Project Final Report - University of Washington

Richmond Beach Saltwater Park, Shoreline Washington University of Washington Restoration Ecology Network Capstone 2013-­‐2014 Prepared For: Maureen Colaizzi, City of Shoreline Diane Brewster, Touchstone Ecoservices By: Echo Walker—UW Bothell, B.A. Environmental Studies Jordin Buttenob—UW Seattle, B.S. Environmental Sciences and Resource Management Marcienne Scofield—UW Seattle, M.S. Environmental Engineering Meliaokalani Lam—UW Bothell, B.A. Environmental Studies Nathan Rex—UW Seattle, B.S. Biology Shannon Serier—UW Seattle, B.S. Environmental Sciences and Resource Management TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 B ACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 RESTORATION NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 8 T ASKS A ND A PPROACHES ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 S PECIFIC W ORK P LANS ............................................................................................................................................................ 16 SITE PREPARATION PLAN ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 C URRENT C ONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 S ITE P REPARATION A CTIVITIES ..................................................................................................................................... 16 LOGISTICAL C ONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 19 PLANTING PLAN ...................................................................................................................................................................... 21 P OLYGON 1 : U PLAND R IDGE ........................................................................................................................................... 21 P OLYGON 2 : B OWL S LOPE ............................................................................................................................................... 22 P OLYGON 3 : B OTTOM L OWLAND ................................................................................................................................... 22 BUDGET PLAN ......................................................................................................................................................................... 26 OTHER PLANS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 33 E DUCATION P LAN ............................................................................................................................................................. 33 W ORK T IMELINE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 33 D ESIGN FOR THE FUTURE ......................................................................................................................................................... 24 STEWARDSHIP DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 24 RESTORATION PROJECT + STEWARDSHIP .......................................................................................................................... 25 L ITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................................................................................... 27 1 List o f F igures Figure 1. Location of Richmond Beach Saltwater Park (inset) in Puget Sound Region. Images from Google Maps .............................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 2. Restoration Area within Saltwater State Park. Image from Google Maps ................................ 29 Figure 3. Restoration Site Polygons. Image from Google Maps ........................................................................ 30 Figure 4. UW-­‐REN Restoration Projects at Richmond Beach Saltwater Park ............................................. 31 Figure 5. Invasive plants on-­‐site. Image from Google Maps ................................................................................ 32 Figure 6. Native plants on-­‐site. Image from Google Maps. ................................................................................. 32 Figure 7. Work party logistics map. Image from Google Maps ......................................................................... 33 Figure 8. Approximate Density of Native Plants On-­‐site ...................................................................................... 34 Figure 9. As-­‐Built Map with Installed Native Plants and Erosion Control .................................................... 34 List o f T ables Table 1. Site-­‐wide Polygon Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 18 Table 2. Restoration tools for use in work parties. ................................................................................................. 21 Table 3. Site Wide Planting Plan: Amount, Spacing, and Form ......................................................................... 24 Table 4. Aesthetically pleasing plants to support Task 3-­‐1a and add visual appeal ................................ 25 Table 5. Project Projected and Actual Revenue ........................................................................................................ 27 Table 6. Original and Modified Budget and Expenditures ................................................................................... 28 Table 7. Estimated and Actual Hourly Labor Projection ...................................................................................... 30 Table 8. Estimated and Actual Hourly Source of Labor ........................................................................................ 32 Table 9. Winter Quarter GANTT Chart ......................................................................................................................... 20 Table 10. Spring Quarter GANTT Chart ........................................................................................................................ 22 2 PROJECT SUMMARY Overview This report describes the 2013-­‐2014 Richmond Beach Restoration Project which was implemented over the course of the year (Sep.’13 – June ’14) in the Richmond Beach Saltwater Park in Shoreline, Washington. The project is the result of a partnership between the University of Washington Restoration Ecology Network (UWREN) and the City of Shoreline, with the intent of rehabilitating the native landscape within the park, focusing on one small section of sloped hillside. Since 2006, the City of Shoreline has set aside one small portion of the park for restoration in partnership with the UWREN program, so that every year the restored area of the park is larger and the ecological integrity of the area is slowly recovered over time. After Photo: Bottom of slope looking up, post-­‐restoration, Before 1
Figure P. hoto: Before Top Photo: of slope Top looking of slope dlown, ooking pre-­‐restoration, down, pre-­‐
May 2014. restoration, 2S013. September eptember 2013. Site H istory a nd R estoration N eeds Prior to its current status as a city park, our restoration site was a sand and gravel mine and therefore the landscape in that area was not just degraded, but utterly destroyed. In more recent years, after the closing of the mine and the procurement of the land by the City of Shoreline, it was metamorphosed into its current state as a public city park. The site of our restoration project is a steeply sloped hillside in the park where C. scoparious, otherwise known as Scotch Broom, became the dominant species of the hill slope (as seen in before photo) and indeed the park as a whole. Overall, it was this infestation of Scotch Broom that necessitated the restoration of the hillside due to its non-­‐native origins and its persistent and invasive nature which impedes the growth and establishment of native plants and the ecological services associated with the native plant communities. 3 Goals and Approaches: •
•
•
•
Invasive Species Control : o Removal of C. scoparious from restoration site o Removal of C. scoparious from 10’ buffer zone o Groundcover species to account for ‘edge effect’ o ‘Wedging’ of C. scoparious roots Erosion Control: o Installation of fascines in Polygon 2 o Application of woodstraw in Polygons 2 and 3 o Installation of native plants that aid in soil stabilization and erosion control in Polygons 2 and 3 Aesthetics: o Creation of ocean view in Polygon 1 o Preservation of ocean view in all polygons by restricting species over a certain height o Installation of flowering and/or berry producing grasses, shrubs and groundcovers Bird and Pollinator Forage: o Installation of pollen and nectar producing plants o Installation of berry producing plants including winter forage Accomplishments •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Removal of C. scoparious from entire site including buffer zone Creation of ocean view from Polygon 1 Installation of over 400 native plants including grasses, shrubs and groundcover species Installation of fascines to limit erosion Application of woodstraw to limit erosion Organized and executed volunteer work parties for project installation Recruited and collected donations to support the efforts of our work parties 4 Team Members Team Photo: From left to right – Diane Brewster (community partner for the City of Shoreline), Shannon Serier, Marcienne Scofield, Meliaokalani Lam, Nathan Rex, Jordin Buttenob and Echo Walker Team Contact Information: Team Member Marcienne Scofield Jordin Buttenob Echo Walker Nathan Rex Meliaokalani Lam Shannon Serier Responsibility Point of Contact Coordinator Materials Management Planting Management Financial Accounting and Image Specialist Media Publications Volunteer Coordinator 5 Email Address [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Acknowledgements We would like to thank: Community Partners: Maureen Colaizzi, City of Shoreline and Diane Brewster, Touchstone Ecoservices. Professors and Advisors: Dr. Warren Gold, Dr. Kern Ewing, Dr. Jim Friedly, and Crescent Campoling. Community Sponsors: Starbucks, QFC and the City of Shoreline. And our many volunteers who’s hard work in adverse weather conditions during our work parties made this restoration possible. 