to suppress them from growing. Fascines will be installed in Polygon 1 after invasive removal (See Fascine Construction). These will made from the longer branches of C. scoparius, that is located in Polygon 2, as an additional erosion control method (Brewster 2017) (Figure 6). After removal and fascine installation, Polygon 1 will be fully mulched with arborist chips in order to stabilize the slope, suppress R. bifrons regrowth and invasive groundcovers, and provide organic material to the soil. Polygon 2 In order to prepare Polygon 2 for planting we must continue to remove and dig out the overlapping R. bifrons from Polygon 1, but the main removal for this polygon is going to be of C. scoparius. We will remove it by cutting the shrub right above the surface of the soil and leaving
14 the roots intact. Large C. scoparius responds well to above ground removal, and this method reduces soil disturbance which could promote seed growth (Hickins, 2004). We will also use mulch to cover up the short stumps that will be left over to help with potential erosion control. As in Polygon 1, we will also be making fascines from the C. scoparius and placing them throughout Polygon 2 as another way to assist with erosion control (Brewster 2017) (Figure 6). Polygon 3 In order to prepare Polygon 3 for planting we must use mulch as a control method to suppress the invasive grasses that are growing on our site. We will be mulching over Bromus spp., Anthoxantum spp., Eschscholtzia californica, Rumex acetosella, and Hypochaeris radicata. As in both of the other polygons we will also be mulching the area of the polygon to stop any erosion, but it may be slightly less than the other two polygons because it doesn’t have as steep a slope (Brewster 2017).
Figure 6: Erosion control installation
15 Figure 7. Invasive removal technique (Source: Pictometry International, King County iMaps, ArcGIS)
Logistical Considerations When having our work parties we will direct our volunteers with signs to the lower parking lot where we will be having our volunteer check-in station (Figure 7). There will also be one of us near the entrance of the park in case any volunteers don’t know where to park. It will be easy for us to be identified by the volunteers because there are reflective vests that the city of Shoreline provides for us to use during our work parties. The lower parking lot is the largest one, so even if the park is fairly busy we will still be out of the way of regular park visitors. The collection bins will also be located in this lower parking lot because it will be easier for our volunteers to walk downhill with tarps full of invasive species and it will be easier to keep out of the way of other park visitors (Figure 8). The mulch pile that we will be using will be staged right next to our site and out of the way of any traffic that might come through the park (Figure 8). When our volunteers will be taking tarps of invasive species to the collection bins there is an outlined route in figure 8 that they will use. They must cross the street and then walk the tarps down a few sets of stairs to reach the lower parking lot where the collection bins are located. The location for the collection bins has proved to be the easiest and safest location to have it because, as Diane Brewster has said, in years past, volunteers have struggled to walk the tarps
16 uphill and that could cause some negative impacts to other park visitors. We will be setting up a tools station next to the mulch pile by our site so that volunteers don’t have to carry them up to the site. When it is time for us to have the planting work party we will be having a staging area for the volunteers to get the plants to put into the ground and that will be located in the same area as where the mulch and tools station would be (Figure 8). Our site within the park is still somewhat close to residential neighborhoods, but we do not believe that noise will be an issue for the neighbors of the park, nor to the park visitors. There is no sidewalk directly next to our site, but there is one just across the road, so we will be out of the way of most of the foot traffic that the park will experience.
Figure 8. Saltwater Park site access and parking (Source: Google Earth)
17 Figure 9. Saltwater Park Logistics and Staging map (Source: Google Earth)
PLANTING PLAN The long term goal of this project is to establish a nearshore coastal grassland/dune ecosystem (FR 1). No trees will be planted at this site in any of the polygons in order to fulfill the functional requirement of keeping the final layout visually consistent with the rest of the park (FR 3.2). Next to each new plant introduced to the site will be an olla to provide irrigation in the dry summer season (FR 2.3). Each polygon will be mulched with arborist chips in order to stabilize the slope, suppress R. bifrons regrowth and invasive groundcovers, and provide organic material to the soil (FR 1.2, FR 2.1, FR 2.2). Each of the plants selected will aid in our long term vision of restoring this site to a native nearshore ecosystem. They will do so by adding organic matter to the soil over time, by providing shade for successional native plants, by changing the hydrology of the site to benefit the plants, and by being visually consistent with the rest of Saltwater Park (FR 1.1, FR 1.2, FR 2.2, FR 2.3, FR 3.2).