6 BACKGROUND SITE DESCRIPTION Richmond Beach Saltwater Park is a 42 acre park located at 2021 NW 190th St, along the shore of Puget Sound in the city of Shoreline, approximately nine miles north of downtown Seattle (Error! Reference source not found.). Our restoration site (hereafter referred to as “site”) is approximately 0.24 acres of steep, moderately eroded slopes with a high cover of invasive vegetation (Figure 2). The southern portion of the site borders a road and a public staircase, the western portion of the site borders an existing trail and a playground, and the remainder of the site borders unrestored vegetation on slopes of varying degrees of steepness. The site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods to the north, south, and east. The most heavily trafficked main street is approximately 0.25 miles from the site and is buffered by residential lots and other vegetation before reaching the park. From 1905-­‐1915, Richmond Beach Saltwater Park functioned as a sand and gravel mine which accounts for the steep slopes and bowl-­‐shaped landscape still present at the park today (Touchstone Ecoservices 2008). The soils of our site are dominated by unstable sandy soils across a varying range of slopes. Overall, the soil is highly permeable sand and loamy sand with little capacity for water retention and high infiltration, creating a soil environment drier than typical western Washington ecosystems. The moderate to steep slopes of the site result in unstable soils which are easily disturbed and eroded without the presence of vegetation with penetrating root systems. The site vegetation is dominated by Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) which outcompetes native species but also contributes to erosion prevention. Overall, the litter composition of the area consists of downed C. scoparius, with some native grasses and forbs throughout the site. The site was divided into three polygons (Figure 3) based on differences in topography (minimal through steep slopes) and, concurrently, density of vegetation cover (as we found that vegetation density and slope steepness were positively correlated). Overall the site has two major inclination categories, with a relatively flat upper area on the east end of the site and moderate to steep slopes to the west. Polygon 1 is the most diverse of the current polygons, as it is located on a minimally sloped upland area and includes planned landscaping with installed native and non-­‐native upland species. Polygon 1 also comprises the majority of woody vegetation on the site as well as the majority of the shrub cover. There is a small patch of Shore Pine (Pinus contorta, 5-­‐10% cover) at the highest elevation which creates the only upper canopy cover (>15 ft) on the entire site. Polygon 2 consists of a steep, bowl-­‐shaped hillside slope. This polygon is the least diverse though it is rich with micro-­‐depressions and other opportunities to encourage diversity. The sloped hillside is dominated by C. scoparius (~95% cover) and Roadside Rock Moss (Racomitrium canescens) under the C. scoparius canopy (~ 95% cover). There is some diversity in the moss-­‐lichen groundcover community, supporting a small fungal population and several common, weedy plant species like Ribwort Plantain (Plantago lanceolata, ~ 5-­‐15% cover). 7 Polygon 3 is considered the lowland 'foot' of the hill slope. It has the sandiest soil and supports a much larger grass community including non-­‐native European Beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) and Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and native Alaska Brome (Bromus sitchensis) and Bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis) (~ 30% cover). It also supports C. scoparius (~25% cover) and R. canescens (~ 25% cover). This area likely still has a high erosion potential, as evidenced by its patchy, exposed, sandy soils and also hosts the highest diversity of invasive species. This site seems to hold promise for hosting a variety of pollinators, as at least two bee species were observed at the time of the site assessment. RESTORATION NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES While the City of Shoreline has recognized that the abundance is a problem and has taken steps to attempt to eradicate C. scoparius, it is virtually impossible to simply remove C. scoparius and have no regrowth without site modification and restoration activities. For example, while the city of Shoreline had a maintenance crew remove almost all the C. scoparius in the park approximately 10 years ago (D. Brewster, personal communication, January 23, 2014), without maintenance, the existing seed bank allowed it to reestablish the following years. Since their 2006 partnership with the UW-­‐REN program, approximately 1.25 acres have been part of the restoration program, which involves invasive removal and prevention practices. The steep topography, poor soil conditions (low moisture retention, lack of nutrients), dearth of competitive native species, and relatively dry conditions over the entire site create conditions that are beneficial to common and easily dispersed colonizing invasive species. On our site, C. scoparius has taken over much of the groundcover and even if removed, has deposited a significant seed bank and has likely changed the soil chemistry on-­‐site. Once the site is restored (C. scoparius removed and native vegetation in place), the site should not significantly contribute to the further invasion of C. scoparius at Saltwater State Park. Over the course of several years, we hope that the community involvement inspired by this year’s and past projects will continue and any regrowth of C. scoparius on our site will be removed. The native vegetation installed on our site will provide a similar measure of erosion protection while providing park visitors with an aesthetically pleasing varied landscape. Finally, the site will still require considerable maintenance, as it is surrounded by other patches of invasive species and seed dispersal onto our site will definitely occur. 8 TASKS AND APPROACHES Goal 1: Facilitate the dominance of native plant ecosystems and habitats that are common to steep, dry, and sandy regions of the coastal Puget Sound. Objective 1-­‐1: Maintain native ground vegetation during removal and suppression of exotic invasive species. Task 1-­‐1a: Remove invasive C. scoparius. AD 1: In addition to removing C. scoparius directly on our site and within a 10ft boundary, we also removed C. scoparius on the northern section of the 2007-­‐2008 restoration site (Figure 4). The additional removal was completed during the final work party in an effort to maintain the site and because the volunteers enjoyed the removal activities. Approach: The removal of C. scoparius will mainly be accomplished by volunteers and the student restoration team over the first two work parties. Smaller C. scoparius (stems with a diameter < 2 in.) will be pulled out to remove the root system and larger stems (diameter > 2 in.) will be cut to the ground to limit the disturbance to soil and existing vegetation (King Country 2013). AD 2: Removal was accomplished over all the public work parties (4 in all). While on-­‐site removal was accomplished during the first two work parties, removal on the borders of our site and maintenance activities on other sites occurred during all work parties. Approach Justification: Removing C. scoparius will significantly reduce the rate of seed dispersal around our site so existing native grasses and native vegetation have a chance to re-­‐establish in the area. Additionally, by avoiding the use of a weed wrench and cutting large C. scoparius, the root systems of native plans will remain intact, contributing to soil stability and erosion prevention (King County 2013). After cutting large C. scoparius, we will attempt to discourage regrowth using the “Wedge Method”. After cutting off the stem of the C. scoparius and leaving a small stub of stem close to the ground, we will use a rubber mallet and a small pry bar to wedge a small cross in the top of the remaining stub to discourage resprouting from trimmed stems (W. Gold, personal communication, February 5, 2014). AD 3: In addition to using a mallet and pry bar, we also used a hatchet and rubber mallet to wedge a small cross. The hatchet was used because a few of our team members were able to obtain them from work/home. Objective 1-­‐2: Create conditions that are unfavorable to invasive vegetation while favorable to native systems. 9 Task 1-­‐2a: Remove invasive species while minimizing soil disturbance to the site. Approach: Loppers and hand saws will be the primary tools utilized to remove C.scoparius rather than weed wrenches (refer to task 1-­‐