18 Polygon 1 & 2 Due to the fact the Polygons 1 and 2 have very similar environmental conditions including slope grade and soil composition, the planting plans are almost identical. Therefore, the write-ups for these two polygons have been combined into one section. Polygon 1 is roughly 293 square meters, or 0.072 acres, and Polygon 2 is 248 meters squared, or 0.063 acres. There is no canopy cover over either polygon, resulting in a habitat that experiences full sunlight. The lack of canopy cover also indicates that there is limited to no organic material in the soil. This results in a relatively nutrient poor soil that also does not readily retain water. The species chosen for these polygons were selected for their sun and drought tolerance, as well as their aesthetic appeal (FR 3.2). Leymus mollis (American dunegrass), will be transplanted from other parts of Saltwater Park (and properly identified using plant guides), and be planted throughout Polygons 1 and 2 with a spacing on 3 ft. centers (FR 1.1). Holodiscus discolor (oceanspray) does well on slopes and 35 individuals (in the form of 1 gallon) will be spaced on 6 ft. centers throughout Polygons 1 and 2 (10 individuals in Polygon 1 and 25 individuals in Polygon 2). H. discolor produces edible fruits creating a wildlife habitat that attracts pollinators and animals such as hummingbirds (FR 4.3) (Stinson 1998). Mahonia aquifolium (Tall Oregon Grape) is a versatile shrub that will provide shade for other groundcover plants whose establishment will prevent the reintroduction of invasive species such as Rubus bifrons (Himalayan blackberry) and Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom) (FR 1.2) (Seiler 2008). The fruit of M. aquifolium is eaten by many birds and mammals (FR 4.3) (Stinson 1998). 35 individuals will be planted with a spacing on 6 ft. centers throughout Polygons 1 and 2. Symphoricarpos albus (snowberry), is another shrub that we selected to plant in Polygons 1 and 2, because of its ability to establish easily in disturbed sites and provide adequate habitat for wildlife (FR 4.2) (Symphoricarpos 2018). 35 individuals will be planted with a spacing on 6 foot centers throughout Polygons 1 and 2 (10 individuals in Polygon 1 and 25 individuals in Polygon 2). H. discolor, M. aquifolium, and S. albus were chosen as shrub species to be planted in Polygons 1 and 2 because they will maintain the site by keeping it free of invasive plants due to the shade that they will ultimately supply (FR 2.4). Fragaria chiloensis, or Coastal Strawberry, not only creates a more suitable habitat for wildlife, it is also has a tendency to stabilize slopes (FR 2.1, FR 4.2) (Wilson 2013). 120 individuals will be planted with a spacing on 2 ft. centers in Polygons 1 and 2 (20 individuals in Polygon 1 and 100 individuals in Polygon 2). They will be clustered on the border of the west facing side of Polygon 1 where the slope is steep, but navigable, and evenly throughout Polygon 2. By planting F. chiloensis on the border of Polygon 1 we will reduce the amount of soil that is carried from the top of the slope to the bottom, thus reducing erosion on our site. The last plant we will install in Polygon 1 will be Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (Kinnikinnick). While this plant is slow to establish it will provide further slope stabilization, it will produce fruits edible to wildlife, and will add organic matter to the soil over time (FR 2.1, FR 4.3, FR 2.2) (Mackinnon 2016). 20 individuals will be planted with a spacing on 2 ft. centers in Polygons 1.
19 Figure 10. Planting plan for each Polygon (Source: Pictometry International, King County iMaps, ArcGIS)
Polygon 3 Polygon 3 is approximately 76 square meters, or 0.19 acres. As Polygon 3 is flattest in terms of slope, it’s plant composition will likely differ vastly from Polygons 1 and 2. As slope stabilization is not necessary within this polygon, the best plant options will likely be attractive shrubs and grasses which fulfill the functional requirement to maintain an aesthetically pleasing park environment (FR 3). This polygon is the most visible of the three when driving past the site, therefore it is logical that it would be the most decorative. Of the shrubs and grasses selected, few should be weedy/aggressive plants in order to ensure that no plantings extend or spread into the mowed portion of land along the western border of Polygon 3 (C 8). The plants we have selected that fulfill the aforementioned conditions include Ribes sanguineum (red flowering currant), Rosa nutkana (Nootka Rose), M. aquifolium (tall Oregon grape), L. mollis, Anaphalis margaritacea (pearly everlasting), and Camassia quamash (camas). The three shrubs M. aquifolium, R. sanguineum and R. nutkana will be widely spaced at 8 ft. centers to create an organized, evenly spaced appearance. M. aquifolium, being the only evergreen shrub in the polygon, will contribute to the appearance of a full, healthy-looking site even in the winter (Mackinnon 2016). R. sanguineum will thrive in the disturbed soil of the site
20 and provide colorful flowers in the blooming season (Mackinnon 2016). R. nutkana will serve as an additional flowering plant with fragrant blossoms in the summer (Nootka 2013). Each of these shrubs vary in height and will contribute to vertical diversity within the polygon. The three lower-story species L. mollis, A. margaritacea, and C. quamash will fill in the spaces between the shrubs, alternating at 3 ft. centers. L. mollis will be beneficial because we will be transplanting it from another spot within the park so it will already be accustomed to growing in the low-nutrient soil and will be fully grown when planted, contributing higher aboveground biomass and making the site appear richer and more filled-in. A. margaritacea is a flowering plant which attracts pollinators when in bloom. This plant will contribute to the wide color range of flowers within Polygon 3 and be arranged more evenly than L. mollis to create the appearance of the tall grasses of a prairie. Finally, C. quamash will further fill in the space between shrubs and create an aesthetically pleasing, full appearance within the polygon. In order to fill the 76.4 square meter space, 12 shrub plants and 90 grass/flowering plants will be necessary. Therefore, 3 of each shrub species will be ordered and 30 of each grass/flowering plant species.
Table 2. Plant materials for installation in Polygons 1-3. Polygon 1 Polygon 2 Polygon 3
Species # Spacing Form # Spacing Form # Spacing Form (ft) (ft) (ft)
Graminoids
Leymus 100 3 transplant 15 3 transplant 3 transplant 30 mollis
Herbaceous
Anaphalis 30 3 ½ gallon margaritacea
Arctostaphyl 20 2 1 gallon os uva-ursi
Camassia 30 3 cone quamash
Fragaria 20 2 4’’ 100 2 4’’ chiloensis
Shrubs
Holodiscus 10 6 1 gallon 25 6 1 gallon discolor
21 Mahonia 10 6 1 gallon 25 6 1 gallon 3 8 1 gallon aquifolium
Ribes 3 8 1 gallon sanguineum
Rosa nutkana 3 8 1 gallon
Symphoricarp 10 6 1 gallon 25 6 1 gallon os albus
Table 3. Total plant materials table
Species Forms Total Number
Graminoid
Leymus mollis transplant 145
Herbaceous
Anaphalis margaritacea ½ gallon 30
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 1 gallon 20
Camassia quamash cone 30
Fragaria chiloensis 4’’ 120 Shrubs
Holodiscus discolor 1 gallon 35
Mahonia aquifolium 1 gallon 38
Ribes sanguineum 1 gallon 3
Rosa nutkana 1 gallon 3
Symphoricarpos albus 1 gallon 35
Table 4. General (non-plant) materials and tools Task Materials Qty Source Tools Qty Source
1-1a Shovels 20 Shoreline
22 Parks
1-1a Loppers 5 Shoreline Parks
1-1a Tarps 5 Shoreline Parks
1-1b Loppers 15 Shoreline Parks
1-1b Handsaws 15 Shoreline Parks
1-1c Mulch 75.2 City of Wheelbarrows 2 In-kind cubic Shoreline donation yards
1-1c Mulch 66 cubic City of Buckets 8 Shoreline yards Shoreline Parks
1-1c Mulch 20.3 City of Shovels 5 Shoreline cubic Shoreline Parks yards
2-1a Twine/ 2 Shoreline wood spools/ Parks stakes ~50 stakes
2-2a Clay Pots, 212 Shoreline epoxy, Parks cork
Table 5. General materials requirements for project