1a). Additionally, the volunteers doing the removal will be instructed to keep the ground as undisturbed as possible, minimizing the human impacts on the site. Approach Justification: C. scoparius can tolerate a wide range of conditions but prefers dry, well-­‐drained soils, easily outcompeting native vegetation at our site. Additionally, the plant has easily dispersed and recalcitrant seeds that can persist in the soil for up to 60 years (King County 2013). By minimizing the soil disturbance we serve to reduce the germination of C. scoparius seed banks that lie within the soil. In addition to reducing the viability of C. scoparius seed banks, minimal erosion will likely favor recently installed native vegetation. Task 1-­‐2b: Install a shrub layer to outcompete invasive species. Approach: Utilize broad-­‐leafed native shrubs such as Holodiscus discolor, Ribes sanguinuem, Symphacarpus albus, Rosa gymnacarpa. AD 4: In addition to a shrub layer, Leymus mollis was transplanted from other areas of Richmond Beach Saltwater Park to the steepest area of our site. L. mollis was transplanted because it is prevalent throughout other parts of the park and seems to be effectively outcompeting C. scoparius. Approach Justification: Through shade creation the broad-­‐leafed shrubs will ideally outcompete and suppress the C. scoparius. H. discolor and S. albus both produce thickets that C. scoparius cannot penetrate. This method will be use predominately around the easternmost portion of polygon 3 where the thickets have the highest chance of establishment. Objective 1-­‐3: Install drought tolerant species that will be able to survive through seasonal temperature and water availability extremes. Task 1-­‐3a: .Ensure the planting plan consists of hardy plants that can survive hot, dry summers and wet, cool winters. Approach: Install Deschampsia cespitosa, as just one example of a hardy, drought tolerant plant. See Table 1Error! Reference source not found. for additional examples of drought-­‐tolerant plants we plan to install. 10 Approach Justification: Richmond Beach Saltwater Park is on the coast of Puget Sound and is exposed to relatively cool, windy weather in the winter and hot, dry weather in the summer. In order for native plants to thrive after a spring planting and in the following summers, they should be drought tolerant, as the site will not have consistent irrigation in the future. Objective 1-­‐4: Design a soil environment that will foster root establishment in native plants during initial establishment on site. Task 1-­‐4a: Enhance soil productivity and plant survivorship with the design and installation of an irrigation system. Approach: Work with the city of Shoreline to establish an appropriate drip irrigation system to allow for soil conditions that will promote plant growth and root establishment. Approach Justification: While the city of Shoreline had initially planned to install irrigation lines in the long-­‐term, industrial irrigation lines have been deemed unfeasible and we plan to pursue the installation of drip irrigation. The system will be installed during the planting process and maintained by team members during the course of our project. The irrigation system will be designed so that future restoration groups will be able to reuse the lines in the future. AD 5: The irrigation system was installed after planting and removal on-­‐site were complete. Installation during planting and removal was not feasible, as team members and volunteers would trip over/knock the lines out of place. Task 1-­‐4b: Use mulch woodchips around the base of installed plants to encourage moisture retention. Approach: Lay woodchips at a depth of 2-­‐3 inches around the base of plants polygons 1 and 3. Leave 1 to 2 inches around the stem of the pant to allow moisture and light to penetrate the base into the root system. AD 6: Mulch woodchips were installed around the base of plants at a depth of approximately 5-­‐6 inches in a circle around the plant with a diameter of approximately 1 ft. The depth and diameter of the mulch circle was designed to discourage invasive re-­‐sprouting and encourage moisture retention. Approach Justification: Wood chips are known to reduce stress in shallow rooted drought tolerant species. Along with providing nutrients to the plants that are installed in polygons 1 and 3 the woodchips will provide valuable moisture retention increasing the plants ability to survive drought like conditions. Woodchips are highly regarded for their ability to 11 retain moisture for the rooting systems, installed properly this method of mulch will greatly assist the probability of plant survival. Goal 2: Create a physically stable soil environment that will contribute to native plant establishment and long-­‐term ecological success. Objective 2-­‐1: Prevent surface erosion using native species with expansive near-­‐
surface root systems to stabilize soils. Task 2-­‐1a: Reduce erosion potential through plant installation. Approach: Install drought tolerant native grasses and herbaceous ground covering shrubs throughout polygon 2 to assist in erosion control. Approach Justification: Polygon 2 has the steepest slope gradient at ~35% and has the most potential for erosion problems along our site. By establishing native species we believe we minimize erosion potential along our steepest gradient, which in turn reduces erosion potential across our site. Objective 2-­‐2: Improve slope stability using bioengineering techniques and landscape features that prevent erosion and encourage revegetation. Task 2-­‐2a: Utilize WoodStraw® to prevent erosion. Approach: Order and spread WoodStraw® across polygon 2. Approach Justification: WoodStraw® will be layered along polygon 2 as it prevents erosion. It will be distributed so that it lightly covers the drip irrigation lines to conserve water and hide the lines from public view. Our predominant method of erosion control in polygon 2 will be WoodStraw®. Wood straw® provides benefits such as erosion control, organic matter, and animals have no desire to eat it. In our site polygon 2 has the highest chance of erosion due to its high slope gradient. For slopes greater than 33% (Polygon 2), Forest Concepts recommends a percent cover of 70% to provide proper stability and encourage re vegetation in the area. Approximately .05 acres of Polygon 2 will be covered in Wood Straw, and approximately 13 50lb bales will be ordered (Forest Concepts 2013). AD 7: Instead of WoodStraw®, mulch was distributed along the irrigation lines to hide the lines from public view and to prevent the black irrigation lines from getting hot in the sun (and possibly heating up the water flowing through them). 12 AD 8: 15 50lb bales of WoodStraw® were purchased since there were enough funds to purchase more than 13 bales. Task 2-­‐2b: Create and distribute fascines to prevent erosion. Approach: Create fascines from downed C. scoparius; distribute them across polygon 2 to help prevent erosion. Approach Justification: Fascines are branches bundled together to trap sediment and protect against erosion. They will be placed horizontally along the sloped gradient to stabilize the area and prevent down slope falling sediment and erosion (Cardno n.d.). Goal 3: Enhance and maintain the recreational and aesthetic value of Richmond Beach Saltwater Park. Objective 3-­‐1: Use plant species that are pleasing to look at while still beneficial to the ecology of the area. Task 3-­‐1a: Use plant species that do not interfere with existing aesthetics as well as enhance future aesthetics. Approach: Install R. sanguineum, H. discolor, S. albus for the viewing public. Approach Justification: The selected plants are all, traditionally speaking, visually pleasing to look at-­‐-­‐ they all either flower or produce berries during the year and are drought tolerant (see Error! Reference source not found. for additional information and photos). Objective 3-­‐2: Maintain a level of safety in the area due to nearby recreational activities. Task 3-­‐2a: Incorporate plants that are safe for children. Approach: Avoid planting any dense shrubs or trees within 20 ft. of the playground. Approach Justification: A children’s playground borders the west side of polygon 3. S. albus and R.gymnocarpa will be used along the edges of the play area to prevent both access to the restoration area and to discourage any human or animal activity with a thorny thicket. Additionally, none of the plants near the playground will be tall enough or dense enough for someone to hide in. AD 9: Neither S. albus nor R.gymnocarpa was installed near the playground, as our original planting plan was significantly over budget. Instead of installing shrubs near the 13 playground, we chose to install shrubs towards the center of the site, where the C. scoparius was the densest. Objective 3-­‐3: Maintain open views of the Puget Sound from upper areas of the park. Task 3-­‐3a: Maintain existing viewpoints and aesthetics of the Puget Sound. Approach: Incorporate plant species in which shrubs, graminoids and forbs are the majority to keep a low canopy cover (generally <3m). Approach Justification: We aim to preserve the westward view of the Puget Sound which has proven to be very popular with park goers. Our goal is to enhance our site without disturbing the viewpoints with large high canopy cover. Goal 4: Engage the local community, strengthen volunteer involvement, and ensure the continued
stewardship and maintenance of restoration sites at Richmond Beach Saltwater Park.
Objective 4-1: Recruit local residents to participate in the restoration process.
Task 4-1a: Maintain community relationships with those that have assisted with the
Richmond Beach efforts.
Approach: Contact local schools in the area in regards to assisting with the
Richmond Beach Restoration effort. We will target teachers and
students that have been receptive to past efforts and attempt to
schedule classroom specific restoration workshops.
Approach Justification: The Richmond Beach Restoration has been a success in the community
and continues to enhance community relations through a common goal.