Materials Qty Source
Gloves (Fabric and Leather) 39 Shoreline Parks
Nitrile Work Gloves 32 Shoreline Parks
Loppers 20 Shoreline Parks
Hand Pruners 26 Shoreline Parks
Wooden Handsaws 7 Shoreline Parks
23 Plastic-handled Saws 11 Shoreline Parks
Twine 2 Shoreline Parks
Wheel Barrel 2 Shoreline Parks
Shovels 20 Shoreline Parks
Tarps 7 Shoreline Parks
2-ft Wooden Stakes 50 Shoreline Parks
5 Gallon Buckets 8 Shoreline Parks
5 Gallon Buckets Modified for Refilling 5 Shoreline Parks Ollas
Canvas Shelter 1 Shoreline Parks
Work Party A-board 1 Shoreline Parks
Safety Glasses 5 Shoreline Parks
Yellow Vests 4 Shoreline Parks
Hoses 8 Shoreline Parks
Watering Cans 4 Shoreline Parks
Brass Hose Nozzle 1 Shoreline Parks
BUDGET PLAN
Labor Budget We predict that team members and volunteers will all spend 6 total hours removing invasives. We are estimating an average of 20 volunteers attending any work party. We expect to spend most of the 4 hours of our first work party removing invasives from the site, and removing the excess invasive plants during our second work party. We will primarily be obtaining native plants from nurseries, however we will be transplanting Leymus mollis (American dunegrass) during one work party. For this transplant, we plan to have 2 team members take 5 volunteers to transplant L. mollis or one hour total. Based on the area of each polygon, it will take twice as much time to plant in Polygons 1 and 2, than it will to plant in Polygon 3, as Polygon 3 is much smaller and requires less plants. According to our CP, planting takes the least amount of time, and our labor budget reflects this. We will spend a considerable
24 amount of time constructing fascines and ollas. Both activities will be broken up into 2 different work parties. Table 6. Labor budget Labor by activity (expenditure) Team Volunteers Total Site preparation Garbage removal 3 3 Border demarcation 4 Subtotal site preparation 7 3 10 Invasive plant removal Rubus bifrons (Himalayan blackberry) 18 60 Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom) 18 60 Subtotal invasive plant removal 36 120 156 Plant acquisition Planning 10 Nurseries 12 Transplant 2 5 Subtotal plant acquisition 24 5 29 Planting Polygon 1 6 14 Polygon 2 6 12 Polygon 3 3 4 Subtotal planting 15 30 45 Constructing fascines and ollas Fascines 12 30 42 Ollas 12 30 42 Subtotal constructing fascines and ollas 24 60 84 TOTAL 106 218 324 hours
The team is putting in labor by preparing the site, removing invasive plants, obtaining native plants, planting, and constructing fascines and ollas. The total amount of labor put in by the team through these activities is predicted to be 106 hours. 4-6 volunteers from Friends of Richmond Beach Saltwater Park are predicted to attend each work party and put in a total of 16 hours of labor each. 6-8 students from King’s High School predicted to put in 4 hours of labor each, over the course of 2 work parties. We expect at least 7 more volunteers from other sources to attend each volunteer work party, putting in a total of 16 hours of labor each.
Table 7. Labor budget by source Labor by source (revenue) Total hours
25 106 Team
Volunteers
Friends of Richmond Beach Saltwater Park 64
King’s High School 36
Miscellaneous volunteers 118
Total Volunteer 218
TOTAL 324 hours
Financial Budget The vast majority of our expenditures will be buying plants. We will buy a majority of our plants from SER Nursery and buy the remaining plants from Go Natives! Nursery. Our projected total for plants is $505.50. The mulch we use will be provided by the City of Shoreline and Cedar Grove as an in-kind donation with a value of $417. Our CP will be providing us with tools during the volunteer work parties and the City of Shoreline will provide any new tools or supplies that are needed, so we will not need to rent tools. Food and coffee for the volunteer work parties will provided by in-kind donations from QFC and Starbucks, with an expected value of $100 for QFC and $104 for Starbucks. Because of these in-kind donations, so we will not be spending money on food for volunteer events. Our team will primarily be carpooling to the site, so we will not have transportation costs that need to be reimbursed. Most printing for class purposes will be done by UW REN instructors, and the city of Shoreline will provide signage for volunteer events, so we will not be spending money on printing or signage. This gives us a project total of $1126.50.
Table 8. Expenditures by major category Expenditures by major category Cost Plants
26 conifer trees 0 broadleaf trees 0 shrubs 325.50 herbaceous 180 Subtotal plants 505.50 Mulch Mulch 417 Subtotal mulch 417 Tool rental tool rental for 2/3/2018 0 tool rental for 2/10/2018 0 tool rental for 2/24/2018 0 tool rental for 3/3/2018 0 Subtotal tool rental 0 Food for volunteer events event on 2/3/2018 25 event on 2/10/2018 25 event on 2/24/2018 25 event on 3/3/2018 25 Coffee for all events 104 Subtotal for food 204 Transportation Subtotal for transportation 0 Printing Subtotal for printing 0 PROJECT TOTAL 1126.50
We have an approximate course fee allotment of $600. We do not have any currents plans for fundraising. QFC and Starbucks will be making in-kind donations of food and coffee, that have a value of $150 for food, and $104 for coffee. The City of Shoreline is making an in- kind donation of tools and supplies valued at $2359, that will be used for ongoing maintenance of the site, and the entirety of Saltwater Park. Our total revenue for the project is approximately $3213.
Table 9. revenue by fund source Revenue by fund source Course fee allotment 600
27 Fundraising bake sale on April 1? Total fundraising 0 Cash donations cash donations by team members 0
cash donations by CP 0 cash donations by neighborhood group 0
Total cash donations 0 In-kind donations tool rental waiver ($ value) 0 coffee ($ value) 104 food for work parties 150 tools and supplies from city of Shoreline 2359 Total in-kind donations 2613 PROJECT TOTAL $3213
Fascine Construction Fascines are used to reduce runoff velocity and reduce soil erosion. They are a low cost and effective way to assist with slope stabilization. Fascines are long bundles of brush that are tied together, about six inches in diameter and six to twelve feet long (SNP 2017). Spacing fascines depends on the slope steepness. If the slope is less than 30 degrees then the fascines can be spaced at a 4 meters interval. If the slope is greater than 30 degrees then the fascines should be spaced closer at 2 meters (Howell 2003). On the Saltwater Park 2018 site the slopes are over 30 degrees at lengths of up to 25 feet, which is appropriate for fascine installation (SNP 2017, Howell 2003). Traditionally fascines are made from living branches but Saltwater park has developed a unique and virtually free alternative by using harvested Cytisus scoparius branches that are seed free. They will be installed at 2 meter intervals in polygon one and two (Figure 6). This requires us to build 8 fascines total. To construct the fascines, the Saltwater team and volunteers will use twine to make bundles 6 to 8 inches, and 6 feet long (Wilderness Connect). They will be secured in the hillside by digging a trench roughly one third to one half the diameter of the fascine. Then the fascine will be placed in the trench and then backfilled with formerly removed soil. Additionally, the fascines will be secured using two foot wooden garden stakes, hammered into the ground perpendicular to the slope (Howell 2003).
28 Figure 11: Schematic of Fascine
OLLA PLAN On our site, we are required to construct olla’s for our plants to have a source of water to drink from as they grow. Our site does not hold onto water, so any type of vegetation that tries to establish itself will need some assistance and that is where the olla’s come into play. They are constructed by gluing two clay pots together and then filling the olla with water so that the plant will be able to get water from it. The site had tried in the past to continually go back and water the vegetation that had been planted there, but it became too difficult and demanding of the volunteers, so the Friends of Saltwater Park researched a way to avoid continued watering. The set up will be that one olla will be shared by two shrubs, so the number of olla’s should be half the amount of shrubs on our site. When we plant our graminoids, the olla’s will be spaced out evenly so that a few different plantings will have access to an olla, but it will not be one olla for every two plantings like it is for the shrubs. The spacing for the olla’s will be one olla in between two planted shrubs.