The project is very meaningful in what it provides to the environment
and the community and our team plans to build on its positive public
impact to further community outreach and create an enjoyable volunteer
experience.
Task 4-1b: Establish community outreach efforts for current project.
Approach: Create fliers to distribute to local business and include a small blurb
about our restoration work parties in the Richmond Beach community
newsletter. Volunteer coordinators will contact local businesses for
donations of coffee and food.
Approach Justification: While teams that have previously worked on Richmond Beach
restoration have created important community ties, we recognize the
need to both preserve and extend those ties, always increasing
14 community involvement. We want to reach new volunteers, invest them
in the restoration process, and create an environment that encourages
them to return for additional work parties and in subsequent years.
Objective 4-2: Educate the public on the restorative process and how completing a
restoration improves the quality of area.
Task 4-2a: Engage the local community and volunteers in the process and design of
restoration.
Approach: At the beginning of each restoration work party, the volunteers will
receive training on the difference between native and invasive species
and learn about the positive impacts of restoration in the area,
including short and long term benefits.
Approach Justification: By educating the community and engaging them in a positive way, we
can enhance our knowledge as well as their knowledge of the community
and our restoration project. By educating and inspiring the community
we can create a corps of committed people and enhance the Richmond
Beach area for years to come.
Objective 4-3: Create a maintenance plan for the site that can be accomplished with an
organized volunteer group, designated to lead maintenance efforts.
Task 4-3a: Design a maintenance plan to help with the current and future maintenance of
our site.
Approach: Work with the CP to establish a successful maintenance and monitoring
plan.
Approach Justification: By working in conjunction with the CP we will create a vision for
community partner as well as our peers will be pertinent to the future
success of our site and prevent it from reverting to its current conditions.
By designing a maintenance plan we are preparing our team, our CP and
our site for future success.
15 SPECIFIC WORK PLANS SITE PREPARATION PLAN CURRENT CONDITIONS The site as a whole is very dry and open with sandy, well-­‐drained soils and little to no canopy. The site has been divided the site into three polygons based upon topography and vegetation (Figure 3, Figure 6). Site-­‐wide concerns are erosion and invasive vegetation (Figure 5). We are also concerned about visibility in the site in keeping with its aesthetic standards as a public park with an ocean view. With these concerns in mind, we plan to focus our vegetation installation plan on plants that are low-­‐growing (< 3meters at maturity) and drought tolerant with erosion control properties. Additionally, we include plants with pollinator-­‐friendly traits that stagger their blooms throughout the growing seasons and which might also provide food and shelter for the bird community on the site. SITE PREPARATION ACTIVITIES Polygon 1 (Table 1) is an upland ridge which hosts mostly herbaceous low growing species, although it is notably the only polygon hosting trees (P. contorta). As the only polygon with trees, it is the only area with any sort of established upper canopy, although its cover is minimal, mostly in the NE corner of the plot. Polygon 1 also neighbors a small strip of maintained land with both native and non-­‐native plants that border the roadway and sidewalk. Underneath the shade from the tree there is also a small fungi community that includes sulfur tuft mushroom, meadow mushroom and a few other species. To prepare this site for installation, we will remove the C. scoparius on site by pulling any plants with a stem diameter <2 in. and lopping at the base plants with a stem > 2 in (King County c2008-­‐2013). Native plant installation will consist of low-­‐growing broad-­‐leafed shrubs in the area which is influenced by the limited canopy, and drought tolerant grasses in the areas with full sunlight availability. Polygon 2 is a bowl-­‐shaped slope which has slightly more loamy soil and hosts a community of mosses and licorice ferns which has helped to retain water and limit erosion (and encourage the macro-­‐invertebrate community). However, Polygon 2 also has the most severe infestation of C. scoparius, which impedes the visibility of the site, lowering the overall diversity of the site, outcompeting native species and ‘stealing’ their pollinators. Another concern is human safety the steepness of the slope could be a hazard when the area is crowded and hectic during restoration activities. Our plan for Polygon 2 is to remove C. scoparius while retaining the native species, particularly the mosses and lichens present. We will also install multiple fascines throughout the polygon to help to limit erosion. The plant installation in Polygon 2 will be a ‘Leymus community’, or a community composed of drought tolerant grasses that will also aid in soil stabilization and erosion control, with L. mollis the dominant species. AD 10: While there was a significant amount of L. mollis transplanted from other parts of the site, Polygon 2 also has most of the shrubs that were obtained from the nursery. These shrubs were planted to discourage C. scoparius regrowth. 16 Polygon 3 is a ‘bottom lowland’ and has the sandiest soils and hosting drought-­‐tolerant species such as A. millefolium and B. sitchensis. There is also an active pollinator community in this area including at least two species of Bombus, so mitigating our impact on these species will be a focus in this polygon. Erosion and anthropogenic trampling of vegetation are also concerns for this polygon. Therefore, after C. scoparius removal, plant installation will focus on ground-­‐covering plants in the areas with the most trampling, dense shrub cover along the division separating polygons 2 and 3 in order to limit pedestrian access, and sand-­‐loving graminoids that aid in soil stabilization and erosion control in the areas experiencing the most erosion currently. 17 Table 1. Site-­‐wide Polygon Conditions Polygon 1 Polygon 2 Loamy Sand Polygon 3 Soil texture Sand Loamy Sand Soil moisture Dry, low capacity for water Dry, low capacity for retention water retention Dry, low capacity for water retention Slope 8° 35° 13° Light availability Very available, no significant canopy Very available, no significant canopy Present vegetation Species (general abundance in groundcover) Cytisus scoparius (~70%) Very available, westward facing slope, no significant canopy Cytisus Pinus contorta (5-­‐10%) scoparius(~95%) Racomitrium canescens Plants ~10-­‐15% of cover Plants ~5% of cover (~25%) Arbutus unedo Polypodium glycyrrhiza Vicia americana (10-­‐15%) Mahonia aquifolium Racomitrium canescens Graminoids ~30% of cover Symphorocarpos albus Ammophila arenaria Plants ~5-­‐10% of cover Bromus sitchensis Cytisus scoparius (~25%) Potentilla anserine Calamagrostis canadensis Rumex acetolsella Phalaris arundinacea Solanum dulcamara Tellima grandiflora Vicia americana Human impacts Minor human disturbance around the playground contributes slightly to erosion. Very minimal to zero human impacts due to very steep slope. Recreational human disturbance contributes slightly to erosion. Other Considerations Only site with tree based upper canopy. Although small coverage (5-­‐10%) shade patterns will be assessed thoroughly Steepest slope, increased safety and land use precautions will be assessed via work plan Potentially increased erosion due to the traffic from playground and stairs in area 18 LOGISTICAL C ONSIDERATIONS Potential Disturbance The top two disturbances that must be minimized during site preparations are erosion and native vegetation destruction. The site is steeply sloped and erosion is an ongoing issue affecting the stability in the area. During the removal of the C. scoparius shrub layer, areas of bare earth and disturbed soil will be exposed, leaving the site vulnerable to erosion. To address these concerns, invasive species will be extracted in phases. Following the extraction of an area, native plants will be quickly installed to minimize the duration and extent of exposed earth. Fascines will be created from the removed plant material to help prevent erosion while the extensive native root systems are establishing. The native mosses and grasses will lose the protection of the C. scoparius scrub canopy and will run the risk of being accidentally trampled or removed by individuals in the park before the area can be replanted with species intended to create a new shrub layer. Care will be taking not to destroy the native plants and mosses by demonstrating proper removal technique and by making individuals aware of one’s footing. Material Staging WoodStraw® and woodchip mulch will be staged behind the Pavilion to the west of the restoration site (Figure 7) because Shoreline crews can access the area for deliveries from the southwestern parking lot and the distance from the parking lots will minimize park patron inconvenience and tampering. Plants ready for planting will also be dropped off and staged in this area before being brought up the hill to the polygons as the site is cleared and the planting holes become available. A tarp will be placed in the most southwest corner of polygon 3 so that harvested C. scoparius and other invasive species can be stored and used to make fascines or removed. While the staging area will be used for long-­‐term storage, we plan to bring the tools needed for each work party (Table 2) to the polygon we are working on and distribute them to volunteers at our restoration site. AD 11: WoodStraw® was staged at the top of Polygon 1 near the sidewalk. The area near the sidewalk was chosen because it was easier for the delivery truck to access. Additionally, it was easier to distribute the WoodStraw® down the slope, rather than brining bales down the slope and then carrying it up back up the slope to distribute. AD 12: Plants were staged at the northern intersection of Polygons 1 and 2 because that area would be more difficult for the public to access. Additionally, most of the plants were not staged and simply transferred from cars to the site. AD 13: Tarps were placed throughout the site during work parties—closest to where invasive removal was taking place. Volunteers Volunteers will be provided with parking spaces in the closest parking lot located to the east of the restoration site. The volunteers will be introduced to site safety procedures and given a tour of the site to understand the boundaries, designated paths, and examples of native and invasive species. Flagging will be used to mark more easily mistaken and sensitive native organisms in the polygons. Part of the work demonstrations for volunteers will be about treading lightly and being wary of our impact on the plants that are not being removing. Volunteers will be instructed to stay on laid out 19 paths in more stable areas while being more varied in movement in sensitive area with plants and loose sand that is disturbed under repeated travel. For the general public there is will also be signs posted, warning people to stay off of the hillside citing restoration in progress. AD 14: Rather than instructing volunteers to stay on a path, at the suggestion of our community partner, we determined it would be less destructive to allow volunteers to walk throughout the site, therefore mildly disturbing all the site rather than severely disturbing a small path. 20 Table 2. Restoration tools for use in work parties. Task Task 1-­‐1a: Remove invasive C. scoparius Task 2-­‐1a: Reduce erosion potential through plant installation Task 2-­‐2b: Create and distribute fascines to prevent erosion Materials/Tools Hand shovels Shovels Garden loppers Hand saws Rubber mallets Pry bars Quantity 10 3 20 10 2 2 Tarps Shovels Hand shovels Buckets hoses Shovels Tarps Twine 3 10 20 10 2 10 3 200yds Source City of Shoreline City of Shoreline City of Shoreline City of Shoreline UW-­‐REN UW-­‐REN Team Members City of Shoreline City of Shoreline City of Shoreline City of Shoreline City of Shoreline City of Shoreline City of Shoreline Budget purchase City of Shoreline Budget purchase Task 2-­‐2a: Utilize Wood-­‐straw 320m2 WoodStraw to prevent erosion. Task 1-­‐4b: Use woodchips Wood chips 680m2 Local arborists Cedar Grove around the base of installed plant to encourage moisture retention AD 15: While we were unable to find pry bars from the UW supplies, two team members were able to procure pry bars from family/friends. The City of Shoreline still had twine from previous years’ fascine building. Finally, the City of Shoreline preferred to obtain wood chip mulch from Cedar Grove Compost, as they have done in previous years. PLANTING PLAN POLYGON 1: UPLAND RIDGE For Polygon 1 our main polygon-­‐specific goal is to install a structurally diverse native plant assemblage that will not impair the ocean view afforded by the site (Error! Reference source not found.). We will be installing low-­‐growing thicket with S. albus and R. gymnocarpa, which should not grow much taller than 1.5 meters, preserving the view while creating dense thickets that will prevent invasion of C. scoparius and other non-­‐natives through shade-­‐out (Error! Reference source not found., Zouhar, 2005). We will also install grasses such as L. mollis and D. cespitosa, as well as ground-­‐covering, fruit producing F. chiloensis. Our community partners wish to maintain the park’s aesthetics and the beauty of the species was considered in species selection. Species from the rose family, such as R. gymnocarpa have beautiful flowers when in bloom and S. albus is attractive when in bloom (Table 4, Leigh, 2013). This combination of ground-­‐covering, graminoid, and shrub species will ensure maximum structural diversity in the polygon while also providing food and cover for the present bird community and the pollinator community (Leigh, 2013). After species installation, wood chip mulch will be applied in a 6” layer which will greatly reduce reinvasion by C. 21 scoparius on the site (Zouhar, 2005).
POLYGON 2: BOWL SLOPE For Polygon 2 our paramount concern is controlling erosion and stabilizing the soils. Therefore, we will be using polygon 2 to establish a bank-­‐stabilizing graminoid community consisting of several species, some of which are also over a meter in height and may contribute to shade-­‐out. In an analysis of past sites, we saw that in areas densely colonized by graminoids, there was little invasion and we will attempt to install grasses densely to establish a native grass matrix resistant to invasion by pioneering species. L.mollis will be transplanted from other densely populated areas of Richmond Beach Saltwater Park to populate the hillside, prone to erosion. We will also be installing two fascines (approximately 8 ft. long, 1 ft. diameter) in the hillside along the North and South boundaries of the polygon in order to create more stability in the sandy soils. After species installation, WoodStraw will be applied liberally (~3-­‐4”) across the polygon in order to help prevent erosion by protecting the soil from erosive rainfall and other disturbance (W. Gold, personal communication, February 5, 2014). AD 16: WoodStraw® was installed at about 2” throughout polygon 2 because there was not enough WoodStraw® to cover the polygon in 3-­‐4”. Similar to the remainder of the site, we plan to install native species to discourage re-­‐growth of C. scoparius. R. gymnocarpa, and S. albus will be installed to promote a shady shrub layer and to stabilize the soil as well. POLYGON 3: BOTTOM LOWLAND The biggest restoration concerns with this area are the potential for erosion of the sandy hills and trampling of vegetation by undesirable foot traffic. Additionally, since this polygon is close to a playground, it is important to the City of Shoreline to install plants that have zero toxicity to children and are not dense enough for anyone to hide in. This polygon also serves as an ‘entrance’ to polygon 2 which will subject to foot traffic during our restoration activities. Additionally, this polygon has been observed to have an active pollinator community, including at least two species of Anthophila (bee), which may have their food source interrupted as we remove the C. scoparius from the site. In order to address these concerns simultaneously, we will be installing a tall shrub layer at the eastern-­‐most