29 Figure 11. Schematic of olla placement between 2 shrubs WORK TIMELINE The work timeline (shown below) outlines what tasks we will be finishing at what time. This Gantt chart is important to our restoration project because it will be keeping us on track throughout the rest of Winter quarter and through Spring quarter. The amount of boxes that are filled in red are the amount of weeks that we believe each task to be completed, but it is possible that they will be finished in more or less time than shown in the Gantt chart. The closer the chart gets to the end of the quarter, the harder it is to precisely show how long a task will take. Feb Feb Feb Feb/ Mar Mar Spring Mar/ April April April April/ May May May May June 2-8 9-15 16-22 Mar 2-8 9-15 Break April 6-12 13-19 20-26 May 4-10 11-17 18-24 25-31 1-8 23-1 16-25 26-5 27-3 Task
Task 1-1a: Final plant purchase form Task 1-1b: Instructor site visit Task 1-1c: Pre-work party Task 1-2a: Removal of R. bifrons and C.
30 scoparius Task 1-2b: Constructing fascines Task 1-2b: Installing fascines Task 1-2c: Final work plan Task 1-2d: Mulch delivery Task 1-2e: CP work plan approval Task 1-2f: Mulch over removal areas/weeds Task 1-2g: 2nd instructor site visit Task 1-2h: Making oolas Task 1-2i: Planting plants/Intalling oolas Task 1-2j: Transplanting Dunegrass Task 2-1a: Begin development of Stewardship Plan Task 2-1b: Begin compiling an As- Built Report Task 2-1c: Complete site work Task 2-1d: Complete Stewardship Plan Task 2-1e: Complete As-Built Report Task 2-1f: Produce Final Project Poster
DESIGN FOR THE FUTURE Our vision for the site in the future is a coastal grassland that restores nearshore habitat to the park, supports establishment of birds and mammals and is aesthetically pleasing. The short-term goals for this is to remove invasive plants, stabilize slopes and install native plants. Phase ten is set to be finalized in June 2018. Upon completion, Polygon 2 will look dramatically
31 different by removing the dense Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom). Polygon 1 and 3 will have all Rubus bifrons (Himalayan blackberry) secondary growth removed. The entire site will have wood chips covering the bare ground and native plants will be installed. In September 2018, the site will have gone through summer drought conditions and will likely appear similar to the way the site currently looks. The plants in this area are still small, drought stressed and have some plant loss. The team suspects that by September 2018, the site will also be drought stressed however, this can be mitigated by planting drought tolerant plants, irrigating and covering the site with an appropriate depth of wood chips (Chalker-Scott 2009)(King County 2017). In June 2019, the plants should have a year’s “worth” of growth and the invasive regrowth should be minimal if sufficient maintenance is implemented. It will be crucial or this particular area to have consistent maintenance for several years after completion to all the plants to establish. Our long term goal for the site will be to have a mature and diverse near-shore habitat. Shrub habitat is typically achieved within 25 years of the natural successional process (Amsel 2017). Assuming that the surrounding matrix will be residential neighborhoods, it is likely that the stakeholders will continue to maintain the park as a near shore shrub habitat for the foreseeable future (100+years). Since the surrounding matrix is expected to be the same, the desired ecological functions will also be the same as the short-term functions such as, soil retention, habitat and cultural value. The chances of achieving these ecological functions are increased with native plant maturation (Green Facts 2005). Vegetation regulates erosion, provides habitat and if the plant community is mostly low growing shrubs, it is probable that the cultural values of the residents will also be met (Green Facts 2005). Once vegetation has been established there will also be less need for maintenance. Land cover reduced ground evaporation, slows water runoff, and thus reduces the need for irrigation (Green Facts 2005). Plant cover is also a method of invasive plant control. In order to maintain the site, we must establish a volunteer base for current and future restoration projects within the park. In order to achieve the consistent maintenance and stewardship required for a successful outcome for years following this project, we need a strong volunteer base. To establish a strong volunteer base for this restoration project and those to follow, we must ensure that the goals of the restoration project are well communicated to the public, provide an entertaining and rewarding environment for volunteers participating in restoration, attempt to recruit new and returning volunteers, and communicate information about work parties to potential volunteers. We know from our CP that the group, Friends of Richmond Beach Saltwater Park work very hard to maintain the park. This group makes regular visits throughout the entire summer to do routine maintenance and assist in the functioning of ollas to ensure proper irrigation over the warm months They also donate tools and regularly attend volunteer work parties throughout the year. We must ensure that our restoration project is a positive and rewarding experience for Friends of Richmond Beach Saltwater Park, so that these volunteers are even more inclined to continue maintaining the park. We are happy that high school students from King’s High School and Shorewood High School will have the opportunity to attend some of our volunteer work parties. We hope that the students’ involvement in restoration work will give them a sense of ownership of the park, motivate them to become stewards of the park and continue to volunteer at Saltwater Park.
32 Keeping this in mind, we will be sure to provide a positive volunteer experience for the high school students at our work parties
LITERATURE CITED Amsel S. [internet]. 2017 [accessed Dec 5 2017] Available from: https://www.exploringnature.org/graphics/ecology/forest_succession.pdf
Chaker-Scott. 2009. Sustainable Landscapes & Gardens: good science- practical application. GFG publishing, Inc. E
Diane Brewster. 2017. Request for Proposal. https://canvas.uw.edu/courses/1115081/files/43997897/download?wrap=1
Eddie Huckins, Jonathan Soll. 2004. Controlling Scotch (Scots) Broom in the Pacific Northwest. Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health [Internet]. [Cited 2017 Nov. 13.] Available from: https://www.invasive.org/gist/moredocs/cytsco01.pdf
Green Facts, Synthesis Report, 2005. Ecosystem Services. Greenfacts.org [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Jan. 25]; 2.1(40). https://www.greenfacts.org/en/ecosystems/toolboxes/box2-1- services.htm#a2
Holodiscus discolor (Oceanspray). Washington Native Plant Society. 2007 Nov 8.
King County. [internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 25.]. Available from: https://green2.kingcounty.gov/gonative/index.aspx
Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center. [internet]. 2007. [Cited 2018 Jan. 24.]. Available from:https://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=LEMOM2 Fertig W. Pearly Everlasting. Forest Service. [accessed 2018 Jan 12]. https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/plant-of-the-week/anaphalis_margaritacea.shtml
MacKinnon A, Pojar J, MacKinnon A. Plants of the Pacific Northwest coast: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia & Alaska. Vancouver, British Columbia: Partners Publishing; 2016. Nootka Rose Plant Guide. USDA.gov. 2013 Mar.
Pond, Rodney. Common Native Plants of Lowland Puget Sound. 2009.
33 Howell, John. Roadside Bio-engineering. 2003. [accessed 2018 Feb 8]. http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?e=d-00000-00---off-0cdl--00-0----0-10-0---0---0direct-10-- -4------0-1l--11-en-50---20-about---00-0-1-00-0--4----0-0-11-10-0utfZz-8- 00&a=d&c=cdl&cl=CL1.45&d=HASH0159039aacbc99c7a28d3f11.7.14
Seiler J, Jensen E, Niemiera A, Peterson J. Mahonia aquifolium. Virginia Tech
Dendrology. 2018 [accessed 2018 Jan 11].
http://dendro.cnre.vt.edu/dendrology/syllabus/factsheet.cfm?ID=422
Sound Native Plants. 2017. Fascine Installation. Sound Native Plants Ecological Restoration Specialists [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Jan. 25.] Available from: http://soundnativeplants.com/wp-content/uploads/Fascine_installation.pdf
Stinson, C., Fisher G., Johnson B. Native Plants for Wildlife. 1998.
Symphoricarpos albus (Common Snowberry). Gardenia.net. [accessed 2018 Jan 11]. https://www.gardenia.net/plant/Symphoricarpos-Albus-Snowberry
USDANRCS: United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Services. [internet]. 2011. [Cited 2018 Jan. 24.]. Available from:
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/PA_NRCSConsumption/download/?cid=nrcs142p2_052823&ext=pdf
Wilderness Connect. Chapter 3: The Art and Science of Restoration Live Stakes. [internet].
[Cited 2018 Feb. 8.]. Available from:
https://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/documents/restoration/pdf06232815dpi72pt09.pdf
Wilson B, Wilson C. Fragaria chiloensis. Laspilitas.com. 2013 Jul 30 [accessed 2018 Jan 12]
34 35