boundary, limiting pedestrian access to polygon 2, creating shade-­‐out to prevent erosion, providing structural diversity, and providing a food source for local pollinators. For example, H. discolor has soil binding qualities and R. sanguinium provides nectar for pollinators (Pojar & Mackinnon, 2004, Leigh, 1999). The idea with this shrub layer is to install tall (1.5+ meters) growing shrubs that can contribute to shade-­‐out of invasives, restrict foot traffic into polygon 2 after our restoration activities, and the provision of pollens and nectars for pollinators, all while maintaining the park’s aesthetics. Additionally, the shrubs will be installed at a low density to allow full visibility of the playground and restrict the ability of anyone to hide within the shrubs. R. sanguinium has long been used as an ornamental shrub due to its early bloom of vibrant flowers (USDA, 2008, Leigh, 1999). H. discolor has beautiful pinkish inflorescence which is pleasing to the eye (Leigh, 1999). Selected shrub and groundcover species attract and feed both pollinators and birds (Pojar & Mackinnon, 2004, Leigh, 1999). The central area of the polygon will be installed 22 with graminoids such as E. mollis and P. macrantha to aid in soil stabilization, and the western edge of the polygon, which borders the swings and playground areas will receive A. uva-­‐ursi as a dense groundcover to help limit undesirable foot traffic and aid in soil stabilization (Pojar & Mackinnon, 2004, Leigh, 1999). AD 17: Shrubs were not installed in the center of Polygon 3 because of budgetary constraints. Since it was the polygon with the lowest density of C. scoparius, we decided it was the polygon least in need of installed native species. While the lack of shrubs won’t contribute to shade-­‐out, Polygon 3 seems the mostly likely to resist C. scoparius regrowth. 23 Table 3. Site Wide Planting Plan: Amount, Spacing, and Form Polygon 1 Polygon 2 Polygon 3 Spacing (m) Form # Spacing (m) 0.5 Cuttings 0.67 Sm. Container Plugs 10 0 25 0 0.5 N/A 0.67 N/A 0 0.67 N/A Seed N/A 25 0 0.67 N/A Fragaria chiloensis Did Not Plant Holodiscus discolor 0 0.75 Sm. Container 15 0.75 Sm. 15 Container 0.75 0 0.67 N/A Cuttings or Salvage N/A 15 0 0.67 N/A Cuttings or Salvage N/A 0.67 Leymus mollis 0 0.67 0.67 .35 Cuttings 100 or Salvage 0 (on-­‐site) 0.67 N/A Poa macrantha Did not plant Ribes sanquineum 0 0.67 Cuttings 50 or Salvage 60 (on-­‐site) N/A Bare Root 100 0.67 Bare Root 50 0.67 0 0.67 N/A Cuttings N/A 15 0 0.67 N/A Cuttings N/A 0 12 0.67 0 1.2 N/A Bare Root N/A 10 0 1.2 N/A Bare Root N/A 5 12 1.2 15 0 0.67 N/A Cuttings or Salvage N/A 0 0 0.67 N/A Cuttings or Salvage N/A 0 12 0.67 Species # Arctostaphylos uva-­‐ursi Deschampsia cespitosa 20 30 100 Elymus glaucas Rosa gymnocarpa Symphoricarpos albus 24 Form # Cuttings 0 N/A 30 Sm. 25 Container 0 Plugs N/A Seed 100 N/A 200 0 12 Spacing (m) Form 0.5 Cuttings 0.67 N/A Sm. Container Plugs N/A Seed Sm. Cont. Plug Sm. Container 0.67 Cuttings or Salvage 1 Gallon Container plants Cuttings or Salvage (on-­‐site) N/A Bare Root Cuttings 1 Gallon Container plants Bare Root 1 Gallon Container plants Cuttings or Salvage 1 Gallon Container plants Table 4. Aesthetically pleasing plants to support Task 3-­‐1a and add visual appeal Species Ribes sanguineum Characteristics Drought tolerant, moderately fast growing species useful in restoration plantings commonly outcompetes invasive species. Grow up to 8 ft. tall. Photo Photo from: Annie’s Annuals http://www.anniesannuals.com/ Holodiscus discolor Drought tolerant, grows well in poor sandy soils, shade and disease tolerant, root and seed systems are slow developing but capable of stabilizing sandy and loamy sand soils. Photo from: Vanderbilt University http://www.cas.vanderbilt.edu/bioimages/specie
s/hodi.htm Symphocarpos Grows well in infertile sands, grows albus effectively in sun or shade, capable of growing on high slope gradients Photo from the Washington Native Plant Society http://www.wnps.org/landscaping/herbarium/p
ages/symphoricarpos-­‐albus.html 25 LESSONS LEARNED BUDGET PLAN The budget includes the roughly $500 dollars that is allotted from the course fee and $1,500 from our community partners, $500 for mulch/Woodstraw® and $1,000 for plants. As a requirement of the project, all plants were bought from the MsK Nursery (Mareen Shultz Kruckeberg) located within the Kruckeberg Botanic Garden since the nursery is operated by the Kruckeberg Botanic Garden Foundation and the city of Shoreline, and all proceeds from nursery sales support the foundation. The largest costs associated with this restoration are the cost of plants. The City of Shoreline provided the majority of the tools that were used during the volunteer work parties, which were supplemented with UW equipment during larger work parties. The majority of the people in our group carpooled to the site. Money from the Course Fee was used to purchase irrigation supplies and supplement the approximately $120 in food and beverage donations we have received from local grocery stores and Starbucks. We relied more on grass transplants from adjacent sites than was expected because we wanted to fill in some of the space around plants to get a higher percent cover to compete with the Scotch Broom. Error! Reference source not found. andTable 6 show our projected budget for the restoration, 26 Table 5. Project Projected and Actual Revenue Revenue Shoreline Allotment Allotment Subtotal Fundraising Fundraising Subtotal Cash Donations February 22nd Work Party $1,500.00 th
March 8 Work Party April 5th Work Party April 19th Work Party April 26th Work Party Donation Subtotal Gifts in Kind Donations Gift Donation Subtotal Course Fee Suppliment Course Fee Subtotal TOTAL $500.00 $2,000.00 27 Table 6. Original and Modified Budget and Expenditures Expenditures Plants Shrubs Actual Grasses Actual Vines / Miscellaneous Actual Plant Subtotal Actual Plant Subtotal Supplies Cost $500.00 $239.25 $400.00 $657.00 $200.00 $147.29 $1,100.00 $1,043.54 Irrigation Hose (1,500 ft) $150.00 Actual $98.94 Regular Hose (500 ft) $50.00 Actual $91.91 Hose Splitter $10.00 Actual $7.08 Twine $5.00 Actual $0 WoodStraw®/Mulch $250.00 Actual $356.82 Wood Stakes N/A Actual Supply Subtotal Actual Supply Subtotal $21.29 $465.00 $576.04 Event Refreshments February 22nd Work Party Actual $0.00 $21.57 March 8th Work Party $0.00 Actual $13.11 th
April 5 Work Party $0.00 Actual $0.00 28 April 19th Work Party Actual $20.00 $0.00 April 26th Work Party $20.00 Actual Refreshment Subtotal Actual Refreshment Subtotal $0.00 $40.00 $34.68 Transportation Transportation Subtotal Actual Transportation Subtotal $20.00 $0.00 Print Flyers/Project Documents Print Subtotal Actual Print Subtotal $30.00 $0.00 TOTAL $1,655.00 Actual Total $1,694.26 LABOR PLAN In total, the labor required on the project was less than expected by around 50 person-­‐hours. Removal of Scotch Broom and the creation of fascines accounted for 150% the expected amount of time. There was also a 50% reduction in the amount of time needed for volunteer planting compared to estimates. As a team we underestimated the amount of time needed to remove invasives and the number of people that would turn out to our first work parties. Since the first few work parties we smaller than expected, the amount of labor done by the UW Team was about half of the volunteer labor instead of a third as was estimated. Finally, we did not sufficiently plan for maintenance time, as we have been visiting the site weekly to water and week our installed native plants. For the future, we would suggest that restoration groups only expect about 5 community members per work party for the first months of restoration (January-­‐March). The following tables (Table 7, 29 Table 8) show estimated and actual labor hours from the UW Capstone Restoration Team and volunteers on site. 30 Table 7. Estimated and Actual Hourly Labor Projection Labor by Activity Site Preparation Site Assessment Actual Border Establishment Actual Miscellaneous Cleanup Actual Preparation Subtotal Actual UW Team Volunteers Estimate Estimate Estimate 5 7 0 0 7 7 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 6 0 0 3 6 9 14 0 0 9 14 80 112 20 60 20 2 120 174 90 160 25 72 25 4 140 236 Invasive Plant Removal C. scoparius Removal 10 Actual 48 Fascine Creation 5 Actual 12 Fascine Installation 5 Actual 2 Removal Subtotal 20 Actual 62 Total Supply Acquisition and Irrigation Installation Supply acquisition 5 0 Actual 1 0 Irrigation installation 5 0 Actual 6 0 Install. Subtotal 10 0 Actual 7 0 5 6 10 7 Plant Acquisition Planning Actual Nurseries 8 8 4 8 8 4 5 1 0 0 0 31 Actual Transplanting Actual Acquisition Subtotal Actual Planting Polygon 1 Actual Polygon 2 Actual Polygon 3 Actual Mulching Actual Watering Actual Planning Subtotal Actual 2 10 8 0 20 35 2 30 43 22 18 15 16 20 12 10 22 10 12 5 20 60 82 20 35 80 35 75 22 90 38 40 8 10 0 295 103 42 53 95 51 95 34 100 60 50 20 15 20 355 185 TOTAL 121 Hours 435 Hours 556 Hours Actual Total 183 Hours 312 Hours 495 Hours 32 Table 8. Estimated and Actual Hourly Source of Labor Labor by Source UW Team Hours 121 Volunteers nd
February 22 Work Party 120 March 8th Work Party 100 th
April 5 Work Party 165 th
60 th
50 April 19 Work Party April 26 Work Party Total Volunteer TOTAL 435 556 Hours PLANTING PLAN Our final planting plan (Table 3) was significantly different than the original plan, mainly due to budgetary constraints. The initial planting plan had not been priced through MSK nursery and after pricing, the cost of the initial plan was approximately $3,000. To get the planting cost to $1,000, we reduced the planned density of native species. Additionally, after the reviewing the success of previous restoration projects at Richmond Beach Saltwater Park, we decided to use container plants which we thought might have a better chance of survival in the easily drained, sandy soil. 33 OTHER PLANS EDUCATION PLAN The process of restoring Richmond Beach inherently provides an opportunity for our restoration team to educate the community and pass on valuable information. We gave 20-­‐min presentations on restoration to four different junior and senior level environmental science classes at Shorewood High School on February 12, encouraging them to volunteer. In the presentations, we talked about the concept of restoration, the history of Richmond Beach and our plan for restoring it. In addition, volunteer talks will emphasize the importance of native ecosystems and discuss the invasive species conditions at the park. Through this contact, we hope to encourage students to explore restoration work and get them involved in their community. We have been working with teachers John Kotwis and Alisan Giesy. Furthermore, plans have been setup with Amy Lambert’s at UW Bothell to present our project to her Restoration Ecology on April 12. The presentation will include information on a coastal beach ecosystem and after the course; the students will ask our team specific questions about the restoration site. The students will then use our responses to write an essay for the course that correlates with their in class readings. The restoration class will have a restoration work party with our restoration team the weekend following our guest lecture on Saturday, April 19. In order to minimize errors, it will be important to go over the techniques for removing invasive species and planting vegetation during this university presentation. Additional discussions will take place to meet the goals and needs of the class. These interactions will provide an opportunity to recruit members of the community who use the park frequently and to identify individuals who can monitor the project once it is finished. In addition, it will give students a great opportunity to develop hands-­‐on restoration experience, and visualize their environment in a new way. With any restoration project, it is the duty of the restoration group to be responsible for educating the community. WORK TIMELINE The following table (split into two parts) gives an overview of our project plans for the next 6 months through project completion. We currently have 4 work parties scheduled, but are looking to set up at least a half-­‐day project with a local school. 34 Table 9. Winter Quarter GANTT Chart January Dates Jan 31-­‐6 Quarter Week 4 Coordinate Community Donations Complete Draft Work Plan Complete Final Work Plan Host Community Work Parties Task 1-­‐1a: Remove invasive C. scoparius Task 1-­‐2a: Remove invasive species while minimizing soil disturbance to the site Task 1-­‐2b: Install a shrub layer to outcompete native species Task 1-­‐3a: Plant hardy, drought-­‐
tolerant plants that can survive cool winters Task 1-­‐4a: Design and install an irrigation system Task 1-­‐4b: Use woodchips around plant base to encourage moisture retention. Task 2-­‐1a: Reduce erosion potential through erosion control methods and plant installation Site Walk Through Task 2-­‐2a: Utilize woodchip and WoodStraw® mulch to prevent erosion Task 2-­‐2b: Create and distribute fascines to prevent erosion February 14-­‐20 6 7-­‐13 5 March 7-­‐13 9 Feb 28-­‐6 8 14-­‐20 10 21-­‐27 11 20 21-­‐27 7 January Dates Jan 31-­‐6 Quarter Week 4 Task 3-­‐1a: Use plant species that do not interfere with existing aesthetics and serve to enhance future aesthetics Task 3-­‐2a: Incorporate plants that are safe for children Task 3-­‐3a: Maintain existing viewpoint and aesthetics of the Puget Sound Task 4-­‐1a: Maintain community relationships with those who have assisted with previous projects Task 4-­‐1b: Establish community outreach efforts for current project Task 4-­‐2a: Engage the local community and volunteers in the process and design of restoration. Task 4-­‐3a: Create a maintenance plan for the site that can be accomplished with an organized volunteer group, designated to lead maintenance efforts. 7-­‐13 5 February 14-­‐20 6 21-­‐27 7 Feb 28-­‐6 8 14-­‐20 10 21-­‐27 11 = Unplanned but accomplished = Planned and accomplished 21 March 7-­‐13 9 Table 10. Spring Quarter GANTT Chart April March 28-­‐3 1 4-­‐10 2 11-­‐17 3 Coordinate Community Donations Host Community Work Parties Dates Quarter Week Task 1-­‐1a: Remove invasive C. scoparius Task 1-­‐2a: Remove invasive species while minimizing soil disturbance to the site Task 1-­‐2b: Install a shrub layer to outcompete native species Task 1-­‐3a: Plant hardy, drought-­‐
tolerant plants that can survive cool winters Task 1-­‐4a: Design and install an irrigation system Task 1-­‐4b: Use woodchips around plant base to encourage moisture retention. Task 2-­‐1a: Reduce erosion potential through erosion control methods and plant installation May 18-­‐24 4 25-­‐
May 1 5 2-­‐8 6 9-­‐15 7 16-­‐22 8 Site Walk Through Task 2-­‐2a: Utilize woodchip and WoodStraw mulch to prevent erosion Task 2-­‐2b: Create and distribute fascines to prevent erosion 22 23-­‐29 9 June May 30-­‐5 6-­‐12 10 11 Dates Quarter Week Task 3-­‐2a: Incorporate plants that are safe for children Task 3-­‐3a: Maintain existing viewpoint and aesthetics of the Puget Sound Task 4-­‐1a: Maintain community relationships with those who have assisted with previous projects Task 4-­‐1b: Establish community outreach efforts for current project Task 4-­‐2a: Engage the local community and volunteers in the process and design of restoration. Task 4-­‐3a: Create a maintenance plan for the site that can be accomplished with an organized volunteer group, designated to lead maintenance efforts. Complete As-­‐Built Report Present Poster April May March 28-­‐3 1 4-­‐10 2 11-­‐17 3 18-­‐24 4 25-­‐
May 1 5 2-­‐8 6 9-­‐15 7 16-­‐22 8 = Unplanned but accomplished = Planned and accomplished 23 23-­‐29 9 June May 30-­‐5 6-­‐12 10 11 DESIGN FOR THE FUTURE Richmond Beach Saltwater Park provides aesthetic, cultural, and recreational value to the residents of Shoreline and surrounding areas. The foremost management concerns of Richmond Beach include invasive species, primarily C. scoparius, as well as soil instability and erosion, especially where slopes are concerned. The vision of this work plan is to improve the long-­‐term health and sustainability of this coastal ecosystem, while keeping public investments intact. The success of restoration maintenance and the overall stewardship plan will rely on establishing connections with the surrounding community, and providing avenues for them to acquire knowledge and enthusiasm to strengthen the natural legacy of Richmond Beach Saltwater Park. STEWARDSHIP DEVELOPMENT Recruit common park-­‐goers in work parties The initial phase will require getting people already invested in Richmond Beach Saltwater Park to participate in the restoration work parties. People with strong personal ties to the area will be more likely to visit and may want to take care of the area. Some of the groups with historical ties to the park that may be interested in restoration work include the Kite surfers of Richmond Beach and Richmond Beach Community Association, as well as local high schools and government entities. To recruit these people, we will contact groups individually to inform them about upcoming work parties. To encourage high school students to take part, members have contacted local teachers and will visit classes to present an overview of our project. Specifically, we are focused on working Shorewood High School in collaboration with Alisan Giesy and John Kotwis, who teach environmental science. In addition, UW Bothell has shown interest in participating in a private work party with our group. Many schools require completion of community service hours, and our project is a great platform for this. Previous UW-­‐REN students have conducted community outreach in the past so the community is familiar with the ongoing restoration of the park. The more we promote our presence within the local community, the more volunteers we can anticipate at our work parties. Contacting potential groups is an ongoing process, and support will continue to change. Involve local business to participate and spread the word Businesses are an important resource in the dissemination of information. High traffic places, such as coffee shops and grocery stores provide opportunities to increase volunteer numbers. As a part of our stewardship development process, our group has contacted the local Starbucks, to inform them of our work parties. Starbucks requires its employees to participate in community service for a certain number of hours each month. Therefore, the incentive for volunteering is already established. Also, posting flyers in local Shoreline grocery stores, like QFC, is an important resource to reach people who have interest in restoration or community service. If each of these places provide donations to work 24 parties, they might be more likely to encourage customers or employees to attend the work parties. Train each volunteer and get them excited about the project Recruiting people isn’t the only part of developing stewardship. It is equally important to give the volunteers the right skills and enthusiasm to complete the project, and ultimately be invested in the overall project. When training, we will break the volunteers up in small groups, each with a team leader. This way, training will be more personal and the volunteers may be more willing to ask questions. In addition, smaller groups allow for the volunteers to collaborate and get to know each other easier. It will be imperative to place volunteers in the areas where they have the most interest. To really build enthusiasm, we plan to give out awards or certificates to returning volunteers. Finally, the best way to get people excited is to lead by example. RESTORATION PROJECT + STEWARDSHIP Our restoration project consists of four main phases. 1. Initial invasive species removal and slope stabilization 2. Planting of native shrubs and grasses, as well as secondary invasive removal 3. More invasive removal if necessary, and watering and mulching of areas 4. Monitoring and maintenance Looking at each of these four phases, we will provide a plan on how we intend to get the community invested in bringing back and maintaining the natural ecosystem. The stewardship plan is essential to the success of this site, due to the fact that ongoing monitoring and maintenance will be needed to suppress the invasive plants. The restoration of Richmond Beach Saltwater Park will require intensive work to remove the established C. scoparius and other invasive species. Recruiting as many people as possible will allow our project to succeed, but it is not only the aspect of labor that is important. Invasive species like C. scoparius are most successfully deterred when there is overhead canopy shading out the plant. Introducing such a canopy at the park, though, is unfeasible, because it would disrupt much of the aesthetic and recreational value the site currently possesses. To mitigate the need for constant maintenance, we have employed a few techniques. First, we will be using lots of fast-­‐growing dense plant species like L. mollis, which can establish quickly. This will help deter C. scoparius from attaining proper resources and space for re-­‐establishment. Also, we have chosen to use container shrubs and drought tolerant vegetation in our site. These bigger shrubs will have a better chance of establishing their root system and competing for nutrients, while the drought tolerant property allows the plants to survive in the harsh coastal climate. Finally, planting the native vegetation as early as possible, and placing mulch around the plants is a key goal. It 25 will help suppress the invasive species from sprouting anew and eliminate intense erosion, while simultaneously supporting the moisture requirements of the native seedlings. In past years, turnout to work parties has been relatively high, but the high recurrence of C. scoparius in previous sites, would suggest that maintenance is lacking. In addition, since this park will no longer be restored after this year, we don’t have the luxury of subsequent teams performing removal work. Therefore, we have taken many steps in our planting plan to help reach our long-­‐term vision of a native site with proper erosion control. Each step mentioned above reduces maintenance needs, and will essentially result in fewer efforts from the community. The need for less intensive action, will appeal to the community and boost their willingness for commitment. Most of the people we plan to employ have invested ties in the community, or will be in the area for a prolonged period of time. These people will then hopefully be encouraged to take care of their community, and monitor and maintain the site from time to time. In addition to using local volunteers, it will important to express to members of the park the accomplishments of our project, to increase their dedication and pride for the area. 26 LITERATURE CITED Cardno J.F. n.d. Live Stakes, Fascines & Brushlayers in Live Stakes and Fascines. New Bioengineering, accessed 25 Jan. 2014. Fischenich, J. C. (2001). “Stability thresholds for stream stabilization materials,” (ERDC TN-­‐EMRRP-­‐
SR-­‐29), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Pojar & Mackinnon. 2004. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia
& Alaska.
Forest Concepts (2013). Technologies: Erosion control. Available from http://www.forestconcepts.com/index.php?page=03001. King County: Noxious Weed Control Program Weed Alert: Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) [Internet].
c2008-2013 [cited 2013 Nov 11]. Available from http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp
Leigh, Michael. 1999. Grow Your Own Native Landscape: A Guide to Identifying, Propagationg &
Landscaping with Western Washington Native Plants.
Touchstone Ecoservices: Richmond Beach Saltwater Park Vegetation Management Plan 2008 [Internet]. C. 2008. [cited 2013 October 20]. Available from http://www.shorelinewa.gov/index.aspx?page=153. USDA NRCS Plant Materials Center. Plant Fact Sheet: Red-Flowering Currant. Online. Accessed Feb. 6th
2014. http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/intranet/pfs.html.
USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1992. “Soil Bioengineering for Upland Slope Protection and Erosion Control. Zouhar, Kris. Cytisus scoparius: Impacts and Control. Fire Information System [online]. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (producer).
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/[2014, Feb. 9].
27 Figure 1. Location of Richmond Beach Saltwater Park (inset) in Puget Sound Region. Images from Google Maps 28 Figure 2. Restoration Area within Saltwater State Park. Image from Google Maps 29 Figure 3. Restoration Site Polygons. Image from Google Maps 30 Figure 4. UW-­‐REN Restoration Projects at Richmond Beach Saltwater Park 31 Figure 5. Invasive plants on-­‐site. Image from Google Maps Figure 6. Native plants on-­‐site. Image from Google Maps. 32 Figure 7. Work party logistics map. Image from Google Maps 33 Figure 8. Approximate Density of Native Plants On-­‐site Figure 9. As-­‐Built Map with Installed Native Plants and Erosion Control 34 35 36